CREST VIEW LUTHERAN HOME

4444 RESERVOIR BOULEVARD NORTHEAST, COLUMBIA HEIGHTS, MN 55421 (763) 782-1611
Non profit - Corporation 106 Beds Independent Data: November 2025 1 Immediate Jeopardy citation
Trust Grade
21/100
#283 of 337 in MN
Last Inspection: June 2025

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

Overview

Crest View Lutheran Home has received a Trust Grade of F, indicating significant concerns and a poor reputation among nursing facilities. It ranks #283 out of 337 in Minnesota, placing it in the bottom half of all facilities in the state, and #4 out of 6 in Anoka County, meaning only two local options are worse. The facility's trend is worsening, with issues increasing from 14 in 2024 to 21 in 2025. While staffing is a strength, receiving a 5/5 star rating with a turnover rate of 43%, which is average, there are serious concerns about care quality. For instance, there was a critical incident where a do-not-resuscitate order was not properly documented, risking unwanted CPR for a resident, and another serious finding involved a resident being socially isolated due to a lack of proper clothing. Additionally, there were failures in hand hygiene practices, potentially risking the health of all residents.

Trust Score
F
21/100
In Minnesota
#283/337
Bottom 17%
Safety Record
High Risk
Review needed
Inspections
Getting Worse
14 → 21 violations
Staff Stability
○ Average
43% turnover. Near Minnesota's 48% average. Typical for the industry.
Penalties
✓ Good
$20,933 in fines. Lower than most Minnesota facilities. Relatively clean record.
Skilled Nurses
✓ Good
Each resident gets 75 minutes of Registered Nurse (RN) attention daily — more than 97% of Minnesota nursing homes. RNs are the most trained staff who catch health problems before they become serious.
Violations
⚠ Watch
47 deficiencies on record. Higher than average. Multiple issues found across inspections.
★☆☆☆☆
1.0
Overall Rating
★★★★★
5.0
Staff Levels
★☆☆☆☆
1.0
Care Quality
★☆☆☆☆
1.0
Inspection Score
Stable
2024: 14 issues
2025: 21 issues

The Good

  • 5-Star Staffing Rating · Excellent nurse staffing levels
  • Full Sprinkler Coverage · Fire safety systems throughout facility
  • No fines on record
  • Staff turnover below average (43%)

    5 points below Minnesota average of 48%

Facility shows strength in staffing levels, fire safety.

The Bad

1-Star Overall Rating

Below Minnesota average (3.2)

Significant quality concerns identified by CMS

Staff Turnover: 43%

Near Minnesota avg (46%)

Typical for the industry

Federal Fines: $20,933

Below median ($33,413)

Minor penalties assessed

The Ugly 47 deficiencies on record

1 life-threatening 1 actual harm
Jun 2025 21 deficiencies
CONCERN (D)

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

Resident Rights (Tag F0550)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation and interview, the facility failed to ensure resident rights were maintained for 2 of 4 residents (R15 and ...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation and interview, the facility failed to ensure resident rights were maintained for 2 of 4 residents (R15 and R43) reviewed for dignity. Findings Include: R15R15's annual Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated [DATE], identified R15 had moderate cognitive impairment and required assistance with all activities of daily living (ADLs). R15's diagnoses included progressive neurological conditions (a disease that causes the nervous system to gradually deteriorate over time), multiple sclerosis (a chronic, often disabling disease that attacks the central nervous system, specially the brain and spinal cord), renal failure (a condition where the kidneys lose their ability to effectively filter waste and excess fluid from the blood), depression, retention of urine, presence of urogenital implants, and hydronephrosis (a condition where one or both kidneys swell due to a backup of urine, often caused by a blockage or obstruction in the urinary tract). MDS also indicated R15 had an indwelling external catheter. During observation on 6/23/25 at 2:53 p.m., R15's urinary catheter leg drainage bag, which was approximately three-quarters full of yellow colored liquid, was showing out the bottom of R15's pant leg and was resting on top of R15's right foot. Drainage bag was visible to all residents and staff present in the dining room. During observation on 6/25/25 at 11:54 a.m., R15 was coming back from the dining room. R15's urinary catheter leg drainage bag, which was approximately one-half full of yellow colored liquid, was showing out the bottom of R15's pant leg and was resting on top of R15's left foot. Drainage bag was visible to all residents and staff that walked past.During observation on 6/26/25 at 11:23 a.m., R15 was seated in the dining room with the urinary catheter leg drainage bag, which was approximately one-half full of yellow colored liquid, was showing out the bottom of R15's pant leg and was resting on top of R15's left foot. Drainage bag was visible to all residents and staff that walked past.During interview on 6/26/25 at 7:28 a.m., R15 stated she was not happy about people being able to see her catheter drainage bag. R15 stated, there is really nothing I can do about it. During interview on 6/26/25 at 2:21 p.m., nursing assistant (NA)-H stated she noticed R15's catheter drainage bag does tend to slide down her leg onto foot. NA-H stated there was nothing she needed to do regarding the catheter drainage bag other than emptying. During interview on 6/26/25 at 3:46 p.m., registered nurse (RN)-F stated R15 had a urinary catheter and NA's should ensure it was covered when R15 was outside her room. RN-F stated she noticed R15's catheter does tend to slide down her leg if not secured onto R15's calf. During interview on 6/26/25 at 4:16 p.m., licensed practical nurse (LPN)-A stated she would expect the urinary catheter drainage bag to be secured on R15's upper calve under her pants. LPN-A stated it should be covered and not visible as it was a dignity concern.During interview on 6/26/25 at 5:44 p.m., assistant director of nursing (ADON) stated she would expect staff to place urinary catheter drainage bag so it was not visible as it could be a dignity concern for the resident.R43R43's annual MDS dated [DATE], identified R43 had moderate cognitive impairment and required assistance with all ADLs. R43's diagnoses included atrial fibrillation (a common type of irregular heartbeat that originates in the heart's upper chambers (atria)), heart failure (a condition where the heart can't pump enough blood to meet the body's needs), cerebrovascular accident (occurs when blood flow to the brain is interrupted, causing brain cells to die due to lack of oxygen and nutrients) and depression. During observation on 6/24/25 at 4:18 p.m., R43 was seated in the dining room with his JP (Jackson Pratt) drainage bag (type of surgical drain used to remove fluids from a surgical site), which was approximately one-half full of greenish-brown liquid, was placed on top of R43's clothing on his right and was visible to all residents and staff present in the dining room. Staff did not attempt to assist R43 with covering bag nor did they ask.During observation on 6/26/25 at 11:03 a.m., R43 was seated in the dining room with his JP drainage bag, which was approximately three-quarters full of greenish-brown liquid, was placed on top of R43's clothing on his right and was visible to all residents and staff that walked past. Staff did not attempt to assist R43 with covering bag nor did they ask.During interview on 6/26/25 at 11:05 a.m., R43 stated staff did not normally cover the drainage bag. R43 stated he felt, embarrassed, that everyone can see the drainage bag.During interview on 6/26/25 at 2:27 p.m., NA-H stated R43's drainage bag was normally placed on top of R43's right thigh. NA-H stated there was nothing that she needed to do regarding the JP drain. NA-H confirmed bag probably should not be visible to others and should have something placed over it.During interview on 6/26/25 at 3:46 p.m., RN-F stated R43 had a JP drain that NA's should assist with covering when outside his room. RN-F stated she had never seen R43 mess with or move the drainage bag. During interview on 6/26/25 at 4:16 p.m., LPN-A stated she had never seen R43 mess with or move the drainage bag. LPN-A stated she would expect the drainage bag to be tucked into pants or placed under his shirt. LPN-A stated it should be covered and not visible as it was a dignity concern.During interview on 6/26/25 at 5:44 p.m., ADON stated she would expect staff to place drainage bag so it was not visible as it could be a dignity concern for the resident.The facility Quality of Life - Dignity policy, last reviewed 4/2024, indicated Crest View Senior Communities to care for each resident in a manner that promotes and enhances quality of life, dignity respect and individuality. Staff will promote dignity and assist residents as needed by keeping urinary catheter bag covered and providing residents dignity with all other cares.
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 document review, the facility failed to ensure parameter mattress (a type of mattress cover ...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview and document review, the facility failed to ensure parameter mattress (a type of mattress cover or encasement designed to create a gentle barrier around the edge of the bed, preventing falls) was not used in a manner to restrain resident while in bed for 1 of 1 resident (R4) reviewed for restraints.Findings include:R4's quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated [DATE], identified R4 had moderate cognitive impairment and required assistance with all activities of daily living (ADLs). R4's diagnoses included chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) (a progressive lung disease that makes it hard to breathe), non-Alzheimer's dementia, hemiplegia (a condition characterized by paralysis on one side of the body), anxiety disorder, depression and insomnia. MDS did not indicate R4 utilized physical restraints. R4's care plan reviewed 6/26/25, identified R4 had a potential alteration in safety and falls related to right hemiplegia, assisted with transfers and psychotropic medication use. Staff were directed to assist R4 with ADLs per his need and per request and had a parameter mattress in place. R4's care plan did not identify the use of pillows to prevent R4 from crawling out of bed. During review of R4's electronic health record (EHR), Physical Device assessment completed on 4/25/25 indicated R4 utilized grab bars that were on bed and a Broda wheelchair. Physical device assessment did not identify the parameter mattress was assessed or utilized by R4. During observation on 6/23/25 at 11:18 a.m., R4 was lying on his back in the middle of his bed with his blankets covering to his chest on a parameter mattress. On R4's right and left side, a pillow was placed that ran along R4's body from his shoulders to his hips. R4's bed was in low position.During observation on 6/24/25 at 3:39 p.m., R4 was lying on his back in the middle of his bed with his blankets covering to his chest on a parameter mattress. On R4's right and left side, a pillow was placed that ran along R4's body from his shoulders to his hips. R4's bed was in low position.During observation on 6/25/25 at 12:06 p.m., R4 was lying on his back in the middle of his bed with his blankets covering to his chest on a parameter mattress. On R4's right and left side, a pillow was placed that ran along R4's body from his shoulders to his hips. R4's bed was in low position.During observation on 6/26/25 at 7:24 a.m., R4 was lying on his back in the middle of his bed with his blankets covering to his chest on a parameter mattress. On R4's right and left side, a pillow was placed that ran along R4's body from his shoulders to his hips. R4's bed was in low position.During interview on 6/25/25 at 12:45 p.m., nursing assistant (NA)-G stated R4 preferred to stay in bed. NA-G confirmed R4 had a parameter mattress, and pillows were placed on both sides of his upper body. NA-G stated R4 was not able to reposition himself and was not able to get out of bed by himself for approximately the past year. During interview on 6/26/25 at 2:26 p.m., NA-H confirmed R4 had a parameter mattress, and pillows were placed on both sides of his upper body. NA-H stated R4 was not able to get out of bed by himself and has never tried to get out of bed by himself for some time. During interview on 6/26/25 at 3:46 p.m., registered nurse (RN)-F stated R4 did not like to get up and that he needed assistance to get out of bed. RN-F stated R4 has not attempted to get out of bed for approximately the past year. RN-F stated R4 was a fall risk. RN-F confirmed R4 had a parameter mattress, and pillows were placed on both sides of his upper body. RN-F stated nursing completes the physical device assessment and stated the parameter mattress/pillows should have been assessed and indicated on the assessment as it could be considered a restraint. RN-F stated she was not sure why R4 still had the parameter mattress in place or why staff were utilizing pillows. During interview on 6/26/25 at 4:14 p.m., licensed practical nurse clinical coordinator (LPN)-A stated parameter mattress needed to be assessed in the physical device assessment that were completed by the nurses on the floor. LPN-A stated the mattress/pillows could be considered a restraint if resident was not able to get out of bed. LPN-A stated R4 was a fall risk and could roll himself out of the bed. During interview on 6/26/25 at 5:40 p.m., assistant director of nursing (ADON) stated parameter mattresses were assessed through the physical device assessment. ADON stated parameter mattresses help resident identify the edge of the bed. The mattress could be considered a restraint when it was used to prevent the resident from getting out of bed or if resident was immobile. ADON confirmed parameter mattress was not assessed or mentioned on the physical device assessment and should have been. The facility Physical Devices policy, dated 3/2023, indicated Crest View Lutheran Homes would assist residents in remaining as independent and safe as possible when transferring or repositioning. 1. The unit nurse or designee will complete the physical device assessment on admission, re-admission, signification change of condition and annually.2. The unit nurse or designee will request physical devices based on the assessments. 3. The unit nurse or designee is responsible for updating the care plan.4. If a resident is reassessed at any point and is found to not need the physical device(s), the assessment and care plan will be updated by the unit nurse or designee and the physical device(s) will be removed. 5. Risk and benefits reviewed with resident or representative and signed. 6. Education is provided, along with A Guide to bed Safety.
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0628 (Tag F0628)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview and document review, the facility failed to notify the Ombudsman of transfers and discharge for 1 of 3 reside...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview and document review, the facility failed to notify the Ombudsman of transfers and discharge for 1 of 3 residents (R43) reviewed for hospitalizations. Findings include:R43's annual MDS dated [DATE], identified R43 had moderate cognitive impairment and required assistance with all activities of daily living (ADLs). R43's diagnoses included atrial fibrillation (a common type of irregular heartbeat that originates in the heart's upper chambers (atria)), heart failure (a condition where the heart can't pump enough blood to meet the body's needs), hypertension (high blood pressure), cerebrovascular accident (occurs when blood flow to the brain is interrupted, causing brain cells to die due to lack of oxygen and nutrients), depression, attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) (a neurodevelopmental condition that affects brain function and behavior, primarily in the areas of attention, hyperactivity, and impulsivity) and aortic aneurysm and dissection (An aortic aneurysm is a bulge or ballooning of the aortic wall, while an aortic dissection is a tear in the aorta's inner lining, allowing blood to flow between the layers).R43's medical record identified the following MDS assessments:1) 12/3/24 discharge with return anticipated, with a 12/12/24 entry tracking record2) 1/12/25 discharge with return anticipated, with a 1/22/25 entry tracking recordR43's hospital Discharge summary, dated [DATE], indicated R43 was hospitalized with acute metabolic encephalopathy (a sudden and widespread disturbance in brain function caused by metabolic problems) and acute on chronic hypoxemic hypercapnic respiratory failure (a person with a pre-existing chronic respiratory condition experiences a sudden worsening of their condition, leading to both low blood oxygen (hypoxemia) and high blood carbon dioxide (hypercapnia) levels).R43's hospital Discharge summary, dated [DATE], indicated R43 was hospitalized with acute on chronic hypoxemic hypercapnic respiratory failure.Review of the notices to the ombudsman that the facility provided identified:1) Monthly notice for December 2024 discharges - R43 was not listed2) Monthly notice for January 2025 discharges - R43 was not listed There were no other notices to the ombudsman provided by the end of the survey. During interview on 6/26/25 at 4:29 p.m., social service assistant (SS)-B stated she notified the Ombudsman monthly of all transfers and discharges via fax. SS-B confirmed R43's hospitalizations on 12/3/24 and 1/12/25 were missed and were not reported to the Ombudsman. SS-B stated it was important for the Ombudsman to be made aware of all transfers/discharges so additional support could be offered if applicable. A policy was requested but was not received.
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 observation, interview and document review the facility failed to ensure a comprehensive care plan was developed and im...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview and document review the facility failed to ensure a comprehensive care plan was developed and implemented to include post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) triggers and interventions for 1 of 1 resident (R47) who had a diagnosis of PTSD.Findings include:R47's quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated [DATE], identified R47 had intact cognition and required assistance with all activities of daily living (ADLs). R47's diagnoses included alcoholic cirrhosis of liver without ascites (severe, irreversible liver disease caused by long-term, excessive alcohol consumption), renal failure (occurs when the kidneys lose their ability to adequately filter waste and excess fluids from the blood), hepatic encephalopathy (brain dysfunction that can occur in people with severe liver disease), and fibromyalgia (chronic disorder characterized by wide-spread musculoskeletal pain, fatigue, sleep disturbances, and cognitive difficulties). During review of R47's electronic health record (EHR), initial visit notes from Associated Clinic of Psychology (ACP), dated 3/17/22, indicated R47 had the following diagnoses: Posttraumatic Stress Disorder and Adjustment disorders with mixed disturbance of emotions and conduct. Visit note indicated R47 had a longstanding history of abuse and had experienced complex trauma since childhood; expressed a general mistrust of people in authority and anxiousness about dependency on others for cares; and reported re-experiencing of trauma and mistrust towards those she sees in authority and has anxiousness about dependency on others. Visit note indicated staff could utilize memory care approaches of making eye contact, explain step-by-step cares, move slowly, and ask questions with some coping tools: socializing, exercise, faith, thought reframing, and musicDuring review of R47's EHR, follow up visit note from ACP, dated 4/2/25, indicated R47 had the following diagnoses: Posttraumatic Stress Disorder and Adjustment disorders with mixed disturbance of emotions and conduct. R47's care plan failed to indicate PTSD triggers and interventions. During interview on 6/26/25 at 2:26 p.m., nursing assistant (NA)-H stated she was not aware of R47's history of PTSD and was not aware of triggers. NA-H stated R47 frequently gets upset with staff and was not sure the reason behind it. NA-H stated it would be important to know if a resident had certain triggers so if they exhibit behaviors we know how to respond. NA-H stated if resident had a history of trauma, it would be on resident's care plan.During interview on 6/26/25 at 3:36 p.m., registered nurse (RN)-F stated she was not aware of R47's history of trauma. RN-F stated R47 had a lot of anxiety and did not like being at the facility. RN-F was not aware of any triggers and confirmed there was no plan of care for PTSD for R47. During interview on 6/26/25 at 4:07 p.m., licensed practical nurse clinical coordinator (LPN)-A stated she was not aware of R47's history of trauma. LPN-A stated if a resident had a diagnosis of PTSD, it would be included on the resident's individualized care plan with any interventions that are in place for resident. During interview on 6/26/25 at 4:39 p.m., social worker (SS)-A stated trauma assessments are completed by herself or the social services assistant. Triggers and interventions would be added to the resident's care plan as it was very important for all staff to know as it could lead to worsened mental health or suicidal ideation. SS-A confirmed trauma assessment was not completed or included in R47's care plan. During interview on 6/26/25 at 5:38 p.m., assistant director of nursing (ADON) stated if a resident had a diagnosis of PTSD, it would be included on the care plan. ADON stated social services would complete the trauma assessment and add information related to PTSD on the resident's care plan. ADON stated R47's care plan should have included behavior monitoring, PTSD/trauma triggers, how staff would avoid those triggers and interventions to be used if R47 was triggered. ADON confirmed R47's care plan did not include PTSD diagnosis, triggers or coping strategies and should be included in care plan. ADON stated it would be important for staff to know the resident's back story and triggers so they can provide the resident with the best possible care. The facility Trauma Informed Care policy, undated, indicated Crestview was dedicated to ensuring that all residents receive appropriate person-centered care as it related to their personal circumstances, including those with a history of trauma or Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD).1. Residents undergo a Trauma-Informed Care Assessment upon admission and at least annually or as necessary. Care plans are developed as part of the assessment process. Assessments may consider military service, history of violence or abuse, displacement, medical trauma, or other events that may have contributed to PTSD.2. Staff are trained upon hire and at least annually in regard to trauma and person-centered care, including information about managing behaviors and de-escalation techniques.3. Interactions with residents are conducted in a calm, respectful manner to promote trust. Staff are instructed to explain procedures before initiating care, offer choices and autonomy whenever possible, and avoid sudden movements or yelling.
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, observation and document review, the facility failed to update the care plan with specific interventions for 1 of 1 resident (R43) reviewed for respiratory care.Findings include:R4...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on interview, observation and document review, the facility failed to update the care plan with specific interventions for 1 of 1 resident (R43) reviewed for respiratory care.Findings include:R43's annual MDS (Minimum Data Set) dated 4/14/25, identified R43 had moderate cognitive impairment and required assistance with all activities of daily living (ADL)'s. R43's diagnoses included atrial fibrillation (a common type of irregular heartbeat that originates in the heart's upper chambers (atria)), heart failure (a condition where the heart can't pump enough blood to meet the body's needs), hypertension (high blood pressure), cerebrovascular accident (occurs when blood flow to the brain is interrupted, causing brain cells to die due to lack of oxygen and nutrients), depression, attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) (a neurodevelopmental condition that affects brain function and behavior, primarily in the areas of attention, hyperactivity, and impulsivity) and aortic aneurysm and dissection (An aortic aneurysm is a bulge or ballooning of the aortic wall, while an aortic dissection is a tear in the aorta's inner lining, allowing blood to flow between the layers). MDS indicated R43 received oxygen therapy.R43's care plan (CP), reviewed 6/26/25, included R43's use of oxygen but failed to indicate the reason for use, the rate oxygen was to be set at and the route of which the oxygen was supposed to be administered. During interview on 6/26/25, at 4:16 p.m., licensed practical nurse clinical coordinator (LPN)-A stated R43 needed to wear oxygen at all times and care plan should be specific to the resident. LPN-A confirmed R43's oxygen problem area and interventions on the CP were not specific to R43.During interview on 6/26/25, at 5:44 p.m., assistant director of nursing (ADON) stated care plan should have resident specific information, so staff know when, how and what oxygen liter flow should be used. ADON confirmed R43's care plan did not include specific information related to R43's oxygen therapy.The facility Care Planning Policy, revised 6/6/24, indicated the facility would develop a comprehensive care plan that contained problems/strengths, goals and approaches. The care plan will ensure the resident is receiving the appropriate care required to maintain or attain the resident's highest level of practicable function possible, as well as accommodation of preferences. The problem/strength statements will be dated as they occur. The goal statement should be in measurable terms so progress or decline can be determined. Interventions should be written to help meet the goal. The interventions should be individualized to the resident.
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0676 (Tag F0676)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on observation, interview and document review, the facility failed to provide supervision, cues, and hands on assistance as needed to eat during meals, and with snacks, for 1 of 1 residents (R5)...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, interview and document review, the facility failed to provide supervision, cues, and hands on assistance as needed to eat during meals, and with snacks, for 1 of 1 residents (R5) whom required staff direction for eating. Findings include:R5's quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) indicated R5 had had impaired cognition and required substantial assistance to complete activities of daily living (ADL's) including eating. R5's medical diagnoses included aphasia (a language disorder which impacts the ability to speak), dementia, and dysphagia (difficulty swallowing).R5's care plan, revised on 5/5/25, identified R5 has potential for alteration in nutrition related to hypertension (high blood pressure), dysphagia, variable intakes and history of refusing meals. The care plan further defined R5 required one-to-one assistance with meals, and cueing/encouragement with foods/snacks/supplements. R5 was identified as having a gradual weight loss and her goal was to maintain current nutritional status as evidenced by stable weight. R5's nutritional care plan directed staff to cue and direct resident to eat and take fluids. R5's diet order was for mechanical soft texture, with thin consistency liquids. R5's care plan directed staff to feed resident at meals, set up tray: arrange food, cut meat, and apply condiments, butter/jelly bread. On 6/24/25 9:24 a.m., R5 was observed to be sleeping in the dining room following breakfast meal. R5 was observed to be sleeping upright in wheelchair at this time. R5 was not being assisted to move out to the day room, or assisted to her room to lay down to rest. On 6/24/25 at 2:30 p.m., snacks were being served in the dayroom. R5 was alert. R5 was offered a cookie and water at this time. R5 did not accept cookie or water at this time.On 6/25/25 at 1:54 p.m., R5 was observed in the dayroom, and was noted to be alert and interacting with staff. Resident was seated facing the television. R5 was offered pudding, and accepted assistance from staff to eat pudding. On 6/25/25, at 11:18 a.m., R5 was observed to be in the dining room, with meal set up in front of her, without staff assistance present. R5 sat with food in front of her, not initiating any attempts to eat. At 6/25/25 11:19 a.m., nursing assistant (NA)-D was moving around the dining room and was providing residents with assistance to set up meals. R5 was noted to have moved her plate to the center of the table. Staff were observed offering fluids to R5, however, did move plate back in front of R5, or offer to provide assist with meal. On 6/25/25 at 11:25 a.m., NA-D passed by R5's table, and then sat down to assist R5 with dining. This was seven minutes after R5 had initially been served her meal. On 6/26/25 at 8:12 a.m., NA's C, D, and E were observed in the dining room at this time. NA-E stated trays had just arrived in the dining room. NA's-C, D, and E were observed serving and setting up trays. On 6/26/25 at 8:31 a.m., R5 was observed leaning back in her chair in a semi reclined position. R5 was observed sitting with her eyes closed, and her mouth open. R5 had been in this position for approximately five minutes. Surveyor continued with continuous observation until 8:36 a.m., when NA-D arrived to R5's table, aroused R5 and prompted R5 to eat her meal. R5 proceeded to eat her meal independently. Once R5 resumed eating, NA-D continued to move about the dining room, providing prompts and cues to others. At 8:38 a.m., R5 had again stopped eating. NA-D provided cues and encouragement to continue eating and moved R5's plate in a position to be more accessible. At 8:40 a.m., R5 was observed to be sitting with eyes closed, without eating. NA-D sat down across the table from R5 to assist tablemate, however, offered no further prompts or cues to R5. At 8:42 a.m., R5 was aroused by NA-D, R5 began eating again. At 8:44 a.m., NA-C sat down next to R5 to assist her with her meal, however, another resident called out to go to the bathroom, and NA-C left to provide assistance to the other resident. At 8:46 a.m., R5 resumed eating her breakfast. At 8:51 a.m., NA-E approached R5 to prompt her to drink her beverages. At 8:52 a.m., staff were observed clearing plates. R5 continued to be chewing, however, was sitting with her eyes closed. At 8:55 a.m., R5's plate was removed. R5 ate only her donut. On 6/26/25 at 1:41 p.m., NA-C stated the dining room service went well. NA-C stated the staff went around and provided assistance to the ones [residents] who need help. NA-C stated R5 preferred anything sweet. When R5 fell asleep, staff provided prompts to wake her up. R5 was reported by NA-C to have eaten her donut this morning. NA-C stated they managed with the staff they had, adding sometimes the nurses come to help. NA-C stated when residents needed assist to go to the bathroom, one of the staff in the dining room would leave to provide assistance. NA-C stated they reached out to nurse for assistance if help was needed. During interview on 6/26/25 at 2:00 p.m., registered nurse (RN)-B stated staff began to serve trays upon their arrival. RN-B stated R5 required assistance to eat. RN-B did comment when a resident needed to go to the bathroom, one of the dining room NA's left the resident they were assisting to assist that resident to the bathroom. RN-B stated he was available to help in the dining room when asked. RN-B stated if the dining room was in need of assistance, the staff were expected to communicate this to him. RN-B stated when providing assistance to residents, the staff needed to prioritize the most needed [important] thing at the time. RN-B stated R5 was not a good eater. Staff gave her a boost to eat. The problem was there are three staff, there are four if RN-B was included. RN-B stated, Maybe we rearrange the sitting so staff can assist if needed. At least they feed two. On 6/26/25 at 2:22 p.m., NA-D stated the dining room was very busy. NA-D stated if she were just to sit down with one resident, the others would not be helped. NA-D stated they all must move around to assist all of the the residents. NA-D stated when residents in the dining room needed assistance to go to the bathroom, one of the nursing assistants would need to stop assisting in the dining room, and go to assist the resident. This would limit assistance available in the dining room. The facility policy, Assistance with Feeding, revised 11/18, identified the facility was ensure that any resident who needs assistance with feeding receives the help in a safe and dignified way. The policy directed staff when they provided assistance during feeding (dining), staff were to be engaged, enthusiastic, and communicable with residents to promote a dignified and enjoyable experience. The facility policy, Activities of Daily Living (ADL), last revised 11/23, identified resident ' s unable to carry out ADL ' s independently will receive the services necessary to maintain good nutrition. The policy directed staff that assistance with resident nutrition included dining (both meals and snacks).
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 document review, the facility failed to consistently meet the identified needs and preferenc...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview and document review, the facility failed to consistently meet the identified needs and preferences of 3 of 4 residents (R7, R19, and R76), reviewed for activities.Findings include: R7R7's quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) MDS dated [DATE], indicated R7 was alert and oriented. The MDS identified R7's vision was adequate and indicated he was able to see fine detail, including regular print in newspapers/books. The MDS indicated R7 did not require corrective lenses. R7's MDS of 12/1/24, 2/3/24, and 5/4/25 lacked completion of Preferences for Customary Routine and Activities. R7's annual assessment of 11/4/24, identified the following for preferences for Customary Routine and Activities: R7 identified it was very important to listen to music he liked, to complete favorite activities, to go outside to get fresh air when the weather was good, and participate in services or practices; it was somewhat important to keep up the news; it was not very important to do things in groups of people, or to have books, newspapers, and magazines to read. R7's care plan revised on 5/6/25, indicated R7 was independent in making activity choices and how leisure time was spent. R7 preferred Life Enrichment staff did not knock on his door or enter his room to invite him to activities. The care plan identified staff were to offer activities R7 could do independently if he was not interested in a structured activity. R7 enjoyed listening to [NAME] Cash and coloring in his room. Staff were to provide invitations to activities of interest such as sports, music programs, scripture and song, TV/movies, animal visits, and arts and crafts. Staff were directed to monitor R7's progress on an ongoing basis. On 6/24/25 at 8:57 a.m., R7 was observed in his room watching television. R7 stated he previously had a CD player available for use, however, it was no longer available. R7 stated it had been missing for the past three weeks. R7 stated he enjoyed listening to music; however, he was no longer able to do so as he did not have a CD player. On 6/25/25 at 6:45 p.m., R7 was observed in his room watching television. On 6/26/25 at 10:40 a.m., life enrichment assistant (LEA)-A stated all staff of the Life Enrichment department assisted in completing the care plan. The care plan was adapted as indicated by identified preferences. Staff tracked invitations to activities on attendance sheets and indicated if resident participated or refused. LEA-A stated she was unaware R7 no longer had a CD player available for use and would provide him with one. LEA-A stated R7 did not wish to have activities, or coloring supplies provided to him. Upon review of activity calendars for April, May and June, it was noted although invited to activities, R7 had not participated in any activities in either April or May 2025. R7 was noted to have received one to one interaction on June 18, 2025 which was identified as interests for the topic. This visit was not documented in R7's narrative notes to reflect further insight. In addition, even though a one-to-one visit was completed, there were no updates or change in current interventions on R7's care plan to better meet his needs. R19 R19's quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated [DATE], identified R19 had intact cognition and required assistance with all activities of daily living (ADLs). R19's diagnoses included chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) (a chronic inflammatory lung disease that causes obstructed airflow from the lungs), non-Alzheimer's dementia, anxiety disorder, depression, schizophrenia (a chronic mental disorder that disrupts a person's thinking, behavior, and emotions) and nicotine dependence. R19's MDS of 11/2/24, 1/31/25, and 5/1/25 lacked completion of Preferences for Customary Routine and Activities. R19's annual assessment, dated 8/5/24, identified the following for preferences for Customary Routine and Activities: R19 identified it was very important to listen to music she liked; to be around animals such as pets; keep up with the news and to go outside to get fresh air when the weather was good; it was somewhat important to have books, newspapers, and magazines to read, to do things in groups of people and to participate in religious services or practices; it was not very important to do favorite activities. R19's care plan reviewed on 6/26/25, indicated R19 had an activity intolerance related to her cognitive impairment, disease process, physical limitations, anxiety and her limited attention span. Staff were to encourage resident to participate in activities of her interest such as music performances, bingo, arts and crafts, happy hour, parties, word games, trivia and to assist R19 to and from activities as needed. Staff were to offer independent activity items that were of interest as needed, to provide one on one (1:1) attention and cueing when needed during activities to maximize participation, to provide monthly activity calendar and to provide 1:1 visits as needed. Upon review of the calendars from April 2025 to June 2025, it was noted R19 had participated in twelve out of 98 scheduled activities and was invited and refused 16 times in April 2025; attended twelve out of 103 scheduled activities and was invited and refused 18 times in May 2025; and attended six out of 87 scheduled activities and was invited and refused 16 times in June 2025. R19's monthly activity calendars indicated R19 had eight 1:1 activities completed in April, four 1:1 activities completed in May and one 1:1 activity completed in June. R19's narrative notes lacked documentation of 1:1 visits. In addition, even though a 1:1 visit was completed, there were no updates or change in current interventions on R19's care plan which would better meet her needs. During observation on 6/23/25 at 4:42 p.m., R19 was sitting in her wheelchair in the doorway leading to her room. R19 had previously been walking up and down hallway. There was no scheduled activity at the time of observation. During observation on 6/25/25 at 1:05 p.m., multiple unidentified staff asked R19 if she would like to go to bingo with R19 declining. During observation on 6/26/25 at 2:56 p.m., R19 was wandering up and down hallway talking to herself. During interview on 6/25/25 at 12:47 a.m., nursing assistant (NA)-G stated we occasionally offer R19 activities, but she refused frequently and preferred to roam hallway. During interview on 6/26/25 at 3:37 p.m., registered nurse (RN)-F stated R19 liked activities and would attend activities if asked. RN-F stated R19 frequently wandered up and down hallway. During interview on 6/26/25 at 5:22 p.m., assistant director of nursing (ADON) stated she would expect staff to offer and encourage all activities to R19. ADON stated R19 was more introverted, but staff should attempt to find things R19 liked to do. ADON stated activities were important to keep the resident happy and to decrease the chance of worsened depression cause by boredom. R76 R76's quarterly MDS dated [DATE], identified R76 had severe cognitive impairment and required assistance with all ADLs. R76's diagnoses included non-traumatic brain dysfunction (brain damage that occurs due to internal factors, rather than external trauma), Alzheimer's disease with late onset, diabetes mellitus (a group of metabolic diseases characterized by high blood sugar levels), anxiety disorder and depression. MDS indicated R76's hearing was moderate difficulty needed hearing aids. R76' s significant change assessment, dated 8/5/24, identified the following for preferences for Customary Routine and Activities: R76 identified it was very important to be around animals such as pets, to do things in groups of people, to do favorite activities and to go outside to get fresh air when the weather was good; it was somewhat important to listen to music she liked, to keep up with the news and to participate in religious services or practices; it was not very important to have books, newspapers and magazines to read. R76' s care plan reviewed on 6/26/25, indicated R76 had an activity intolerance related to her cognitive impairment, disease process, physical limitations, tendency to wander and her limited attention span. R76 was dependent on staff to meet her activity needs and was extremely hard of hearing and needed assistance in order to actively participate in every activity. Staff were to encourage resident to participate in activities as needed to alleviate extra energy and for staff to provide invite and assistance to and from activities such as word games, parties, music performances, bingo, card games, puzzles and arts/crafts. Staff were to offer independent activity items that were of interest as needed, to provide 1:1 attention and cueing when needed during activities to maximize participation, to provide monthly activity calendar and to provide 1:1 visits as needed. Upon review of the calendars from April 2025 to June 2025, it was noted R76 had attended four out of 98 scheduled activities in April 2025, attended five out of 103 scheduled activities in May 2025 and attended four out of 87 scheduled activities in June 2025. R76's monthly activity calendars indicated R76 had one 1:1 activity completed in April, two 1:1 activities completed in May and one 1:1 activity completed in June. R76's narrative notes lacked documentation of 1:1 visits to reflect further insight. In addition, even though a 1:1 visit was completed, there were no updates or change in current interventions on R76's care plan which would better meet her needs. During observation on 6/23/25 at 3:32 p.m., R76 was sitting in the hallway by the nurses' station with a few other residents looking around. There was no scheduled activity at time of this observation. During interview on 6/26/25 at 2:25 p.m., NA-H stated R76 participated in activities occasionally. If R76 was assisted to an activity, R76 would leave the activity shortly after arrival. During interview on 6/26/25 at 3:46 p.m., RN-F stated R76 would participate in activities on and off. RN-F stated R76 usually sits in the hallway by the nurse's station. During interview on 6/26/25 at 4:09 p.m., licensed practical nurse clinical coordinator (LPN)-A stated R76 occasionally attended activities. LPN-A expected staff to attempt to assist R76 to all activities. LPN-A stated R76 was very hard of hearing, and it was possible that could deter R76 participating in activities. During interview on 6/26/25 at 5:37 p.m., ADON stated she would expect staff to offer and encourage all activities to R76. ADON stated R76 was very hard of hearing, but staff should attempt to find things R76 liked to do. ADON stated activities were important to keep the resident happy and to decrease the chance of worsened depression cause by boredom. The facility policy Crest View Senior Communities Life Enrichment Programming Requirements identified an ongoing program of activities shall be provided based on comprehensive assessments and care plans, designed to meet the interests, and physical, mental, emotional, social, spiritual, cultural, and leisure needs of each resident. The policy identified programs, equipment and materials will be adapted as necessary. The policy goes on to state a one-to-one program shall be scheduled and provided by a staff member or volunteer for any resident who is unable or unwilling to participate in group programs. The policy further identified each one-to one program/visit will be documented, with the focus of the visit identified. The policy lacked specification as to the frequency of the one-to-one visits for those unable or unwilling to participate in group activities.
CONCERN (D)

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

Quality of Care (Tag F0684)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview and document review the facility failed to promote and provide positioning assistance to 1 of 3 ...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview and document review the facility failed to promote and provide positioning assistance to 1 of 3 (R72), residents reviewed for positioning. Further, the facility failed to implement interventions 1 of 3 residents (R19) reviewed for vision. Findings include: R72's quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated [DATE], identified R72 had impaired cognition and was dependent of staff for assistance with activities of daily living (ADLs) including mobility and transfer, and was wheelchair bound. R72 had an impairment on one side and was identified as being dependent on staff for assistance with eating. R72's medical diagnoses include dementia, anxiety, psychotic disorder, secondary parkinsonism, and a joint disorder. R72's care plan revised 1/23/25, identified R72 had alteration in mobility related to dementia. The care plan directed staff to turn and reposition, transfer, and boost up in bed with the assist of two staff. R72 used a wheelchair and received assistance of one staff to propel wheelchair. R72's care plan identified R72 has a foam/gel cushion in the wheelchair. R72's care plan lacks direction as to how to position R72 in wheelchair. On 6/23/25 at 4:54 p.m., R72 was observed sitting in the wheelchair in the dayroom. R72's wheelchair was noted to have no footrests in place on the wheelchair. R72's tips of her slippers were touching the ground however, her heels of her slippers were approximately two inches off of the ground. R72 had a foam/gel cushion in wheelchair and her hips were positioned against the back of the wheelchair however, there was a slight angle downward of lower body without foot pedals in place. R72 had an extended headrest on the top of the wheelchair back however, R72 was holding her head forward, and her head did not rest against the headrest. On 6/24/25 at 8:32 a.m., R72 was observed in the dining room. R72 was noted to have the tips of slippers touching the floor, however, her heels of her slippers continued to rest approximately 2 inches off the floor. There were no footrests in place. On 6/24/25 at 3:47 p.m., R72 was observed being propelled down the hall by staff and it was noted wheelchair continued to lack footrests. R72 was observed to have the tips of her slippers touching the ground, however, her heels of her slippers were elevated approximately two inches off the ground. On 6/25/25 at 7:06 p.m., nursing assistant (NA)-B stated most of the time R72 slouches to the right side of the wheelchair, and staff use pillows and blankets to position her upright. R72's feet were not supported as she was sitting. NA-B stated R72 used to have foot rests on her wheelchair, however, NA-B stated she had not found them in R72's room when they assisted her in getting up today. On 6/25/25 at 7:15 p.m., registered nurse (RN)-E stated R72's feet were not supported when sitting in the wheelchair, and legs were observed to be suspended from the wheelchair, with only the toes of her slippers touching the ground. RN-E stated footrests placed on both sides of the wheelchair might help to R72 to support her feet. On 6/26/25 at 1:18 p.m., R72 was observed resting in her room, on her bed. R72's wheelchair with the extended headrest was in her room. There was a second wheelchair in her room which was not in use. Upon looking around room, there were no footrests found. On 6/26/25 at 1:21 p.m., RN-B stated staff provided assistance to R72 to reposition to maintain her in an upright position. R72's feet were supported with footrests. Upon being informed R72 had no footrests currently in place, RN-B proceeded to the room to find the footrests. RN-B stated R72 had changed wheelchairs approximately two to four weeks ago to provide better positioning. RN-B stated he was unaware footrests were not currently being used, however, should have been in place to provide support to R72's feet. On 6/26/25 at 3:59 p.m., clinical coordinator (CC)-A stated when there were concerns observed with R72's positioning of her feet not touching the floor, staff should have sought out the opinion of therapy to offer positioning suggestions. CC-A stated therapy would be able to determine if additional positioning devices were indicated or determine if foot pedals were needed to promote good positioning, and support of R72's feet. The facility policy, Activities of Daily Living (ADL's), revised 11/23 indicated residents unable to carry out ADL's independently will receive the services necessary to maintain good nutrition .and mobility. The policy further identified services would be provided for residents with ADL's, which included mobility (transfer and ambulation, and walking). The policy identified the resident response to interventions will be documented, monitored, evaluated, and revised as appropriate. The policy lacked direction to staff regarding provision of assistance with wheelchair positioning. R19R19's quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated [DATE], identified R19 had intact cognition and required assistance with all activities of daily living (ADLs). R19's diagnoses included chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) (a chronic inflammatory lung disease that causes obstructed airflow from the lungs), non-Alzheimer's dementia, anxiety disorder, depression, schizophrenia (a chronic mental disorder that disrupts a person's thinking, behavior, and emotions) and nicotine dependence. MDS identified R19's vision was adequate and R19 wore eyeglasses. R19's care plan reviewed 6/26/25, identified R19 had an alteration in skin integrity with an intervention to apply a band-aid around metal nose piece on glasses for extra padding. During observation on 6/23/25 at 4:46 p.m., R19's eyeglasses were positioned on the very tip of her nose causing indent with skin under metal nose piece being purple in color. Glasses lacked padding (band-aid) over metal piece that went over the bridge of R19's nose. During observation on 6/24/25 at 3:58 p.m., R19 was seated in the dining room and eyeglasses were positioned on the very tip of her nose causing an indent with skin under metal nose piece being purple in color. Glasses lacked padding (band-aid) over metal piece that went over the bridge of R19's nose. During observation on 6/26/25 at 7:22 a.m., R19 was seated in the dining room and eyeglasses were positioned on the very tip of her nose causing an indent with skin under metal nose piece being purple in color. Glasses lacked padding (band-aid) over metal piece that went over the bridge of R19's nose. During interview on 12:47 p.m., nursing assistant (NA)-H stated R19 glasses were often on the tip of her nose and confirmed there was an indent and skin was purple. NA-H stated there were no interventions in place to protect skin.During interview on 6/26/25 at 3:37 p.m., registered nurse (RN)-F stated R19 often had an indent and purplish colored skin on her nose where her glasses settled. RN-F stated she was not aware of the intervention to wrap a band-Aid around the metal frame to protect the skin on R19's nose.During interview on 6/26/25 at 4:03 p.m., licensed practical nurse clinical coordinator (LPN)-A stated R19 recently got new glasses and may need her glasses readjusted. LPN-A stated she expected staff to update her on the indent and skin discoloration and to use the band-aid intervention that was in place to assist with protecting the skin. During interview on 6/26/25 at 5:22 p.m., assistant director of nursing (ADON) stated she would expect the nurse to monitor the skin on R19's nose for any abnormality and to ensure a band-aid was in place. ADON confirmed R19's care plan indicated band-aid to be used on glasses. ADON stated it was important to follow interventions to protect R19's skin integrity and to prevent pressure sores. A policy regarding eyeglasses was requested but was not received.
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0685 (Tag F0685)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview and document review, the facility failed to provide assistance to ensure hearing aids/devices we...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview and document review, the facility failed to provide assistance to ensure hearing aids/devices were available to maintain hearing/communication needs for 1 of 1 resident (R76) reviewed for hearing. Findings Include: R76's quarterly MDS dated [DATE], identified R76 had severe cognitive impairment and required assistance with all ADL's. R76's diagnoses included non-traumatic brain dysfunction (brain damage that occurs due to internal factors, rather than external trauma), Alzheimer's disease with late onset, diabetes mellitus (a group of metabolic diseases characterized by high blood sugar levels), anxiety disorder and depression. MDS indicated R76's hearing was moderate difficulty needed hearing aids.R76's care plan, reviewed 6/26/25, identified R76 had an alteration in communication related to hard of hearing and had two hearing aids. The care plan directed staff to ensure glasses and bilateral hearing aides were worn daily, to anticipate needs as needed, allow R76 time to respond, observe for changes in communication and speak clearly and validate the message was sent was understood by R76.During observation on 6/23/25 at 2:48 p.m., R76 was sitting in the hallway by the nurses' station and was having difficulty hearing staff. R76 was not wearing any hearing assistive devices.During observation on 6/24/25 at 4:03 p.m., R76 was sitting at the dining room table and was attempting to have a conversation with a co-resident but was having difficulty hearing her. R76 was not wearing any hearing assistive devices. During observation on 6/25/25 at 11:53 a.m., R76 was sitting in the hallway by the nurses' station and was having difficulty hearing staff. Unidentified nurse leaned down and talked loudly directly into R76's ear for R76 to be able to hear nurse.During observation on 6/25/25 at 12:07 p.m., unidentified staff went to R76's room and got a pocket talker and assisted R76 with putting them on her ears and turning it on.During observation on 6/25/25 at 12:22 p.m., unidentified nurse was attempting to communicate with R76 with R76 still having difficulty hearing her.During observation on 6/26/25 at 2:20 p.m., R76 was sitting in the hallway by the nurses' station and was having difficulty hearing staff. R76 was not wearing any hearing assistive devices.During interview on 6/25/25 at 12:51 p.m., nursing assistant (NA)-G stated R76 was very hard of hearing and had a pocket talker R76 should wear at all times when awake.During interview on 6/26/25 at 2:25 p.m., NA-H stated R76 was extremely hard of hearing and has a pocket talker R76 could use when she asks for it. During interview on 6/26/25 at 3:46 p.m., registered nurse (RN)-F stated R76 had significant hearing impairment and has a pocket talker R76 could use when she asks for it. During interview on 6/26/25 at 4:09 p.m., licensed practical nurse clinical coordinator (LPN)-A stated R76 had significant hearing impairment, and the left ear was better than the right ear but still had increased difficulty hearing. LPN-A stated she was not sure what had happened to R76's hearing aids. LPN-A stated R76 had a pocket talker she could wear if she desired but did not like it too much and not sure if it made any difference in her ability to hear. During interview on 6/26/25 at 5:37 p.m., assistant director of nursing (ADON) stated R76 should wear the pocket talker at all times as it was important for R76 to be able to hear and communicate with other residents and staff for socialization and her mental health. A policy was requested but was not received.
CONCERN (D)

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

Accident Prevention (Tag F0689)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview and document review the facility failed to ensure a thorough smoking assessment was completed fo...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview and document review the facility failed to ensure a thorough smoking assessment was completed for residents who wished to smoke for 1 of 1 resident (R19) reviewed for smoking. Findings include: R19's quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated [DATE], identified R19 had intact cognition and required assistance with all activities of daily living (ADLs). R19's diagnoses included chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) (a chronic inflammatory lung disease that causes obstructed airflow from the lungs), non-Alzheimer's dementia, anxiety disorder, depression, schizophrenia (a chronic mental disorder that disrupts a person's thinking, behavior, and emotions) and nicotine dependence. The MDS lacked documentation R19 was a current tobacco user.R19's care plan reviewed 6/26/25, indicated R19 had elected to be an active smoker and was an independent smoker, had a goal of remaining free from injury associated with smoking and follow the facility smoking policy. The care plan went on to indicate smoking assessment would be completed per facility policy and R19 was to wear a smoking apron when she went out to smoke. R19's last and most recent smoking assessment, dated 8/2/24, lacked evidence the smoking apron was being used and/or assessed. During observation on 4:35 p.m., unidentified staff assisted R19 outside to smoke. Unidentified RN provided reminder to staff assisting R19 reminder she needs to wear an apron, staff replied, oh yeah.During interview on 6/23/25 at 4:31 p.m., R19 stated she was an active smokier and stated she did not have difficulty with lighting cigarettes and does not wear any certain smoking equipment. During interview on 6/25/25 at 12:47 p.m., nursing assistant (NA)-G stated R19, per care plan, was able to smoke independently and wore a smoking apron that was hanging over by the door where R19 went out to smoke. During interview on 6/26/25 at 2:22 p.m., NA-H stated R19, per care plan, could smoked independently and used a smoking apron when going out to smoke. During interview on 6/26/25 at 3:37 p.m., registered nurse (RN)-F stated R19, smoked independently and did not wear a smoking apron when going out to smoke. RN-F stated floor nursing was responsible for completing the smoking assessments and they should be completed every six months. During interview on 6/26/25 at 4:03 p.m., licensed practical nurse clinical coordinator (LPN)-A stated R19, per care plan, was able to smoke independently and should wear a smoking apron when going out to smoke. LPN-A stated smoking should be reassessed quarterly. During interview on 6/26/25 at 5:22 p.m., assistant director of nursing (ADON) stated smoking assessments should be completed every six months as it was important to see if anything had changed and to ensure resident was still safe to smoke. ADON confirmed last smoking assessment was completed on 8/2/24 and stated R19 should have had another smoking assessment completed since 8/2/24. ADON confirmed smoking apron was not assessed or identified on the smoking assessment. The facility Smoking Policy, dated 2/25, indicated staff are responsible for ensuring that residents are kept safe from accidents related to smoking.-Residents who have been identified as smokers will be assessed upon admission, reviewed quarterly, annually, and as needed for significant changes or incidents that occur.-The Individualized Smoking Evaluation will determine whether a resident has been deemed safe to smoke without supervision. All findings from the Individualized Smoking Evaluation will be documented in the resident care plan.-If an individualized Smoking Evaluation determines that a resident will need supervision in order to safely smoke, a scheduled smoking plan will be developed for the resident and update in the Care Plan. Smoking materials for these residents will be held by the Nursing Staff and given to residents according to resident smoking plan. -It is required that all resides who are evaluated as needing a smoking apron, based on their Individualized Smoking Evaluation, will always wear one while smoking. Smoking aprons are located next to the door to the smoking patio.
CONCERN (D)

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

Respiratory Care (Tag F0695)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview and document review, the facility failed to properly assess and obtain orders for 1 of 1 resident (R43) revie...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview and document review, the facility failed to properly assess and obtain orders for 1 of 1 resident (R43) reviewed for use of oxygen therapy.Findings include:R43's annual Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated [DATE], identified R43 had moderate cognitive impairment and required assistance with all activities of daily living (ADL)'s. R43's diagnoses included atrial fibrillation (a common type of irregular heartbeat that originates in the heart's upper chambers (atria)), heart failure (a condition where the heart can't pump enough blood to meet the body's needs), hypertension (high blood pressure), cerebrovascular accident (occurs when blood flow to the brain is interrupted, causing brain cells to die due to lack of oxygen and nutrients), depression, attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) (a neurodevelopmental condition that affects brain function and behavior, primarily in the areas of attention, hyperactivity, and impulsivity) and aortic aneurysm and dissection (An aortic aneurysm is a bulge or ballooning of the aortic wall, while an aortic dissection is a tear in the aorta's inner lining, allowing blood to flow between the layers). MDS indicated R43 received oxygen therapy.R43's care plan (CP) reviewed 6/26/25, included R43's use of oxygen but failed to indicate the reason for use, the rate oxygen was to be set at and the route of which the oxygen was supposed to be administered. R43's hospital records dated 5/28/25, included R43 wore three liters of oxygen via nasal cannula, which was his baseline. R43's physician orders, reviewed 6/26/25, lacked an order for oxygen use. R43's electronic health record (EHR) included a nursing note dated 5/29/25 at 10:22 p.m., included resident was on two liters of oxygen via nasal cannula. R43's medication administration record (MAR) and treatment administration record (TAR) lacked evidence of an order for oxygen.During observation and interview on 6/24/25 at 9:42 a.m., R43 was lying in bed and did not have oxygen on. R43 stated he needed to wear oxygen at all times and had a portable oxygen tank hanging on back of his wheelchair. R43 also had an oxygen concentrator in the corner of his room. During observation on 6/24/25 at 3:40 p.m., R43 was sitting in wheelchair in his room and did not have oxygen on. Portable oxygen tank was hanging off the back of R43's chair. At 3:50 p.m., unidentified staff assisted R43 out of his room for dinner and assisted R43 with applying oxygen.During observation on 6/25/25 at 12:04 p.m., R43 was sitting in the dining room looking out the window into the courtyard. R43 had oxygen cannula in nares and was connected to the portable oxygen tank that was hanging on the back of his wheelchair with flow rate set to two and one-half liters.During observation on 6/26/25 at 7:23 a.m., R43 was lying in bed and did not have oxygen on.During observation on 6/26/25 at 11:03 a.m., R43 was sitting at a dining room table. R43 had oxygen cannula in nares and was connected to the portable oxygen tank that was hanging on the back of his wheelchair with flow rate set to two liters. During observation on 6/26/25 at 2:30 p.m., R43 was wheeling down hallway in his wheelchair and did not have oxygen on. R43's portable oxygen was hanging on the back of his wheelchair. During interview on 6/25/25 at 12:49 p.m., nursing assistant (NA)-G stated R43 had to wear oxygen at all times and was not sure of what the flow rate was supposed to be as she was not able to adjust the flow rate. During interview on 6/26/25 at 2:27 p.m., NA-H stated R43 wears oxygen all the time. NA-H stated R43 would occasionally remove oxygen, and staff would assist him with reapplying if noticed. NA-H stated R43 was on two liters per minute.During interview on 6/26/25 at 3:46 p.m., registered nurse (RN)-F stated R43 needed to wear oxygen all the times and the flow rate was to be set at three liters. RN-F looked in R43's EHR and stated she could not locate an order for oxygen. RN-F then looked in R43's hard chart and found an order, dated 4/21/25, for oxygen three liters per minute. During interview on 6/26/25 at 4:16 p.m., licensed practical nurse clinical coordinator (LPN)-A stated R43 wore oxygen at all times but was not always compliant. LPN-A confirmed there were no orders for oxygen therapy in R43's EHR.During interview on 6/26/25 at 5:44 p.m., assistant director of nursing (ADON) stated R43 should wear oxygen at all times. ADON confirmed oxygen was a medication and an order would need to be obtained to administer it. ADON stated she did not see an order for oxygen in R43's EMR. It was her expectation that staff followed up with either the hospital or the primary provider to obtain an order. The DON stated it was important because there are residents who should not be on oxygen, and it should be evaluated by the provider.Contact with nurse practitioner was attempted with no success. The facility Oxygen Documentation and Monitoring policy, dated 11/23, indicated all residents using oxygen will have the proper oxygen orders in pace and appropriate monitoring and documentation will be completed. All residents who are in need of oxygen will have the appropriate orders in place including, but not limited to: liter flow, delivery mode - mask/nasal cannula/etc., blood oxygen saturation that is to be maintained and how often the saturation is to be checked. The order will be put into PointClickCare so that the proper documentation can be completed on the Treatment Record by the nurses per the order to include liter flow, oxygen levels and if the level is taken with oxygen on or at room air. There will be documentation by the nurse regarding notification to the MD/NP if oxygen saturations are not within ordered parameters.
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0699 (Tag F0699)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview, and document review the facility failed to comprehensively assess past trauma and implement car...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview, and document review the facility failed to comprehensively assess past trauma and implement care plan interventions utilizing a trauma-informed approach for 1 of 1 (R47) resident reviewed who had a history of past traumatic experiences. Findings include:R47's quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated [DATE], identified R47 had intact cognition and required assistance with all activities of daily living (ADLs). R47's diagnoses included alcoholic cirrhosis of liver without ascites (severe, irreversible liver disease caused by long-term, excessive alcohol consumption), hypertension (high blood pressure), renal failure (occurs when the kidneys lose their ability to adequately filter waste and excess fluids from the blood), hepatic encephalopathy (brain dysfunction that can occur in people with severe liver disease), and fibromyalgia (chronic disorder characterized by wide-spread musculoskeletal pain, fatigue, sleep disturbances, and cognitive difficulties).R47's care plan print date of 6/26/25, lacked individualized trauma-informed approaches or interventions and lacked identification of triggers to avoid potential re-traumatization.R47's electronic health record (EHR) lacked evidence the facility assessed R47 for trauma. During interview on 6/25/25 at 6:33 p.m., R47 stated she had post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD). R47 stated she had a long history of trauma going back to her childhood which consisted of verbal, physical and sexual abuse by multiple family members. R47 stated she would see demon-like shadows in her room at the facility. R47 stated these issues still affect her daily life as she thinks about it often. R47 stated due to her past trauma, she liked to feel in control. R47 stated she would get triggered when staff were demanding and would not listen to what R47 was attempting to communicate to them causing old memories to resurface. R47 stated she got upset during these interactions with staff. R47 stated no one at the facility had ever asked/talked to her about her past trauma. During interview on 6/26/25 at 2:26 p.m., nursing assistant (NA)-H stated she was not aware of R47's history of PTSD and was not aware of triggers. NA-H stated R47 frequently gets upset with staff and was not sure the reason behind it. NA-H stated it would be important to know if a resident had certain triggers so if they exhibit behaviors we know how to respond. During interview on 6/26/25 at 3:36 p.m., registered nurse (RN)-F stated she was not aware of R47's history of trauma. RN-F stated R47 had a lot of anxiety and did not like being at the facility. RN-F was not aware of any triggers and confirmed there was no trauma assessment completed to address R47's PTSD. During interview on 6/26/25 at 4:07 p.m., licensed practical nurse clinical coordinator (LPN)-A stated she was not aware of R47's history of trauma. LPN-A stated if a resident had a diagnosis of PTSD the social worker would complete a trauma assessment and reflect the information received into the residents' plan of care. During interview on 6/26/25 at 4:39 p.m., social worker (SS)-A stated she and her assistant were responsible for completing assessments for trauma. SS-A stated information received from the trauma assessment such as triggers and interventions would be added to the resident's plan of care as it was very important for all staff to know what they consisted of as it could lead to worsened mental health or suicidal ideation. SS-A stated she was not aware R47's diagnosis included PTSD. SS-A confirmed trauma assessment was not completed for R47. During interview on 6/26/25 at 5:38 p.m., assistant director of nursing (ADON) stated if a resident had a diagnosis of PTSD, it would be included on R47's diagnosis list and in the plan of care. ADON stated social services would complete the trauma assessment and would add the information related to PTSD on the resident's care plan based on assessment. ADON confirmed trauma assessment was not completed for R47's and PTSD diagnosis was not added to R47's EHR. ADON stated it would be important for staff to know the resident's back story and triggers so they can provide the resident with the best possible care. The facility Trauma Informed Care policy, undated, indicated Crestview was dedicated to ensuring that all residents receive appropriate person-centered care as it related to their personal circumstances, including those with a history of trauma or Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD).1. Residents undergo a Trauma-Informed Care Assessment upon admission and at least annually or as necessary. Care plans are developed as part of the assessment process. Assessments may consider military service, history of violence or abuse, displacement, medical trauma, or other events that may have contributed to PTSD.2. Staff are trained upon hire and at least annually in regard to trauma and person-centered care, including information about managing behaviors and de-escalation techniques.3. Interactions with residents are conducted in a calm, respectful manner to promote trust. Staff are instructed to explain procedures before initiating care, offer choices and autonomy whenever possible, and avoid sudden movements or yelling.
CONCERN (E) 📢 Someone Reported This

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

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

Safe Environment (Tag F0584)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, and interview, the facility failed to maintain the appearance and integrity of the walls in the memory car...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, and interview, the facility failed to maintain the appearance and integrity of the walls in the memory care unit, including the medication room, to provide for a surface which could be cleaned and homelike appearance. The facility failed to maintain furniture which was clean, with intact, washable surfaces in the memory care day room. The facility failed to ensure room blinds were kept in a state of good repair to provide visual privacy in 3 of 4 resident rooms (rooms [ROOM NUMBER]) observed to have blinds in disrepair. The facility failed to ensure shower rooms were kept in good repair in 3 of 4 shower rooms toured during survey. These concerns had potential to affect any resident who used the three shower rooms. Further, the facility failed to fully investigate missing personal items for 1 of 1 resident (R47) with reports of personal items that was reported missing for approximately nine months.Findings include: During observation on 6/24/25, at 8:44 a.m., in the memory care dayroom, it was noted a brown vinyl covered chair with a wooden frame in day room, placed next to the dining room entry way had a split in the materiel in the center of the seat in the center which measured approximately 10 inches in length. This split was noted to be fully through the materiel, open to the inner cushion. In addition to the center of the chair, there was another area on the upper right side of the chair which was approximately one and a half inches in length, with areas branching out on each end of the split, approximately one half inch to one inch on each side.Near the entry of the dayroom, there was a metal box which is locked with a padlock, labeled Timer. This box is noted to be pulled away from the wall, with broken cement noted where it would be affixed to the wall. The blinds on the far corner in the dayroom is noted to have three broken slats in the blinds, which remain in place but do not allow the blinds to fully close. There is an exit in the dayroom. In the memory care dayroom, there is an exit at the far side of the room. On the wall on the lower, left side of the door frame, there is an area approximately four inches in diameter that is lacking paint which exposed the the cement. The paint surrounding the area has bubbled and is lifting away from the cement. On 6/24/25, at 3:56 p.m., during observation in the memory care unit, it was noted R283's closet shelf had been removed, leaving an area of two inches in width around the entire perimeter of the closet where the top layer of the sheet rock was gone, and the plaster was visible. The closet doors had been removed and the closet opening was open. In addition, on the wall next to the bed for R283, it was noted the sheet rock had been damaged through to the plaster in an area which was estimated to be approximately nine inches in width and 18 inches in height. Attempts to discuss with R283 were limited due to language barrier. R283 acknowledged the areas and shrugged her shoulders. On 6/26/25, at 1:56 p.m. during observation of memory care medication storage room with registered nurse (RN)-B, it was noted on the lower wall on the left side of the room next to the floor, the protective vinyl liner had pulled away from the wall, and paper was pulled away from the sheet rock. This left the plaster in the sheet rock exposed, with plaster dust noted on the floor. The area was measured off by RN-B with footsteps and was observed to be approximately three feet long, and approximately one foot in height. In addition to this, there was also an area on the wall to the right side of the room, next to the paper towel dispenser, where the top sheet had peeled away, and brown paper remained. This area was noted to be approximately nine inches high and six inches wide. RN-B stated these areas need to be repaired.On 6/26/25, at 2:03 p.m. a tour was completed with the Environmental Service Director (ESD). ESD stated when staff identified areas of concern, they should fill out forms, and place the forms in the boxes designated for them. ESD stated the department depended on staff to notify them of any need for repairs. ESD stated the maintenance staff were mindful of watching for needed repairs, however, it was a joint effort. ESD stated there were specified boxes they should put them so the department is aware. Upon reviewing R283's room, ESD stated the wall needed to be fixed. ESD stated the shelves were removed from the closets last year due to concerns with sprinkler functioning. ESD stated the shelves were removed, however, the walls were not patched, and they needed to do so. ESD stated the closet doors were removed from the closets in memory care as the residents were pulling the doors off and maintenance could not keep up with replacing them. ESD stated the box which was padlocked shut, that had pulled away from the wall would have to be repaired. ESD stated there were no work orders present for repair of this area. ESD stated the brown chair with the split in the vinyl will need to be disposed of as it can not be cleaned properly.A facility policy was requested for maintaining the environment with routine checks and audits, and process for repairs and replacement of items as needed, however, was not received. Window Blinds On 6/24/25 at 9:07 a.m., room [ROOM NUMBER] was observed on the Evergreen unit. The room had a large window along the far wall which had white colored, plastic blinds which were pulled closed. The lower one quarter of the blind slats were missing which allowed the building and windows next door to be visible while inside the room, despite the blinds being closed. On 6/23/25 3:32 p.m., room [ROOM NUMBER] was observed on the Evergreen unit. The room had a large window along the far wall which had white colored, plastic blinds which were pulled closed. There were several blind slats missing which allowed the building and windows next door to be visible while inside the room, despite the blinds being closed. On 6/24/25 at 9:12 a.m., room [ROOM NUMBER] was observed on the Evergreen unit. The room had a large window along the far wall which had white colored, plastic blinds which were pulled closed. There were several slats missing from the blinds which allowed the building and windows next door to be visible while inside the room, despite the blinds being closed. On 6/26/25 at 10:42 a.m., reviewed maintenance/housekeeping work order forms from 8/14/24 through 6/25/25, no work order forms regarding rooms [ROOM NUMBER] window blinds were found. When interviewed on 6/26/25 at 12:31 p.m., nursing assistant (NA)-A stated maintenance request slips needed to be filled out when anything was broken. NA-A stated there was a lot of blinds that were broken, this was a privacy concern. When interviewed on 6/26/25 at 12:38 p.m., registered nurse (RN)-D stated maintenance forms for broken blinds or anything that needed to be repaired or replaced was to be filled out right away. Broken blinds created a privacy concern. When interviewed on 6/26/25 at 12:40 p.m., care coordinator (CC)-A stated there was a lot of broken window blinds in the building which created a privacy concern for the residents especially during cares. Shower rooms On 6/23/25 at 12:51 p.m., the shower room on Evergreen unit was observed, there was an electric heater on the wall. The grate covering the heating element had red/brown substance with a red/brown substance along the bottom edge of the casing. There was green and white tiles in the first half of the room where the toilet and sink were located, along the three walls there was a thick black substance where the floor and wall met. In the shower stall the tile where the wall and floor met there was thick black substance around the perimeter of the shower stall with a brown substance extended up the wall tiles about one and half inches. On the half wall, separating the toilet are from the shower stall, there was one tile on the lower portion of the wall missing which exposed the bare wall underneath to water. On the floor between the half wall and the outer wall there was a long brown tile, there was a black and brown substance extending from the brown tile into the shower stall about one and a half inches. On 6/23/25 at 3:05 p.m., Shower room E-2 was observed. The toilet was noted to have a black ring at the level of the water. Where the silver colored flush system connects to the toilet had a slimy black substance around the edge. On the tile surrounding the toilet, was a thick dark brown substance that extended from the toilet about one and half inches across the tile. At the edge of the shower stall there were four tiles missing from the bottom edge, which exposed the bare wall underneath to water. There were four tiles inside the shower stall that were cracked. Around the perimeter of the shower stall there was a black substance where the tiles of the wall met the tiles of the floor. On the floor surface extending from the wall under the shower head into the shower about 4 inches was a slimy orange/yellow substance. The light fixture above the sink contained a reddish/brown substance on all metal surfaces of the fixture. On 6/24/25 at 2:15 p.m., memory care shower room was observed. The toilet was noted to have a black ring at the level of the water. On the wall to the right of shower head the lower eight tiles were cracked. On the wall across from the opening into the shower stall there were five cracked tiles. On the floor from where it meets the wall there was a brownish orange substance extended about six inches across the floor and about four inches up the wall. Across from the shower stall opening, about twelve inches up the wall, was a brown substance smeared across four tiles. On 6/26/25 at 10:22 a.m., the brown substance smeared on the wall in memory care shower room continued to be on the wall. When interviewed on 6/26/25 at 12:25 p.m., trained medication aid (TMA)-A stated housekeeping cleaned the shower rooms daily, they were also sprayed with disinfectant after each use for cleanliness and infection control. When interviewed on 6/26/25 at 12:31 p.m., nursing assistant (NA)-A stated housekeeping cleaned the shower rooms, nursing assistants did not clean the shower rooms. When interviewed on 6/26/25 at 12:38 p.m., registered nurse (RN)-D stated shower rooms were cleaned daily by housekeeping, The showers should be sprayed with disinfectant after every use by the nursing assistants. When interviewed on 6/26/25 at 12:40 p.m., care coordinator (CC)-A stated she was not sure how often the shower rooms had been cleaned, she had wondered about the black stuff in the shower and was not sure if that was stains or mold. On 6/26/25 at 2:03 p.m., a tour was completed with the Environmental Service Director (ESD). Upon reviewing shower rooms ESD stated shower rooms were cleaned daily. ESD verified there were tiles that needed to be replaced, ESD had tried several chemicals on the mold. ESD verified there were many rooms with broken blinds which needed to be replaced, room audits were completed monthly. Facility policy Clean Living Environment dated 1/2024 indicated broken blinds would be repaired or replaced by maintenance and would be audited on a rotating basis. In addition the policy indicated overbed tables, door knobs, night stand, dresser and bed rail surfaces would be cleaned by housekeeping; floors, under beds and bathrooms would be wet-mopped; mirrors, sinks, toilets and walls would be cleaned and disinfected to avoid the spread of disease. However, the policy did not address shower rooms. R47 R47's quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated [DATE], identified R47 had intact cognition and required assistance with all activities of daily living (ADL)'s. R47's diagnoses included alcoholic cirrhosis of liver without ascites (severe, irreversible liver disease caused by long-term, excessive alcohol consumption), hypertension (high blood pressure), renal failure (occurs when the kidneys lose their ability to adequately filter waste and excess fluids from the blood), hepatic encephalopathy (brain dysfunction that can occur in people with severe liver disease) and fibromyalgia (chronic disorder characterized by wide-spread musculoskeletal pain, fatigue, sleep disturbances, and cognitive difficulties). During review on 6/26/25, Missing Items Log indicated 8/29/24 - resident is missing Cologne with large cosmetic spray, six [6] pairs of leggings, 12 pairs of small socks, new jar of coconut oil, four [4] bras, two [2] pairs of diamond earrings and a double garbage bag of other personal items - unknown if items were found. During interview on 6/24/25 at 3:43 p.m., R47 stated she had multiple different items that had gone missing such as a wallet, jewelry, socks, bras, leggings, perfume and a bag with a lot of miscellaneous items in it that were sitting on her bed. R47 stated she informed multiple staff of missing items and had not heard anything regarding the missing items. R47 stated the items had been missing for approximately nine months and had not been found yet. During interview on 6/25/25 at 12:46 p.m., registered nurse (RN)-F stated R47 reported missing items to several staff throughout the last several months. RN-F stated when an item is reported missing, she would go and look for the missing item, would tell the supervisor and complete a missing items form. During interview on 6/26/25 at 4:07 p.m., licensed practical nurse care coordinator (LPN)-A stated when a missing item was reported, room and laundry are searched. If item was unable to be located a missing items report was completed and given to the receptionist who would make copies for each department. LPN-A stated she was not aware if R47's items were located or not. During interview on 6/26/25 at 4:22 p.m., social worker (SW)-A stated if an item was reported as missing a missing item form should be completed. The missing items would be discussed at our morning meeting; a room search would be completed and most recently SW-A started to email the laundry person to see if they have found the missing item. During interview on 6/26/25 at 4:29 p.m., social services assistant (SS)-B stated she had been responsible for the missing items reports for approximately the past year and was not aware that she had to track the missing items, follow-up and resolutions. SS-B stated she was not aware if R47's items were located. The facility Missing Items policy, undated, identified it was the policy of Crest View Lutheran Home to assist the resident in retaining and using personal possessions that space and safety permit. If an item(s) becomes missing, a thorough investigation will be conducted in attempt to recover the missing item(s). We will make every attempt to assure that possessions are not lost, misplaced or stolen. 1. Residents and families/resident representative are strongly encouraged to keep cash in the Resident Trust Account, in their personal bank account, or at home with the resident until needed. Personal items that are of value (i.e. family heirlooms, jewelry, etc.) are not recommended.2. When a resident/resident representative report a missing item, representative and/or the staff person who identifies missing item will complete a Priority Report for the missing items. 3. All Missing Items form will be turned into the Reception Desk in order for copies to be made, and for appropriate parties to receive the report.4. If there has been identified deliberate misplacement, exploitation, or wrongful, temporary, or permanent use of a resident's belongings or money without the resident's consent immediately report to the nursing supervisor. The Nursing Supervisor will notify the Administrator, or designee. 5. Cash and/or items of a higher value (exceeding $20) will be reported to the business office and residents will be encouraged to make a police report to the local police department. The Administrator or designee will be immediately notified of missing items and if theft or misappropriation is determined or alleged, a report to the Office of Health Facility Complaints (OHFC) will be made.6. A copy of the report should be routed to the respective staff listed on the form.7. The Director of Social Services or the designee will work with the resident, and others, to investigate the missing item. The form will be updated with notes from the investigation.8. The Director of Social Services or designee will follow-up with the resident and the resident representative by day 14 of initial Priority Report was made. If the item is found, the word FOUND will be written on the form with date and routed back to those who received the initial report. Some items may be replaced, or refunds may be given if staff error led to the items becoming missing.9. A log of missing items will be kept on the Share Drive, along with investigative notes and updates. 10. Missing items will be discussed between an interdisciplinary team at standing morning meetings on Monday-Friday to discuss updates and investigative findings.Crest View Lutheran Home is not liable for replacement or replacement cost of all lost items.
CONCERN (E)

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

Deficiency F0761 (Tag F0761)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

Based on observation, interview and document review, the facility failed to assure medications were properly labeled with the correct dose for 1 of 1 resident, (R20), who received a liquid medication ...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, interview and document review, the facility failed to assure medications were properly labeled with the correct dose for 1 of 1 resident, (R20), who received a liquid medication during observation of medication administration. The facility also failed to assure over the counter (OTC) medications were dated when opened in 2 of 3 medication carts reviewed. The facility also failed to consistently date, and/or remove inhalers which were beyond the dates of recommended use, in 1 of 3 medication carts. In addition, the facility failed to remove vaccines which had either an illegible label, or lacked a label, in 2 of 2 medication rooms reviewed. Findings include: Labeling Error: During observation of medication pass on 6/25/25 at 12:17 p.m., trained medication aide, (TMA)-A, was observed as he set up medications for R20. TMA drew Haldol medication up to the 1 (one) mg (milligram) marker on the medication dropper twice. TMA-A stated R20 received 2 (two) mg twice daily, as directed on the medication administration record (MAR), with a dose of 3 (three) mg at bedtime. Upon review of the label on the medication bottle, it identified the dosage of Haldol was 2 mg per ml (milliliters). The medication label on the bottle directed staff to give 1.5 ml (3 mg) by mouth twice daily, and 1 ml (2 mg) by mouth at bedtime. Upon noting the discrepancy between label and amount prepared, TMA was stopped to seek clarification. On 6/25/25, at 12:26 p.m. clinical coordinator (CC)-A was consulted and stated she would follow up on this and seek clarification of orders. It was also noted there was a new bottle of Haldol in the drawer, dispensed by the pharmacy on 6/9/25, which reflected the same instructions as were reflected on the current bottle. TMA-A stated typically, when there was a change of orders, there was a sticker applied to the label which identified Direction change. See MAR [medication administration record]. TMA-A stated subsequent medications dispensed would then have the correct label from the pharmacy. The current medication had no sticker applied to the label to indicate a change in orders. TMA-A stated he was unsure if anyone had called the pharmacy to clarify. On 6/25/25 at 12:37 p.m., CC-A stated upon review of orders for Haldol, it was noted the orders listed on the MAR were correct. CC-A stated R20's medical record identified the dose of Haldol was decreased to 2 mg in the morning and was increased to 3 mg at bedtime on April 25, 2024. CC-A stated when a new order was received, it was faxed to the pharmacy. If there were remaining medication left, a direction change sticker would be applied to the medication for continued use. Subsequent refills would bear the correct instructions. CC-A stated when a discrepancy was noted during med pass, upon clarification of the order, a sticker should be applied to the medication. CC-A stated either the new order for R20's Haldol was not faxed, or the pharmacy had not followed through. CC-A stated follow through was important to assure the correct dosage of medication was given. CC-A stated this discrepancy should have been noted previously, as this had occurred greater than one year ago. TMA-A stated when he noted a discrepancy, he asked the nurse to check into this. If the label was not correct, he or the nurse would put a direction change sticker on it. The nurse would notify the pharmacy. TMA-A stated I should have caught this. It shouldn't have been that long. TMA-A stated when there were discrepancies, the resident could have been given the wrong dose. Medication Room Observation/Storage/Unlabeled Vaccines: On 6/26/25 at 1:56 p.m., an observation was completed with registered nurse (RN)-B in the memory care unit. The refrigerator was inspected and was noted to contain an plastic bag with an illegible name noted on the label, the date dispensed was illegible, with vials of Arexvy (a vaccine for the RSV-respiratory syncytial virus) in it. RN-B stated he was unsure of who this person was, and stated the vaccine would not be used and should have been removed. On 6/26/25 at 2:39 p.m., the clinical coordinator (CC)-A stated this was an RSV dose for R500, who had been discharged in 4/7/25. R500 was scheduled to receive the RSV vaccine on 4/11/25. CC-A stated R500 was no longer a resident and this vaccine should have been removed from the refrigerator. On 6/26/25 at 3:10 p.m., upon review of the medication refrigerator on the transitional care unit (TCU), it was noted there was one unlabeled vaccine package of RSV vaccine. RN-D stated she was unsure as to who this belonged to and stated it should not have been in the refrigerator. On 6/26/25 at 3:46 p.m., CC-A stated the unlabeled dose of RSV should have been removed from the medication refrigerator and destroyed. Dating of medications: On 6/26/25 at 3:16 p.m., the medication cart on TCU was reviewed in the presence of registered nurse (RN)-A. During this review, the following over the counter (OTC) medications were opened but not dated:- Daily Vitamins, one bottle which contained 100 tablets, had at least 50 tablets left as estimated by registered nurse (RN)-A.- Banophen (diphenhydramine) 25 mg (milligram-a unit of measurement) one bottle which contained 100 tablets as estimated by RN-A as having approximately 75 or greater remaining.- Ibuprofen 200 mg one bottle, which contained 100 tablets, as estimated by RN-A as having approximately 80 tablets or greater remaining.- Acetaminophen 325 mg, one bottle which contained 1000 tablets was estimated by RN-A as having approximately 800 tablets remaining. The following inhalers were noted to lack indication as to when they were opened or lacked the date as to when they were to be disposed of per the directions on the label from the manufacturer.R37: Trelegy Ellipta, opened 4/19/25, was noted to have instructions on the manufacturer label to dispose of after six weeks. This was nine weeks and five days after being opened. RN-A stated this was no longer OK to use. R37 was noted to have a second inhaler Anora Ellipta which had been opened 12/20/24. This was greater than six months since opened. RN-A stated this was outdated and should not be used. R39 was noted to have an Ellipta inhaler with eight doses remaining which was undated. RN-A stated the medications which had passed the expiration date established should not be used as they may not be as effective. On 6/26/25 at 3:16 p.m., upon review of the medication cart with TMA-B on the long-term care unit, the following OTC medications were observed to be opened however, lacked a date to indicate when it was opened: Acetaminophen 325 mg, one bottle with 1000 tablets originally dispensed, contained greater than 50% of the bottle as estimated by TMA-B. Acetaminophen 500 mg, one bottle with 1000 tabs dispensed contained greater than 50% of the bottle (approximately 500 or more tablets) as estimated by TMA-B. When asked why an open date was important, TMA-B declined comment. On 6/26/25 at 3:46 p.m., CC-A stated all the OTC medications should have been dated the day they were opened. CC-A stated if the bottles had not been dated, the bottles were to be removed when identified and destroyed. CC-A stated it was important to date the bottles to assure they were not being used beyond the allowed date. CC-A stated the allowed date was not always the same as the manufacturer's expiration date. CC-A stated the staff were to be aware of this with the use of the reference sheet in each med cart, which identified the time frame the medications can be used once opened. CC-A stated all inhalers were to be dated to ensure the inhaler was not used beyond the recommended date of manufacturers. CC-A stated use beyond the could affect the efficacy of the medication. The facility policy, Medication Administration, revised 3/23, identified the medication was to be administered to residents as prescribed by the physician. The policy lacked indication as to how staff was to proceed if there was a discrepancy in the medication label, and the directions on the medication administration record. The facility policy, titled Medication Record, revised 11/24 identified As a physician changes/discontinues a medication, the licensed nurse enters the change on the Medication Record. The policy lacked direction to staff as to what was to be done with current supply of medication if there was a change of dosing. Upon review of both policies, it was noted they lacked direction to staff as to the process for dating of over the counter medications when opened, as well as a process for dating of inhalers and eye drops to indicate date opened, and last date of use allowed. The facility policy, Omnicare Medication Storage Guidance, dated 2024, indicated the above listed inhalers may be used for a period of six weeks only, as recommended by the manufacturer, and may not be used after that date.
CONCERN (E)

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** Based on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to provide a homelike environment for dining, assuring 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 provide a homelike environment for dining, assuring food was offered to residents and assistance was received as needed in a timely manner. This had the potential to affect all 18 residents served in the memory care dining room. Findings include: R5's quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) of 5/8/25, indicated R5 had impaired cognition and was dependent on staff for eating. R9's quarterly MDS of 5/19/25, indicated R9 had impaired cognition, and although R9 required set up for meals, R9 was identified as able to complete eating once set up. R21's annual MDS of 4/30/25, indicated R21 had impaired cognition and required set up for meals. Resident was noted to complete the activity. R25's quarterly MDS of 5/13/25, indicated R25 had impaired cognition and required moderate assist with eating. R36's quarterly MDS of 3/28/25, indicated R36 had impaired cognition and required maximal assistance with eating. R41's annual MDS of 3/21/25, indicated R41 had impaired cognition, and required set up for meals. Resident was noted to complete the activity. R42's annual MDS of 3/31/25, indicated R42 had impaired cognition and required supervision or touching assistance with eating, however, when provided with verbal cues, or touching/steadying assistance, as R42 was able to participate in eating. R48's quarterly MDS assessment of 6/2/25, indicated R48 had impaired cognition and required supervision or touching assistance with eating. R48 required set up for meals, however, with supervision or hands on assist, R48 was able to participate in eating. R72's quarterly MDS dated [DATE] identified R72 had impaired cognition and was dependent of staff for assistance with activities of daily living (ADL's), including eating.R74's significant change assessment MDS of 3/4/25, indicated R74 had impaired cognition and required set up for meals. Resident was noted to complete the activity. R283's admission MDS of 6/3/25, indicated R283 had impaired cognition and required set up for meals. Resident was noted to complete the activity. R284's admission MDS of 6/10/25, indicated R284 had impaired cognition and required supervision or touching assistance with eating. This identified R42 required verbal cues, or touching/steadying assistance while eating. On 6/23/25 at 11:20 a.m., it was noted the dining room in memory care was currently serving noon meal. Nursing assistant (NA)-C was the only staff member in the dining room. Covered plates were placed in front of R5, R48, and R72 without assistance provided to remove the domes from the plates, set up for eating, or being given assistance to eat. The remainder of the residents in the dining room had received assistance to remove the domes from the plates, and the plates were set up in front of them. It was noted at that time, the following domed plates were placed for residents who were not in the dining room, which included R41, R74, R283, and R284. On 6/23/25 at 11:26 a.m., R5 and R25 were observed to have their plates uncovered, and in front of them, however, had been offered no assistance or prompts. On 6/23/25 at 11:29 a.m., R283 arrived in dining room and plate was uncovered. R283 was offered a beverage and was set up for her meal. R283 proceeded to eat independently. All other domed/covered plates remain in place for R41, R74, and R284.On 6/23/25 at 11:31 a.m., registered nurse (RN)-G arrived in the dining room. At that time, the cover was removed from the plate placed in front of R48 (18 minutes from the time first observed) however, RN-G did not provide assistance immediately. At 11:33 a.m. NA-C directed RN-G to provide assistance to R48 to eat. RN-G noted there was no silverware in place and left to get silverware. RN-G returned at 11:37 a.m. (four minutes after going to get silverware, six minutes after plate was prepped, and 26 minutes after plate was observed to be served in front of resident). RN-G was observed seated next to R48, who was sitting with her eyes closed, not eating. On 6/23/25 at 11:34 a.m., NA-C was observed as she aided R72. At 11:35 a.m., NA-C provided verbal prompts across the room to have R25 start eating. This was eight minutes after plate had been observed to have been set up. NA-C did not go to R25, or provide any additional prompts. At 11:40 a.m., without further prompts, R25 started to take some bites on her own. On 6/23/25 11:38 a.m., NA-J entered to speak with RN-G, and then stayed to assist R48 when RN-G left the dining room. On 6/23/25 at 11:40 a.m., NA-C provided verbal prompts, from the table where she was seated, to R42 to eat her lunch. On 6/23/25 at 11:41 a.m., stated to R72 that she had completed her meal. On 6/23/25 at 11:42 a.m., NA-C sat down next to R36, who was seated across from R21. NA-C provided hands on assist to R36 to eat her meal. This was 21 minutes after plate was initially set up. R21 was provided with verbal cues to eat her meal. On 6/23/25 at 11:47 a.m., R9 called out Am I supposed to starve? R9's plate was noted in front of her, however, she received no assistance or prompts. On 6/23/25 at 11:47 a.m., NA-K entered the dining room, however, did not offer assistance to any residents.On 6/23/25 at 11:49 a.m., it was also noted at this time, the following trays remained at the table without residents present: R41, R74, and R284. On 6/23/25 at 11:52 a.m., NA-K offered R25 assistance with her meal. On 6/23/25 at 11:52 a.m., R74 was sought out from the day room and was guided to the dining room. This was 32 minutes after domed plate was placed at her spot in the dining. R74 was set up for dining. R41 and R284 had not yet been assisted or guided to the dining room for noon meal. On 6/23/25 at 11:56 a.m., NA-K continued to provide R25 assistance with her meal. On 6/23/25 at 12:02 p.m., NA-J stated he was unsure where R41 was, however, R284 was in bed. NA-J stated they would put the plates in the refrigerator and heat the meal up later when R284 wished to eat.On 6/23/25 at 12:08 p.m., NA-C stated we are done with lunch. The trays for R41 and R284 remained in place on the tables. On 6/26/25 at 1:41 p.m., NA-C stated overall the dining room services went well. NA-C stated at times it is more difficult if the pool staff are there as they don't know what the residents need. NA-C stated the staff went around and assisted the residents who needed help. They managed with the staff they had, adding sometimes the nurses came to help. NA-C stated they reached out to nurses for assistance if help was needed. On 6/26/25 at 2:00 p.m., registered nurse (RN)-B stated staff began to serve trays on their arrival. RN-B stated he was available to help in the dining room if asked. If the dining room was in need of assistance, the staff were to communicate this to him, and he would go and assistance. RN-B stated the problem was there were three staff, there are four if he was included. RN-B stated Maybe we rearrange the sitting so staff could assist if needed. At least they feed two. RN-B stated some times it was disruptive to a resident if others were seated at the same table. RN-B stated it was of concern if assistance was disrupted when staff left the dining room to assist others, and left the residents without assistance. RN-B stated it was also a concern if the food was placed in front of the residents, and assistance was needed but not provided. On 6/26/25 at 2:22 p.m., NA-D stated the dining room was very busy. NA-D stated when she just sat down with one resident, others were not being helped. NA-D stated that was why she moved between the residents and provided assistance as needed. NA-D stated all nursing assistants needed to move between the residents as well to provide assistance as needed. The facility policy, Assistance with Feeding, revised 11/18, identified the facility policy was to ensure that any resident who needed assistance with feeding received the help in a safe and dignified way. The policy directed staff when they provided assistance during feeding (dining), staff were to be engaged, enthusiastic, and communicable with residents to promote a dignified and enjoyable experience. The facility policy, Activities of Daily Living (ADL), last revised 11/23, identified resident's unable to carry out ADL's independently would receive the services necessary to maintain good nutrition. The policy directed staff that assistance with resident nutrition included dining (both meals and snacks). The facility policy, Food-Serving of, revised 4/24 indicated the purpose of the service [of food] was to serve well balanced, attractive meals to residents, and was to provide adequate nutrition for the well-being of residents. The policy directed the staff to make resident comfortable, assist the resident willingly if she/he required help, and staff were directed to not rush the resident. The staff were directed to make sure that hot foods are hot, and cold foods are cold.
CONCERN (E)

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

Food Safety (Tag F0812)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

Based on observation, interview and document review the facility failed to appropriately store nutritional supplements in two of two medication rooms reviewed during medication room storage observatio...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, interview and document review the facility failed to appropriately store nutritional supplements in two of two medication rooms reviewed during medication room storage observation. This had the potential to impact all residents who routinely received, or may received nutritional supplements on those units. In addition, the facility failed to ensure the ice machine was in good repair. This had the potential to affect residents, staff and visitors who obtained ice from the kitchen. Findings include: On 6/26/25 at 1:56 p.m., an observation was completed with registered nurse (RN)-B in the memory care unit medication room. The following boxes of nutritional supplements were being stored on the floor: An open box of Breeze (a nutritional supplement) with 5 boxes of supplement remaining. One case of 24 boxes of Boost nutritional supplements which were unopened. There were two boxes of Ensure Plus which contained 24 boxes of nutritional supplement when unopened. There was one unopened box, and an additional box of 20 containers. RN-B stated the supplements were placed there when they were delivered to the unit. RN-B identified an open space in the cupboard below the sink where the supplements could be stored. RN-B stated he was unaware items could not be kept on the floor for storage. On 6/26/25 at 2:39 p.m., the clinical coordinator (CC)-A stated nutritional supplements were currently being kept on the floor of the transitional care unit (TCU) medication room. CC-A was unaware nutritional supplements were also on the floor of the medication room in the memory care unit. CC-A stated nutritional supplements had also been stored in the dining room of the TCU, however, the supplements needed to be kept in a locked cupboard as some residents would take them from the refrigerator. CC-A stated the cupboard lock was broken, so now all supplements were stored in the medication room on the floor. CC-A stated she was unaware items could not be stored on the floor. On 6/26/25 at 3:10 p.m., upon review of the TCU medication unit, it was noted there were nutritional supplements currently being stored on the floor. RN-D stated the count of the boxes of nutritional supplements were as follows: Ensure Plus, 24 count per case, seven full cases. Boost Nutritional Supplement, 24 count per case, two full cases. Breeze Nutritional Supplement, one case of 24 count per case.RN-D stated this was where the supplements were normally kept. RN-D noted there was space on the metal storage shelves in the medication room if some items were moved to make room for the supplements. RN-D stated she was unaware nutritional supplements could not be stored on the floor. A facility policy was requested for storage of nutritional supplements, however, none was received. Ice MachineOn 6/23/25 at 11:18 a.m., during initial kitchen tour observed ice machine, there were two areas measuring one inch by one inch missing black plastic of the surface of the door. In these areas there was firm, yellow insulation with about a quarter of an inch area that was worn down. The left side area had a brown, yellow substance on the firm yellow insulation along the broken edge of the plastic. On 6/25/25 at 11:47 a.m., dietary director (DD) stated she had never noticed there was worn area on the ice machine door. DD stated the worn areas on the door was not able to be appropriately cleaned or disinfected. this was a concern for infection control and particles could get into the ice. Environmental service director (ESD) entered the kitchen, DD showed ESD ice machine door who directed DD to call the repair person as anything he had would not be appropriate to repair the door. On 6/26/25 at 10:42 a.m., reviewed maintenance/housekeeping work order forms from 8/14/24 through 6/25/25, no work order forms regarding the ice machine door was found. Facility policy for ice machine maintenance was requested and was not received.
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 observation, interview and document review, the facility failed to ensure the kitchen was kept clean, sanitary and in good repair which had the potential to affect all residents, staff and vi...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, interview and document review, the facility failed to ensure the kitchen was kept clean, sanitary and in good repair which had the potential to affect all residents, staff and visitors who received meals from the kitchen.Findings include:During observation of the kitchen and interview on 6/25/25 at 12:18 p.m., dietary director (DD) noted the floor next to the dishwasher had six tiles with corners missing, the grout between four additional tiles was also missing. On the surface where there had been tile and grout there was a green substance on the subfloor. DD stated, yep, there's missing chunks, missing grout and green stuff. DD then stated, watch this, grabbed dish sprayer, soaked down the floor filled the areas where there as missing tile chunks and grout with water stating, see it doesn't look like that anymore, we mop twice a day so it won't look like that later. DD stated this was a cleaning concern and was potential for bacteria to grow. During observation on 6/26/25 at 7:23 a.m., the floor in dishwashing area continued to have missing tile chunks, missing grout and green substance it area where tile and grout had once been. On 6/26/25 at 10:42 a.m., reviewed maintenance/housekeeping work order forms from 8/14/24 through 6/25/25, no work order forms regarding kitchen floor tiles was found. A facility policy and/or procedure on kitchen cleaning and maintenance was requested, however, none was provided.
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 F0924 (Tag F0924)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** During observation and interview, the facility failed to ensure hand rails were securely attached to the wall. This had the pote...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** During observation and interview, the facility failed to ensure hand rails were securely attached to the wall. This had the potential to affect all residents, staff, and visitors who had access to the handrails.Findings include: During observation on 6/25/25 at 5:53 p.m., handrail between rooms [ROOM NUMBERS] was loose, the handrail was not attached to the second bracket from room [ROOM NUMBER]. The handrail between rooms [ROOM NUMBERS] was loose. The handrail outside of the dining room by the men's restroom was observed to be loose. On 6/26/25 at 2:03 p.m., a tour was completed with the Environmental Service Director (ESD). ESD stated when staff identified areas of concern, there were forms to be filled out and placed into designated boxes. ESD stated the department depended on staff to notify them of needed repairs. ESD stated the maintenance staff were mindful of watching for needed repairs, however, this was a joint effort.On 6/26/25 at 10:42 a.m., reviewed maintenance/housekeeping work order forms from 8/14/24 through 6/25/25, no work order forms regarding handrails was found. A facility policy and/or procedure on handrails was requested, however, none was provided.
CONCERN (F) 📢 Someone Reported This

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

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

Infection Control (Tag F0880)

Could have caused harm · This affected most or all residents

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview and document review, the facility failed to consistently perform hand hygiene with change of glo...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview and document review, the facility failed to consistently perform hand hygiene with change of gloves while performing blood glucose monitoring. Additionally, the facility failed to clean the community glucose monitor after use. This had the potential to affect any of the 14 residents on the memory care unit who may require blood glucose checks, either routine or emergent. Further, the facility failed to ensure soiled personal laundry and linens were bagged (i.e., contained) at the point-of-use and transported in a manner to reduce the risk of cross-contamination and potential infectious spread in 1 of 1 main washrooms (Evergreen and Willow) and 1 of 1 units (Aspen and [NAME]) reviewed. In addition, the facility failed to properly handle and store clean laundry and linens. This had potential to affect all 78 residents within the care center. Findings include: On 6/24/25 at 3:54 p.m., an observation was completed of medication pass on the memory care unit. During this observation, registered nurse (RN)-E was observed as she performed a blood glucose scan (a test to see how residents current blood sugar was). RN-D applied gloves prior to getting the glucometer (machine which tests and reads blood sugars) out of the medication cart. RN-E then removed a test strip from the bottle and placed it into the machine and proceeded to R283's room to check blood sugar. RN-E cleansed R283's finger with alcohol before sticking R283's finger for a blood drop and blood sugar reading was obtained. RN-E returned to the medication cart with gloves on and placed glucometer on the top of the medication cart, placing nothing between the machine and the medication cart. RN-E proceeded to removed and disposed of test strip from the machine. RN-E then returned the blood glucose monitor to the medication cart, and placed it on top of case it had been stored in without cleaning or disinfecting the machine. RN-E removed soiled gloves without performing hand hygiene with alcohol or washing hands with soap and water. On 6/24/25, at 3:56 p.m., RN-E stated R283 required insulin based on glucose reading. RN-E opened cart to retrieve insulin pen, grabbed a clean pair of gloves without performing hand hygiene, and proceeded to go to the computer behind the desk to verify order. RN-E proceeded to R283's room, put on clean gloves, verified with resident need for insulin and administered insulin. Following insulin administration, RN-E returned to medication cart, removed gloves, and again, failed to perform hand hygiene. RN-E then proceeded to document administration of insulin in the computer. RN-E stated she should have performed hand hygiene before applying gloves to obtain blood sugar, when she removed gloves after placing glucometer in the cart, and before she proceeded to obtain insulin or accessed the computer. RN-E stated she should have performed hand hygiene before applying clean gloves and again after insulin was administered and gloves were removed. RN-E stated hand washing was an acceptable alternative to hand hygiene. RN-E stated she had not disinfected the glucometer prior to placing the glucometer into the medication cart as she normally cleaned the glucometer at the end of the shift. RN-E stated R283 is the only diabetic who receives blood sugar checks on the memory care unit. RN-E then went on to say she tried to clean it immediately after having checked blood sugars, however, as the evening meal was here, she needed to get the insulin to R283, as well as proceed to the dining room to assist with service. RN-E stated the glucometer is wiped with disinfectant wipes to clean. RN-E stated if she needed to leave early, she would assure the oncoming staff were aware to clean the glucometer. RN-E stated it was important to clean the glucometer to sanitize it. On 6/26/25, at 1:22 p.m. an interview was completed with the infection control (IC) nurse, who was also the assistant director of nursing (ADON). The IC/ADON stated it was her expectation that each unit had two glucometers on each medication cart and cleaned them before each use. IC/ADON stated they could alternate glucometers for use with two glucometers. IC/ADON stated staff were to use disinfectant wipes, and go by contact time per recommendations of wipes. IC/ADON stated it was important to sanitize the glucometers to kill any bloodborne pathogens or germs on the glucometer. A facility policy, Blood Glucose Monitoring Infection Control, identified as being revised 2023, indicated it was the facility policy that glucometer units were disinfected after use. The policy further states blood glucose meters are to be cleaned and disinfected after every use, per manufacturer's instructions, to prevent carry-over of blood and infectious agents. The facility policy, Hand Washing, revised 3/23 identified to prevent the spread of infections, handwashing must be practiced by all individuals in contact with patients and patient's environments. The policy identified that hand washing/hand sanitizing must be done before performing invasive procedures, after removing gloves, after touching anything which might have been contaminated with blood or bodily fluids, and also before and after providing personal cares for a resident. Laundry On 6/26/25 at 10:34 a.m., the campus' main laundry washroom (downstairs) was toured with housekeeper (HSK)-A present. HSK-A explained they were the primary person who completed laundry for the care center. HSK-A stated downstairs laundry room was used to process laundry from the Evergreen and [NAME] units. The soiled linen receiving area was located on one end of the room with the washers and dryers on the opposite end of room however, in the walking path between these areas were a series of mobile, clothing racks with clean clothes hanging. Two clothing racks that contained clean clothing, were up against the wall with one rack being covered and the other one not covered. On the other side of the walking path was a mobile cart that contained clean clothing on hangers draped over the top of the cart uncovered. HSK-A stated soiled clothing are put in the laundry bin by the entrance of the laundry area by staff. HSK-A stated she would apply a gown and gloves and would sort the clothing in the bin area and would then carry the soiled clothing across the room to the washer, soiled laundry would be unbagged. HSK-A stated when clothes were finished in the dryer, she would place them in clean garbage bags until she could sort and hang them. Three clear garbage bags, each full of clean resident clothing, were sitting on the floor. Two boxes of clean, each full of clean folded bedding, were sitting on the floor along the wall. HSK-A verified the items were not bagged when transporting from the dirty area to the washer and expressed they probably should have been prior to transport as she was walking past clean clothing. HSK-A also verified the garbage bags of clean clothing and bedding in boxes were placed on the floor and stated they probably should not be on the floor due to infection control. On 6/26/25 at 10:44 a.m., a tour of the upstairs laundry unit, that processed laundry from the Aspen and [NAME] units, was completed. The soiled utility room was opened with HSK-A present. Inside was a clothing rack on one side which had clean clothing hanging covered with a sheet and on the other side of room consisted of two sets of stackable washers and dryers and a small cupboard that had a sink and counter space. Area between each side was approximately four feet. HSK-A stated she would bring in soiled laundry, in bags, and place bags on the floor in front of washer to sort and would then place the soiled clothing in the washers. HSK-A stated when clothes were finished in the dryer, she would place the clean clothing on the counter next to the sink to sort and hang on the clothing rack. HSK-A stated all mechanical lifts slings were laundered onsite and were stored in a small white laundry basket, that contained holes on both sides of basket, on the floor under the counter and also stored in a box that was placed on the floor in the corner of room. During interview on 6/26/25 at 1:23 p.m., assistant director of nursing (ADON) verified she was the campus' infection preventionist (IP). ADON explained they have educated staff through staff meetings about the need to bag soiled items when collected and verified soiled laundry and linens should be bagged prior to transport. This was important to do as staff could spread infections from one place to another. ADON stated she would expect HSK-A to transport soiled clothing in bags from the soiled area to the washer and went on to state clean clothing, bedding or slings should not be placed or stored on the floors as that was an infection control concern. ADON stated clean clothing should not be placed on the countertop in the upstairs laundry room as that area, especially the sink, was a highly contaminated area, and was also an infection control concern. A facility Infection Control Program policy, undated, identified the facility would establish a facility-wide system for the prevention, identification, investigation and control of infections of residents, staff and visitors that is based upon facility assessment best practices and regulatory compliance for the goal of quality systems for care. Written standards, policies, and procedures for the Infection Prevention and Control program, include a system for linen handling to prevent the spread of infection to include handling, storing, processing, and transporting linens. A facility policy on soiled laundry handling and transportation was requested but was not received.
MINOR (C)

Minor Issue - procedural, no safety impact

Deficiency F0577 (Tag F0577)

Minor procedural issue · This affected most or all residents

Based on observation, interview and document review, the facility failed to ensure results of complaint investigations were available for review. This had the potential to affect all 78 residents resi...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, interview and document review, the facility failed to ensure results of complaint investigations were available for review. This had the potential to affect all 78 residents residing in the facility, as well as family, visitors, and staff.Findings include:During observation on 6/23/25 at 11:32 a.m., the facility survey results were in a three ring binder labeled Annual Survey Results. The survey results posted included the recertification survey results from the past three recertification surveys however, lacked the 2567's (reports completed by surveyors regarding findings of investigations and the responses by the facility) regarding complaint investigations.A review of Aspen Central Office (ACO-an online computerized federal document site which contains the surveys completed for facilities, including both recertification surveys, and complaint investigation) indicated complaint investigations were completed without citations on the following date following the recertification survey of 4/4/24: 3/6/24. Additionally, complaint investigations were completed and were noted to have citations issued on the following dates: 5/23/24, 7/29/24, and 10/30/24.During interview on 6/26/25 at 3:06 p.m., the administrator stated she was unaware that the requirements for posting of survey results were not met by placement of the corresponding letter from all investigations. A facility policy was requested for posting of survey results, but was not available.
MINOR (C) 📢 Someone Reported This

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

Minor Issue - procedural, no safety impact

Abuse Prevention Policies (Tag F0607)

Minor procedural issue · This affected most or all residents

Based on interview and document review the facility failed to develop a policy, without conflicting information, consistent with federal requirement for reporting allegations of abuse to the state age...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on interview and document review the facility failed to develop a policy, without conflicting information, consistent with federal requirement for reporting allegations of abuse to the state agency immediately but no later than two (2) hours. This deficient practice had the potential to affect all residents in the facility. Finding includes:Review of the facility's Resident Protection Plan policy with a revised date of 2/2023, indicated it is the policy of the facility that reports of mistreatment, neglect, or abuse, including injuries of unknown source, and misappropriation of property are promptly and thoroughly investigated. Allegations of abuse, neglect, exploitation, or mistreatment, including injuries of unknown source and misappropriation of resident property are reported immediately. If the events that cause the allegation involve abuse or result in serious bodily injury the report must be made immediately, and no later than 2 hours after the allegation is made. If the events that cause the allegation do not involve abuse or do not result in serious bodily injury the report must be made immediately, and no later than 24 hours after the allegation is made. Resident Protection Plan policy also indicated it is the policy of the facility that the resident(s) will be protected from the alleged offender(s). If the injury is unexplainable (i.e., fracture), and if the findings of abuse are substantiated (physical, verbal, sexual, financial exploitation), and if there is caregiver neglect (i.e., care plan not followed resulting in resident injury), or if a therapeutic error resulted in injury a report must be made to the Office of Health Facility Complaints immediately, not to exceed 24 hours of the initial findings.During interview on 6/26/25 at 5:53 p.m., administrator stated she would expect staff to report allegations of abuse immediately to her. Administrator stated reports of sexual abuse are to be reported within two hours and everything else are to be reported within 24 hours. Administrator confirmed policy was the most current policy with a date of 2/2023. During interview on 6/26/25 at 6:09 p.m., administrator stated verbal abuse would need to be reported within 24 hours of being made aware of incident.State Operations Manual Appendix PP - (Rev. 229, 4/25/25) included S483.12(c)(1) Ensure that all alleged violations involving abuse, neglect, exploitation or mistreatment, including injuries of unknown source and misappropriation of resident property, are reported immediately, but not later than 2 hours after the allegation is made, if the events that cause the allegation involve abuse or result in serious bodily injury, or not later than 24 hours if the events that cause the allegation do not involve abuse and do not result in serious bodily injury, to the administrator of the facility and to other officials (including to the State Survey Agency and adult protective services where state law provides for jurisdiction in long-term care facilities) in accordance with State law through established procedures.
Oct 2024 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

Deficiency F0745 (Tag F0745)

A resident was harmed · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview, and document review, the facility failed to provide medically related social services of clothi...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview, and document review, the facility failed to provide medically related social services of clothing and shoes for 1 of 1 resident (R1) reviewed for clothing. This resulted in harm when R2 displayed a lack of engagement in social activities and diminished level of participation in social interactions because she felt unable to leave her room due to a lack of proper and adequate clothing and shoes. Findings include: R1's admission Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE], indicated R1 admitted to the facility on [DATE] and had diagnoses including anxiety disorder, depression, alcohol dependence, and acquired absence of left leg below knee. R1 understood others and was able to make herself understood, had mild cognitive impairment, and utilized a wheelchair and limb prosthesis. The MDS identified, it was somewhat important to R1 to choose what clothes to wear, to do her favorite activities, and to go outside to get fresh air when the weather is good. R1's social isolation score was 2, indicating she sometimes felt lonely or isolated from those around her. R1's quarterly MDS dated [DATE], indicated R1 was 48 inches (four feet) tall and weighed 90 pounds. R1's social isolation score was 2, indicating she sometimes felt lonely or isolated from those around her. R1's Social History and Social Service assessment dated [DATE], indicated R2 was historically overall self sufficient and able to manage on her own. R2's physical and functional status was has a left prosthesis at a very young age and right foot is deformed, walked with crutches and has a w/c [wheelchair]. Barriers to discharge were safe to return, needing to get a new wheelchair. The assessment did not identify that R2 lacked clothing and shoes. R1's PHQ-9 Long-Term Care assessment (a diagnostic assessment tool for depression) dated 6/3/24, identified R1 felt down, depressed, or hopeless on two to six days of the 14 day assessment period. R1's life enrichment progress note dated 6/4/24, noted R1 was alert and oriented times three. life enrichment aide (LEA)-A noted R1 had a wheelchair, walker, and she is an amputee, and does have a prosthetic device, but states she has no shoes for her foot. Life enrichment will continue to monitor her progress for the next 90 days. R1's electronic health record (EHR) contained a physician order dated 6/4/24, for R1 to be evaluated and treated by a psychology clinic. R1's progress note dated 6/12/24, indicated a care conference was conducted with R1, therapy staff, nurse supervisor, and a social worker. The note identified R1 had limited finances but did not include any information regarding R1's previously stated need for shoes identified in progress note dated 6/4/24. R1's progress note dated 6/20/24, indicated social services spoke with the manager of the apartment where R1 resided prior to admission who would hold R1's apartment and belongings for thirty days before cleaning it out. Social work was to follow up with resident and speak about vacating the apartment. R1's psychology provider note dated 6/26/24, indicated R1's mood was depressed and anxious. The note included a Clinician's Rating of Severity, a scale to assess the importance of symptoms with regard to clinical need, regulatory systems, and risk management. The severity of R1's symptoms was rated five out of nine on a scale of one to nine (with one indicating little and nine indicating high severity). The note included, she [R1] reports boredom and states that she continues to have loneliness. R1's progress note by the MDS coordinator dated 6/26/24, indicated the writer spoke with R1 about a medical insurance appeals letter and R1 stated would like to start using her prosthesis (with build in shoe), however has a concern about not having a shoe available for the right foot to perform ambulation. Writer notified SS [social services], will notify the rest of the team via email. R1's PHQ-9 Long-Term Care assessment dated [DATE], identified R1 felt down, depressed, or hopeless on two to six days of the 14 day assessment period. R1's record did not specify and/or further assess which symptom (felt down, depressed, or hopeless) R1 had nor potential causes that made R1 feel down, depressed, or hopeless. R1's life enrichment progress note dated 8/30/24, indicated R1 had not attended activities with life enrichment but had accepted one to one visits and there are no concerns at this time. R1's monthly activities attendance calendars dated July through October 2024, noted completion of 11 total one-to-one visits between 6/1/24 and 10/28/24 as follows: - One one-to-one visit in June - Zero one-to-one visits in July - Four one-to-one visits in August - Three one-to-one visits in September - Three one-to-one visits in October R1's psychology provider note dated 9/4/24, indicated R1's mood was depressed and anxious with a Clinician's Rating of Severity symptom severity level of six out of nine. The note included, Time spent in session discussing interventions that she can do to improve her energy level and quality of life. Clinician provided supportive feedback and encouraged her to continue to spend time out of her room as this might be of benefit to her mood. R1's progress note by social services designee (SSD)-A dated 9/5/24, indicated a care conference was conducted with R1, nurse manager, and social worker. The note included resident reported, she doesn't have cloths [sic, clothes]. SW [social work] will look in laundry for donation clothes. R1's PHQ-9 Long-Term Care assessment dated [DATE], identified R1 felt down, depressed, or hopeless on two to six days of the 14 day assessment period. R1's record did not specify and/or further assess which symptom (felt down, depressed, or hopeless) R1 had nor potential causes that made R1 feel down, depressed, or hopeless. R1's psychology provider note dated 9/11/24, indicated R1's mood was depressed and anxious with a Clinician's Rating of Severity symptom severity level of six out of nine. The note included, [R1] states that she continues to have difficulty with a variety of mood concerns with a treatment recommendation/plan to continue current psychological treatment plan and interventions in place. R1's psychology provider note dated 10/2/24, indicated R1's mood was depressed and anxious with a Clinician's Rating of Severity symptom severity level of five out of nine. The note included [R1] states that she continues to feel a decline. She notes confusion, not able to recall things, and a loss of energy . She notes that she thinks that she is sleeping too much during the day. The treatment recommendation/plan was to continue current psychological treatment plan and interventions in place. R1's psychology provider note dated 10/16/24, indicated R1's mood was depressed and anxious with a Clinician's Rating of Severity symptom severity level of six out of nine. The note included, She [R1] reports her mood is 'okay,' and reports her sleep continues to be 'okay' at night. Her energy level presents as low today . She stated her belief is that she is 'getting worse' . Clinician provided supportive feedback and encouraged her to continue to spend time out of her room as this might be of benefit to her mood. The treatment recommendation/plan was to continue current psychological treatment plan and interventions in place. R1's progress notes reviewed between R1's admission date through 10/16/24 did not include identification of any further follow-up regarding her expressed concerns of lack of shoes and clothing. Additionally, even though the psychology provider noted on 6/26/24 identified R1 was lonely and bored, on 9/4/24 encouraged R1 to spend time out of her room, on 9/11/24 noted R1 had difficulty with a variety of mood concerns, on 10/2/24 indicated worsening mood symptoms noting R1 continued to feel a decline, had confusion, loss of energy, and sleeping too much. On 10/16/24 psychology note indicated worsening mood symptoms noting R1 believed she was getting worse. R1's record did include a comprehensive assessment that identified potential reasons why R1 was not coming out of her room and the psychosocial impact. Further it was not evident the facility addressed the psychology providers recommendation to encourage R1 to spend time out of her room. Refer to F679 for additional information. Vulnerable Adult Maltreatment Report dated 10/25/24, indicated the unidentified anonymous reporter (AR) visited R1 the week of 10/13/24. The reporter noted R1 stated she could not go to the dining room because she did not have any clothes and reported she did not have socks, shoes, or slacks. R1 had one to two shirts and typically wore hospital gowns. During an interview on 10/28/24 at 1:23 p.m., AR stated she had visited R1 and R1 indicated she didn't think she could go anywhere because she didn't have appropriate clothing. The AR stated R1 had two shirts the facility had given her, but didn't have socks, slacks, or shoes, and had a coat but it lacked a lining. The AR reported when she visited R1 she was wearing one of the shirts, an oversized button-up shirt over a hospital gown. AR stated the shirt was the same length on R1 as the hospital gown because R1 is super tiny, she is short and on R1 a large shirt would be like a dress. During an observation on 10/28/24 at 11:31 a.m., nursing assistant (NA)-A brought lunch to R1 in her room. R1 was sitting in bed wearing an oversized button-up shirt over a hospital gown with a yellow gripper sock on her right foot. R1 requested beverages from NA-A and provided her with a list, but NA-A did not ask R1 if she wanted to eat outside of her room or encourage her to come out. R1 made an expression of her interest in socializing and speaking with other people stating, It is my job to make a person giggle, but if they laugh that's even [NAME]. During an interview on 10/28/24 at 4:23 p.m., R1 was eating in bed in her room wearing an oversized button-up shirt over a hospital gown with a yellow gripper sock on her right foot. R1 stated she had no clothes and had no clothes because her landlord had thrown them away. She stated she was eating in her room because I can't think of any way of me getting out because I don't have a lot of clothes. I have nothing proper to wear in the lunchroom. R1 indicated the facility had donated some clothes to her, but they did not fit because she was short. R1 stated I would like to try eating in the dining room. During an observation on 10/29/24 at 12:16 p.m., R1 was eating in bed in her room wearing an oversized button-up shirt over a hospital gown with a yellow gripper sock on her right foot. During an interview on 10/29/24 at 12:38 p.m., licensed practical nurse (LPN)-A stated R1 did not go to activities and did not go to the dining room, she always said no, and this was also what staff had reported to her. LPN-A noted she wished all residents would eat in the dining room as it provided more socializing. LPN-A noted she had only seen R1 outside of her room in her wheelchair one time, for physical therapy. During an interview on 10/29/24 at 12:51 p.m., nursing assistant (NA)-A stated she assisted R1 with cares and would clean R1 up and change her hospital gown in the morning. NA-A noted R1 ate meals in her room. During an interview on 10/29/24 at 1:31 p.m., NA-C stated R1 never wanted to come out of her room. NA-C reported she had tried to come to R1 and say 'let's go somewhere together' to get her to come out of her room but when asked if she wants to come out R1 says I have no clothes. NA-C stated two or three weeks ago staff had told the director of nursing (DON) R1 needed clothes when the DON had asked staff if anybody needed clothes to be given out, discussed R1 and DON told the aides everybody should have clothes. NA-C reiterated that R1 never wants to come out and she just wants to stay in her room. During an observation and interview on 10/29/24 at 3:09 p.m., R1 was observed in her bed in her room wearing an oversized button-up shirt over a hospital gown and a yellow gripper sock on her right foot. R1 stated she had some clothing that the facility provided from lost and found, but it was very little, and she did not have any of her own clothing at the facility. R1 stated she had a yellow gripper foot cover, but did not have socks, shoes, or a bra and classified the hospital gown she was wearing as a night gown. R1 noted she needed shoes to be able to use her prosthetic because she needed a shoe for her right foot for balance, a shoe gives me stability and not having shoes has impacted my mobility. R1 indicated the facility had provided her with two shirts, one sweatshirt, and one pair of pants but the pants did not fit appropriately. R1 stated not having clothes makes me not want to go out It is keeping me from wanting to get up and get out . if I looked proper I would love to go out, but I don't want to go out in this, and I don't even know if they allow it. If I were dressed properly, I would enjoy getting out and about. I don't feel my attire is proper. R1 made an expression of hopelessness, stating she felt like she was missing out on things, but had learned to accept whatever there is. R1 recalled mentioning needing clothes to one or two staff members but did not recall who. R1 re-iterated that if I had clothing I was comfortable in, I think I would ask to go to the dining room and ask to go to activities. She believed someone from laundry brought the donated clothes to her room and had noticed clothes in her shared closet but was not sure who they belonged to because no one had spoken to her about them. R1 did not indicate she had any other winter weather clothing apart from one unlined coat. R1 stated she didn't know if she had a social worker, so did not know if they had discussed shoes or clothes with her. R1 showed the surveyor her clean folded clothing which she kept in a plastic bag at the foot of her bed along with other personal belongings. They included one additional button-up shirt, a sweatshirt, and a pair of pants that she indicated was not the correct size. During an interview on 10/29/24 at 3:29 p.m. with the director of social services (DSS) and SSD-A, SSD-A confirmed she wrote a progress note about R1 dated 9/5/24 regarding a care conference. SSD-A stated it was brought up to her that R1 needed clothes, she believed it was nursing staff who informed her, and she went to the laundry department who gave her some donated clothes from the lost and found. SSD-A stated R1 had arrived at the facility without clothing of her own and when she spoke to R1, R1 stated she had no clothing. SSD-A stated, they just gave her basic clothes for now, whatever they can find in the laundry and noted R1 did not have family to call for assistance and R1 was her own responsible party. SSD-A stated laundry provided her with some shirts and pants but she doesn't walk, she's amputated like her foot, so she doesn't need shoes. SSD-A was unable to articulate how she assessed what R1's specific needs were regarding clothing and shoes apart from I just asked her what she needed . I told her 'Oh, will shirts and pants be okay,' she said 'Yes,' so that's how I knew. During an interview on 10/29/24 at 3:29 p.m. with the DSS and SSD-A, the DSS stated if someone needed clothes you could offer a short-term fix like getting things from laundry, but long term we need to ask about finances and if a resident had money to get clothes or had family to assist with getting clothes. The DSS noted social services staff needed to ask R1 what specifically she needs and get her what she needs as soon as we can and find a long-term fix because donated clothes from laundry is a temporary fix, we need to find a long term fix. It is not okay for somebody to not have shoes. The DSS stated R1 should also have a hat, gloves, and a scarf for winter wear. The DSS noted residents needed clothing that meets their needs to feel comfortable, covered, and safe and this could affect mental health . it could affect your socialization, you're not comfortable. The DSS further stated not having adequate comfortable clothing could cause psychosocial harm and it is kind of degrading . like if I was in their shoes I wouldn't like to be walking in a hospital gown . and we don't even know her preferences. The DSS noted sometimes should have followed up and asked if she got the things she needed and if there was anything else she needed. The DSS confirmed R1's progress note dated 6/4/24 from life enrichment identified concerns about have a shoe available for her right foot to perform ambulation and a progress note dated 9/5/24 identified R1 didn't have clothes. The DSS was not sure what had happened after these concerns were noted. The DSS confirmed clothing, including shoes, socks, and bras were a basic need and one pair of pants was not sufficient as dirty clothes could be gone for days while processed by laundry. The DSS confirmed clothing and shoes are a medically related social service and is in our scope, because we help people get the services and things they need to be successful. The DSS confirmed clothing and shoes are important for attaining and maintaining mental and psychosocial health and sometimes your appearance can make you feel a certain type of way. The DSS identified a lack of clothing and shoes could affect a resident by not participating in therapy, self-isolating, I think we would see it across the board affect almost every aspect of their life . I don't know [R1] very well but if she feels like she can't leave her room because of it and she feels uncomfortable, that actually is a problem and is harmful . if I was in her shoes I would not want to be out. During an interview on 10/30/24 at 8:28 a.m., life enrichment aide (LEA)-B stated R1 had not participated in activities and a couple of the times that I talked to her she said it's because she doesn't have any clothes . as far as I know it seemed she wasn't comfortable going to activities in one of the nursing gowns. LEA-B noted being around others in the nursing gown she [R1] didn't feel comfortable. LEA-B stated she gotten R1's clothing sizes and left a note in the mailbox for laundry to find some clothes for her when she became aware of the concern but was not sure when that had occurred. LEA-B confirmed she had continued to see R1 wearing hospital gowns since then and didn't follow up further when she was still wearing them. During an interview on 10/30/24 at 9:32 a.m., R1 noted she loved to crochet and do crafts, but no one had ever offered to do crafts with her in her room. R1 noted she would like to play cards, but no one had ever offered to play games with her in her room and I play solitaire in bed by myself. She stated she may have said no when staff had invited her to attend group activities because she didn't have proper clothing. During an interview on 10/30/24 at 10:02 a.m., trained medication aide (TMA)-A stated R1 always stayed in her room, and she had only seen R1 outside of her room once when someone came to have a meeting with her. TMA-A was not aware of why R1 did not want to come out. During an interview on 10/30/24 at 10:12 a.m., LPN-A stated R1 preferred to stay in her room and would say 'nope' if asked to attend an activity or come to the dining room. LPN-A stated R1 was not very social and I told her you know you should talk to more people, people need to communicate . I would want to be around people. During an interview on 10/30/24 at 11:45 a.m., DON stated R1 doesn't come out of her room a whole lot and I was told she just isn't a very social person. The DON stated she was now aware it was noted in June that R1 had concerns about clothing and shoes, but staff had not told her at the time. The DON stated, adequate clothing and shoes is a basic need and the facility is responsible for meeting that need. The DON identified potential impacts of a lack of adequate clothing and shoes as an impact on dignity, not feeling so good about themselves, psychosocial impact and noted that for a resident with diagnoses of anxiety and depression the potential impact could be higher. The DON confirmed R1 had diagnoses of anxiety and depression. The DON stated if she did not have adequate clothing and shoes I wouldn't feel good about it, I would not be very happy if it was a family member of mine and noted a resident would not feel good about themselves . it may make them feel isolated if that was the reason why they didn't want to come out of their room was because of their clothing. The DON noted isolation could progressively lead to further anxiety and depression. The DON stated if R1 doesn't have shoes to wear her prosthetic and come out of her room it definitely would affect her mood, isolation and it affects her mobility. During an interview on 10/30/24 at 12:41 p.m., R1's primary care provider, nurse practitioner (NP)-A, stated she had never seen R1 outside of her room and assumed she did not eat in the dining room or attend activities. NP-A stated clothing and shoes are basic needs, and she recalled that R1 didn't have any belongings because R1 had mentioned that all her belongings were removed from her apartment. NP-A stated she thought she always saw R1 dressed in a hospital gown. NP-A stated, If the reason someone won't leave their room is because they don't have clothing, if she has stated I'm uncomfortable to leave my room because I don't have these things, I would say it is a priority to have those things. It would have an impact. NP-A noted it could have a negative psychosocial impact, possible increased depression, anxiety, dissatisfaction, it would impair self-esteem . not leave a room for meals or activities could even have a negative cognitive impact in a way because of the lack of stimulation. NP-A noted it could have caused harm and impacted well-being if R1 didn't have clothes and shoes and wasn't comfortable leaving her room because of that. NP-A stated she would feel restricted in the activities she participated in if she did not have adequate and comfortable clothing and stated I don't think the average person would be comfortable attending group activities or dining communally in a hospital gown . I wouldn't be. NP-A noted she was not previously aware of this concern. During a return phone call interview on 11/7/24 at 9:50 a.m., R1's psychology provider, licensed independent clinical social worker (LICSW)-A, confirmed she had been treating R1 over the course of her admission to the facility. LICSW-A stated R1's mood was kind of hit or miss and confirmed she presented as depressed and anxious. LICSW-A noted R1 was having a hard time adjusting to the facility and displayed symptoms including loneliness, boredom, increased confusion, decreased energy, and sleeping too much. LICSW-A noted R1's Clinician's Rating of Severity scores were a scale based on what staff and R1 told her and the clinician's impression. LICSW-A identified R1's scores ranging from five to seven as reflective of R1 not totally doing well. LICSW-A noted R1 was not able to self-soothe effectively and relied on staff to anticipate her needs. LICSW-A identified R1's treatment plan and interventions to include attending activities, talking to others and not bottling feelings up, reaching out to others, and taking medications as prescribed. LICSW-A stated she encouraged R1 to spend time outside of her room, her being around people, and not being alone and recommended this because if she is feeling loneliness or boredom having people around her and eating meals in the dining room, those kind of things might help her. LICSW-A stated the impact on R1 of being isolated and in her room would be a continued decline, more experiencing and expressing being lonely. Her roommate leaves to do things so then she is in her room alone. LICSW-A noted prior to R1's admission to the facility, she lived in a big apartment complex and a lot of people would sit outside or in the common areas and I think she used to do that. LICSW-A believed R1 used to socialize and drink alcohol and believed she missed doing this, though noted R1 was no longer drinking which was a good thing. LICSW-A noted R1 got along well with her roommate and talked to her, and R1 said she wanted to do activities. LICSW-A thought R1 was declining activities when asked by staff because she was usually tired and her energy was low. LICSW-A was unaware of R1's concerns regarding a lack of clothing and shoes and indicated R1 was always in her room when LICSW-A arrived. LICSW-A stated she thought social services staff should get R1 clothing and shoes, and noted the facility needed to work on this. LICWS-A stated if R1 felt she did not have adequate and proper clothing the impact would be R1 continuing to be symptomatic. LICSW-A noted if R1 said she lacked adequate and proper clothing to leave her room it could be harmful to her psychosocial well-being. LICSW-A stated R1 isolating, not socializing, and remaining in her room was harmful. Facility policy titled Quality of Life - Dignity and Privacy dated 12/19, included Procedures: 1.) Resident will be treated with dignity and respect at all times. a. Being 'treated with dignity' means the resident will be assisted in maintain and enhancing their self-esteem and self-worth . 3.) Residents will be assisted in attending the activities of their choice, including activities outside of the facility. Facility job description for Director of Social Services, undated, included Position Summary: . Developing care plans to meet the psychosocial well-being and needs of residents and to enable residents to achieve their optimal level of independence . Responsibilities and duties: . 3.) Provides support services for new residents and their families to facilitate initial adjustment to [facility]. Provide ongoing counseling and problem solving services to residents and family members . 5.) Assess resident's social, psychological, and emotional status and develops a plan of care that meets the residents' needs . 9.) Serves as an advocate for residents, interpreting and upholding the Minnesota [NAME] of Rights and the Vulnerable Adult Act.
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

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 observation, interview, and document review, the facility failed to implement the comprehensive care plan for 2 of 3 re...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview, and document review, the facility failed to implement the comprehensive care plan for 2 of 3 residents (R1, R2) reviewed for pressure ulcer prevention. Findings include: Pressure Ulcer Definitions: Pressure Ulcer/Injury: is localized damage to the skin and/or underlying soft tissue usually over a bony prominence or related to a medical or other device. A pressure injury will present as intact skin and may be painful. The appearance will vary depending on the stage and may be painful. The injury occurs as a result of intense and/or prolonged pressure or pressure in combination with shear. Unstageable pressure ulcer: Full thickness skin and tissue loss in which the extent of tissue damage within the ulcer cannot be confirmed because the wound bed is obscured by slough or eschar. If the slough or eschar is removed, a stage 3 or 4 pressure ulcer will be revealed. Deep tissue injury: Purple or maroon area of discolored intact skin due to damage of underlying soft tissue. R1's quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE], identified R1 had diagnoses including adult failure to thrive and acquired absence of left leg below knee. R1 had moderate cognitive impairment, was frequently incontinent of bowel and bladder, and used a wheelchair. R1 required substantial assistance with transfers and wheelchair mobility and was dependent on staff for toileting hygiene. R1 was identified as at risk of developing pressure ulcers or injuries and did not have any current unhealed pressure ulcers or injuries. R1's care plan for skin dated 6/3/24, noted R1 had a potential alteration in skin integrity related to cognitive impairment, decreased mobility, and incontinence. Interventions dated 6/3/24 included gel, foam, or ROHO (brand of inflatable seat cushion) cushion in wheelchair. R1's Care Area Assessment (CAA) Worksheet dated 6/12/24, identified R1 had a potential risk for pressure ulcer/injury related to incontinence and limited mobility. Staff were to monitor for changes in skin and use pressure relieving devices in bed and wheelchair. R1's care plan for pressure ulcers dated 6/13/24, noted R1 was at risk for pressure ulcers related to incontinence and limited mobility due to left lower extremity amputation. Interventions included pressure reducing cushion in wheelchair to protect the skin while up in the chair. R1's Braden Scale for Predicting Pressure Sore Risk Original dated 8/31/24, noted R1 had a score of 14 indicating she was at a moderate risk level. During an observation and interview on 10/28/24 at 2:47 p.m., nursing assistant (NA)-A confirmed the wheelchair present in R1's room belonged to R1 and did not have any type of pad or cushion present. NA-A stated, she doesn't have a gel pad or foam pad in her chair. During an interview on 10/29/24 at 12:16 p.m., R1 stated she used to have a cushion for her wheelchair but did not anymore. She stated that while at the facility she had never had one here. During an observation and interview on 10/29/24 at 12:38 p.m., licensed practical nurse (LPN)-A confirmed R1's care plan said she should have a ROHO, gel, or foam cushion for her wheelchair. LPN-A confirmed there was no pad present in R1's wheelchair and stated she didn't remember if R1 had ever had one. LPN-A stated R1's care plan was not being followed. In an interview on 10/30/24 at 11:45 a.m., the director of nursing (DON) confirmed R1 was at risk for developing an alteration in skin integrity, had an intervention directing staff to place a cushion in her wheelchair, and stated she would expect to see a cushion in R1's wheelchair. The DON further noted she would expect to see the interventions on a resident's care plan in place and noted interventions reflect the individual care needs of residents. R2's quarterly MDS dated [DATE], indicated R2 had diagnoses including mild cognitive impairment and personal history of diseases of the skin. R2 was frequently incontinent of bowel and bladder and used a wheelchair. R2 required substantial assistance with bed mobility, and moderate assistance with wheelchair mobility and transfers. R2 was identified as at risk of developing pressure ulcers or injuries and did not have any current unhealed pressure ulcers or injuries. R2's CAA worksheet dated 6/5/24, identified R2 had a potential risk for pressure ulcer/injury related to incontinence and limited mobility. Staff were to monitor for changes in skin and use pressure relieving devices in bed and wheelchair, and ointment as ordered. R2's podiatrist visit note dated 6/7/24, noted R2 had a history of left third toe ulcer, bunion deformity, edema, long-term anticoagulant use, atherosclerosis of the extremities, and hammertoes. R2's care plan for skin with revision date 9/25/23, noted R2 had a potential alteration in skin integrity related to a history of wounds and risk related to anticoagulant use and incontinence. The care plan further noted R2 had a history of wounds including unstageable pressure wound to proximal (near end) of third left toe, unstageable deep tissue injury to distal (far end) of left third toe, and right third toe wound that were all resolved in 2022. An intervention dated 2/18/22, noted R2 preferred to wear her Skechers brand slip-on shoes and directed staff to please make sure there is a dressing on third toe if wearing these shoes. An additional intervention dated 3/9/2022, directed staff to place lamb's wool to left great toe and third toe. During an interview on 10/29/24 at 8:58 a.m., R2 stated she had hammer toes and a podiatrist who checked them every so often. She stated staff do not put anything around her toes and do not ask her if she wants wool put around her toes. During an observation and interview on 10/29/24 at 9:23 a.m., registered nurse (RN)-A stated she knew how to take care of someone's skin based on assessments and orders for treatments and there was information for nursing assistants located on the [NAME] (document listing resident's care plan) on the back of the door in resident rooms. RN-A removed R2's compression stockings, socks, and slip-on Skechers shoes and confirmed there was no lamb's wool or dressing present on R2's toes. RN-A confirmed the [NAME] and R2's care plan directed staff to place lamb's wool to R2's left great toe and third toe and to make sure it is on if R2 was wearing Skechers. RN-A states she did not see any of that present on R2's foot and as per what we saw R2 was not being taken care of per what the care plan directed. RN-A noted R2 was at risk of developing pressure ulcers, had a history of pressure wounds, and the interventions on her care plan should be followed. RN-A noted there were no corresponding treatment orders. During an interview on 10/29/24 at 9:46 a.m., NA-B stated NAs knew what care someone needed based on the care plan ([NAME]) located behind a resident's door. NA-B noted she was familiar with R2, was not aware of R2 having any history of wounds, and never put cotton or wool around her toes because that would be the nurses. During an interview on 10/30/24 at 11:45 a.m., the DON confirmed R2 had a history of pressure wounds on her toes and a potential for alteration in skin integrity. The DON confirmed R2's care plan directed staff to place wool around her left great and third toe and to please make sure there was a dressing on the third toe if she was wearing her Skechers shoes. The DON stated she would expect to see those interventions in place and if it was not done it placed R2 at risk of developing a new skin issue. Facility policy titled Skin and Pressure Ulcer, dated 6/22, included a procedure for Identification of Residents at Risk for Skin Breakdown directing staff to identify clinical conditions that are risk factors, implement prevention protocols, and develop care plan. The procedure for Prevention of Skin Breakdown directed staff bony prominences susceptible to pressure will be protected . place on a pressure reduction or pressure relief surface in bed and wheelchair . provide padding for cases, braces, splints, oxygen tubing, shoes, etc. as needed to prevent friction . implement skin and wound care protocols . Start appropriate care plan for treatment of prevention of skin issues. Facility policy titled Care Plan Policy and Procedure dated 6/6/24, noted A comprehensive, person-centered care plan should be completed . the care plan will ensure the resident is receiving the appropriate care required to maintain or attain the resident's highest level of practicable function possible, as well as accommodation of preferences . All [NAME]'s are reflective of care plan and are updated in real-time by the Interdisciplinary Team and/or Nurse Supervisors . The residents [NAME] is located in resident rooms and provides information regarding resident's plan of care and care plan/[NAME] must be followed at all times.
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** Based on observation, interview, and document review, the facility failed to ensure individualized activities were provided for ...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview, and document review, the facility failed to ensure individualized activities were provided for 1 of 1 resident (R1) reviewed for activities. R1's admission Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE], indicated R1 admitted to the facility on [DATE], understood others and made herself understood., had moderate cognitive impairment, sometimes felt socially isolated, and did not exhibit behaviors. R1's Interview for Activity Preferences identified it was somewhat important to her to do her favorite activities, go outside to get fresh air when the weather was good, participate in religious services or practices, and listen to music she liked. R1's LE [Life Enrichment] Initial and Annual Assessment V2 dated 6/3/24, identified R1 had no preference about interaction (one-to-one, small group, large group, or self) and no preference about setting (own room, day room, off-unit, or outside facility). R2's interests were identified as games/cards/puzzles with note cards, some board games, arts/crafts with note lots of different crafts, sports with note some but has no favorite, music with note all, reading/writing with note has an interest in audio books, spiritual with note Christian, community outings/travel, outdoors, television, and movies. Goals were identified as her goal is to familiarize herself with the facility, staff, and residents, and to to [sic] attend activities of her choice, as tolerated, and to express satisfaction of how her leisure time is spent. R1's activities care plan dated 6/4/24, noted R1 was independent in making activity choices and how leisure time is spent with a goal to continue to participate in activities of choice as tolerated to maintain socialization and independence. Interventions dated 6/4/24 included: provide invite to activities of interest as needed, provide monthly activity calendar, and will monitor resident's progress on an ongoing basis. R1's life enrichment progress note dated 6/4/24, identified R1 had goals of attending activities of her choosing and expressing satisfaction with how her leisure time is spent. Life enrichment would continue to monitor her progress for the next 90 days. R1's life enrichment progress note dated 8/30/24, identified it was a quarterly assessment. R1 had the goal of participating in activities of her choice in order to maintain her socialization and independence and had met this goal and would carry on. R1 hadn't attended activities with life enrichment but had accepted one-to-one visits and was friendly during them. There were no concerns and life enrichment would continue to encourage R1's participation in activities and monitor her progress. R1's progress note dated 9/5/24, indicated a care conference had been conducted and noted R1 liked crocheting and the nurse would follow up with the activity team. R1's activities attendance calendar form for June 2024, indicated R1's unit was on lockdown from 6/20/24 to 6/30/24 and one one-to-one visit was completed on 6/17/24. No refusals were noted. No one-to-one visits were completed the week of 6/2/24, 6/9/24, or 6/23/24. R1's activities attendance calendar form for July 2024, indicated refusals of activities on three days. There were no one-to-one visits noted. R1's activities attendance calendar form for August 2024, indicated refusals of activities on seven days, R1 was asleep or in bed on five days, and one-to-one visits completed on four days. No one-to-one visits were completed the week of 7/28/24 to 8/3/24 or the week of 8/25/24. R1's activities attendance calendar form for September 2024, indicated refusals of activities on 12 days, R1 was asleep or in bed on two days, and one-to-one visits completed on three days. No one-to-one visits were completed the week of 9/22/24. R1's activities attendance calendar form for October 2024, indicated refusals or activities on four days, R1 was asleep or in bed on two days, and one-to-one visits completed on three days for a total of 11 one-to-one visits since her admission on [DATE]. No one-to-one visits were completed the week of 9/29/24 to 10/5/24 or the week of 10/20/24. During an interview on 10/28/24 at 1:23 p.m., county social worker (CSW) reported she had visited R1 on 10/16/24 to complete an assessment. CSW noted that R1 reported she used to have a large collection of DVDs and yarn and noted she was a crocheter. During an interview on 10/29/24 at 3:09 p.m., R1 was sitting in bed in her room. R1 noted she would ask to go to activities if she had clothes she felt comfortable in and was dressed properly but she did not want to go out of her room in the clothes she had. R1 stated that in her room she had a deck of cards and played a lot of solitaire. During an interview on 10/30/24 at 8:28 a.m., with life enrichment aide (LEA)-A and LEA-B, LEA-A stated activities staff did an assessment on admission determine a resident's interests and preferences. LEA-A noted they completed 90-day reviews and also completed the activities related questions on the MDS assessments. LEA-A noted R1's activities assessment indicated her interests included card games, board games, sports, music, and lots of different crafts. LEA-A stated R1 would decline when invited to group activities. LEA-A did not recall offering related activities to R1 as one-to-one visits and most of the time one-to-one visits were just what comes up in the moment in the interaction. LEA-A was not able to identify how R1's preferences were assessed for one-to-one visits given that she was known to not attend group activities or how individualized activities were being offered to R1. During an interview on 10/30/24 at 8:28 a.m., with life enrichment aide (LEA)-A and LEA-B, LEA-B stated activities staff tried to include activities a resident likes and things they like doing independently on their care plans. LEA-B noted care plans were updated as staff got to know residents better. LEA-B stated R1 had not participated in activities and R1 had said a couple of times this was because she didn't have any clothes. LEA-B stated R1 had continued to not be interested in attending group activities. LEA-B noted that for one-to-one activities with R1 we typically just chat and R1 liked television so we will kind of talk about what she has watched lately. If she caught R1 while she was eating, she would ask her if her lunch is good, how was breakfast this morning, stuff like that. LEA-B was unable to identify how this was individualized and meaningful for R1. LEA-B did not identify offering the individualized activities of interest identified on R1's LE Initial and Annual Assessment V2 during one-to-one visits. LEA-B confirmed talking about television doesn't sound like an individualized activity. LEA-B noted R1 had expressed interest previously in bingo and arts and crafts like painting but R1 hadn't been interested in attending related group activities and LEA-B didn't know how something like painting could be offered in a one-to-one visit. LEA-B stated I don't know how we have comprehensively assessed what she [R1] wants to do in a one-to-one. During an interview on 10/30/24 at 9:06 a.m., the director of life enrichment (DLE) stated for residents who do not attend group activities, she expected staff to look at assessments and kind of see what that resident is interested in and how we can curate that into something independent for them if they aren't interested in coming to group activities. The DLE stated one-to-one visits should be individualized and she would expect staff to offer things related to a resident's identified interests. The DLE stated she would expect care plans to reflect a resident's activities of interest including what was identified in assessments and what independent activities a resident enjoyed doing in their room. The DLE confirmed R1's activities care plan was not individualized and did not include her specific interests or what activities she might like. The DLE noted R1 had refused group activities but we have games we could bring and crafts we could bring to her during one-to-one visits. The DLE would not consider talking about television to be the most individualized one-to-one visit and if R1 enjoyed talking about television something more resident specific should be offered to her in addition. The DLE would expect R1's quarterly assessment to have been more specific as to what was being completed with her individually, what staff were doing during one-to-one visits, what R1's specific interests were, and what activities R1 might be interested in that staff could encourage her to attend. The DLE confirmed there was no analysis of why R1 was not attending group activities, staff were aware R1 was not comfortable attending group activities with her current clothing, and the whole situation doesn't meet my expectation. The DLE confirmed documentation did not identify what staff were doing during one-to-one visits with R1 and could not demonstrate how these visits were individualized and meaningful to R1's interests and preferences. During an interview on 10/30/24 at 9:32 a.m., R1 was sitting in bed in her room and stated, I may have said no when they've invited me to activities because I didn't have proper clothing . evidently they have asked me if I wanted to go to activities, but I can't verify that. R1 stated no one had ever offered to do crafts with her in her room and I love to crochet, but it has never been offered. R1 stated no one had ever offered her audio books and no one has ever offered to play card games or board games with me, no one has ever talked about it, I play solitaire here in bed by myself. R1 further stated, They haven't offered me activities I find meaningful. I would like cards or crochet, I like crafts . I have had nothing offered . they're not offering me activities that meet my preferences. R1 pointed out two plastic butterflies embroidered with yarn she had at the foot of her bed stating, Did I show you what I made? I made them [two butterflies] with what they call plastic canvas, I made these a long time ago prior to admitting to the facility. During an interview on 10/30/24 at 11:45 a.m., the director of nursing (DON) stated she would expect activity care plans to be individualized to residents and identify what activities they enjoy. The DON confirmed R1's care plan did not identify what activities she enjoys and would expect it to have been further developed based on comprehensive assessment. The DON noted she would expect activities of choice to be offered to residents that meet their interests and preferences. Facility policy titled Life Enrichment Programs dated 6/2023, included The facility shall provide for ongoing life enrichment programs designed to meet, in accordance with the comprehensive assessment, the interests and the physical, mental, and psychosocial well-being on each resident . A variety of activities shall be offered based on the comprehensive assessment, care plan, and resident input. They will be designed to meet each individual's interests, choices, needs, previous lifestyles, and daily schedules . All residents shall participate in the facility Life Enrichment program or be seen on an individual basis at least 1x per week, unless determined otherwise by the Life Enrichment Assessment and Care Plan. Facility policy titled Accommodation of Needs, undated, included For any resident(s) refusing to participate in the Life Enrichment Program, as identified in the Comprehensive Care Plan, the Life Enrichment staff will attempt to determine the resident's basis for refusal. Adjustments will be made to the extent possible, to meet the resident's needs. Facility policy titled Independent, Self-Directed Activities, undated, included Independent activities shall be encouraged for residents who choose not the leave their rooms, choose not to attend group programs, or are self-motivated concerning their recreational interests . Adequate lighting, and appropriate supplies and equipment will be provided to maximize resident independent, success, and accomplishment. Life Enrichment staff will make a list of those residents requiring assistance with independent, self-directed activities (books from library, set up card table for card club, etc.). Life Enrichment staff and volunteers will offer to supply craft items, books, puzzles, etc., to these residents . Weekly contact shall be made by the Life Enrichment staff or a volunteer if a resident consistently declines/desires not to attend any group activities/programs. The purpose of this contact is to maintain open lines of communication with the resident, and to ensure that the resident's leisure needs are being met.
Jul 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

Quality of Care (Tag F0684)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to follow physician orders for one of one resident (R1) ...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to follow physician orders for one of one resident (R1) reviewed for physician orders. The facility received an order for a cervical collar to be used by two licensed staff; one to stabilize the resident's cervical spine and one for care of the cervical collar and were observed not following the orders. Findings included: During an observation on 7/24/24 at 11:17 a.m., licensed practical nurse (LPN)-A donned personal protective equipment (PPE) and went into R1's room. Family member (FM)-B was sitting in the room besides R1. LPN-A stated to R1 that she was there to assist R1 in putting his cervical collar on. R1 was seated in his recliner. FM-B stood in front of R1 and grabbed his shoulders while assisting him forward. LPN-A put the foam piece around R1's neck and then placed the hard plastic brace on top of the foam piece. LPN-A tightened the brace by pulling the Velcro straps on each side of his neck. After LPN-A tightened the cervical collar, R1 screamed out. LPN-A asked R1 if the cervical collar was too tight and R1 stated that the cervical collar was too tight. LPN-A loosed up the brace via Velcro straps and R1 stated the cervical collar felt good. LPN-A doffed her PPE and washed her hands with soap and water. LPN-A did not support R1's cervical spine while putting on R1's cervical collar. R1's medical records indicated R1 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with an admitting diagnosis of personal history of transient ischemic attack (TIA) and cerebral infarction without residual deficits. R1's additional diagnoses included displaced posterior arch fracture of first cervical vertebra, nondisplaced type II dens fracture, heart failure, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), neuromuscular dysfunction of bladder, and major depressive disorder. R1's fall incident report dated 5/30/24 indicated R1 was found on the floor in his room. It was reported when R1 was found, R1's recliner was in the raised position. The report indicated R1 was assisted off the floor via mechanical lift, facial skin tear was cleaned and covered with gauze, and was sent to the emergency department for further evaluation. R1's hospital records dated 6/3/24 indicated R1 was admitted to the hospital with a primary diagnosis of odontoid fracture with type II morphology (cervical fracture). While in the hospital, R1 was given a cervical collar to be worn twenty-four hours a day for seven days a week for three months. R1's care plan dated 6/3/24 indicated R1 had a cervical collar to be worn for twenty-four hours a day for seven days a week for three months. R1's brief interview for mental status (BIMS) dated 6/6/24 indicated R1 had a score of zero, which indicated R1 had severe cognitive impairment. R1's treatment administration record dated 6/3/24 indicated R1 was to wear his Aspen (cervical) collar twenty-four hours a day for seven days a week for three months. The entry indicated R1 was to wear his cervical collar must be worn, including while bathing. R1's hospital records dated 7/4/24 indicated R1 was seen in the emergency department due to an unrelated fall. The hospital records indicated R1's had an order requiring assistant of two people for any movement including removing the cervical collar. R1's physician order dated 7/10/24 indicated R1 had an order for a cervical collar to be on for twenty-four hours a day for seven days, including while bathing. The order stated the cervical collar must be used by two people: one for stabilizing the spine and the other for care of the cervical collar. An interview was attempted with R1 on 7/24/24 at 9:03 a.m., but R1 was not able to be interviewed due to his cognition. During an interview with FM-A on 7/24/24 at 10:30 a.m., FM-A stated there were times she would have to hold R1's spine while the nurses would fix the cervical collar. FM-A stated she is happy to help with the cervical collar, but she shouldn't have to be able to because there should be two nurses adjusting the cervical collar. During an interview with LPN-A on 7/24/24 at 11:22 a.m., LPN-A stated she assisted R1 in putting on her cervical brace with herself and FM-B. LPN-A admitted she is supposed to have one other nurse or aide assisting in putting the cervical collar on. LPN-A stated she put R1's cervical collar on because FM-B was there. During an interview with the director of nursing (DON) on 7/24/24 at 12:45 p.m., the DON stated licensed staff should assist R1 in putting on his cervical collar per physician's orders. The DON stated she would expect two licensed staff to assist R1 in putting on his cervical collar. The DON stated when a resident returns to the facility from an outside healthcare facility, the nurses would review the resident's medical records, after visit summaries, and physician orders and put orders into the resident's electronic medical record (EMR). The DON stated the nurses would also update the care plan if necessary and then the nursing supervisor would sign off on the care plan. The DON stated there isn't a dedicated supervisor; the acting supervisor changes every day. The DON stated the supervisor for that day (7/24/24) was RN-D. During an interview with RN-D on 7/24/24 at 1:37 p.m., RN-D stated her expectation is that two aides or licensed nurses would assist a resident in putting on and taking off a resident's cervical collar. RN-D stated a family member would not count as part of the two people because the facility had educated the aides and licensed nursing staff about the cervical collar, and it is not the responsibility of the family members. RN-D stated when a resident returns to the facility from an outside healthcare facility, the nursing supervisor or the health unit coordinator (HUC) would look through the medical records from the outside healthcare facility and enter the orders into the resident's EMR. During an interview with the assistant director of nursing (ADON) on 7/24/24 at 1:47 p.m., the ADON stated her expectation would be that two aides or licensed nursing staff would assist a resident with their cervical collar. ADON stated if they did not have two aides or licensed nursing staff assisting with the cervical collar, that the resident could result in further injury to their cervical spine. The ADON stated she trained staff on one staff holding the cervical spine and the other staff moves the cervical collar. The ADON stated she had done education to the aides and licensed nursing staff on cervical collars by demonstrations, and by having the staff teach the ADON back. The ADON stated a family member would not count as one of the two people assisting with the cervical collar. The ADON stated she would be concerned if staff wasn't stabilizing a resident's cervical spine. The ADON stated when a resident enters from the facility from an outside healthcare facility, the supervisors would admit the resident back to the facility, would obtain the outside medical records, and enter the orders into the resident's EMR. During an interview with RN-A on 7/24/24 at 2:30 p.m., RN-A stated he will occasionally work as the acting supervisor at the facility. RN-A stated he works as the acting supervisor the evening of 7/4/24 when R1 was admitted back to the facility. RN-A stated the supervisors would obtain the discharge medical records when a resident is admitted back to the facility from an outside healthcare facility. RN-A stated he did not think he was given the discharge medical records after R1 returned to the facility from the outside healthcare facility on 7/4/24. RN-A stated that his expectations is that the supervisors receive the discharge paperwork when a resident returns to the facility from the outside healthcare facility, the supervisors would enter orders into a resident's EMR, and then fax orders to the pharmacy if necessary. An interview was attempted with RN-B on 7/24/24 at 2:40 p.m. and 7/24/24 at 3:00 p.m. but was unsuccessful. An interview was attempted with RN-C on 7/24/24 at 3:24 p.m. and 7/4/24 at 3:52 p.m. but was unsuccessful. During an interview with the administrator on 7/24/24 at 3:31 p.m., the administrator stated when a resident comes back from the hospital, the supervisor, nurse, or HUC will transcribe the orders from the discharge paperwork, and then a second nurse, supervisor, or HUC will sign off on the orders as well. The administrator stated her expectation is staff would follow the physician orders the way it was written. The facility's Neck Collar policy and procedure indicated the purpose of the cervical collar was to support the neck and spinal cord. The procedure indicated staff must ensure two staff members would assist with applying and removing the cervical collar. The facility provided education dated 7/17/24 that was provided to licensed staff and stated the licensed staff had received an instructional video on how to correctly apply and maintain a cervical collar and to demonstrate the procedure with the supervisor. Visual picture instructions were provided. Instructions provided stated the resident would need to have a second person assist to maintain the proper head, neck, and airway alignment. The education sign-in sheet was signed by eight nurses, including LPN-A.
May 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

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 observation, interview and document review, the facility failed to follow the care plan for 1 of 3 residents (R1) revie...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview and document review, the facility failed to follow the care plan for 1 of 3 residents (R1) reviewed for abuse, when R1 was transferred and personal cares were provided by one staff when the care plan directed two female staff for all cares and transfers. Findings include: R1's annual Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated [DATE] indicated she had diagnoses of anxiety, depression, psychotic disorder, and history of falls. The MDS also indicated R1 had moderate cognitive impairment, and was dependent on staff for transfers. R1's care plan dated 5/21/24 directed two female staff only present during cares and two staff to assist with transfers. The care plan noted a history of past trauma. R1's fall risk assessment dated [DATE] indicated R1 had a high fall risk. Her fall risk assessment indicated she had a balance problem while walking. R1's progress note dated 2/15/24 indicated R1 had a fall on 2/15/24. R1's progress note dated 5/15/24 indicated she alleged a staff member had sexually assaulted her. On 5/22/24 at 1:05 p.m., nursing assistant (NA)-A was observed transferring R1 from her wheelchair to her bed without the assistance of another staff person. NA-A removed R1's pants, and completed peri care without the assistance of another staff person. NA-A stated she was aware R1 required only female staff for cares. NA-A showed a current [NAME] (a brief overview of the resident's care plan) located in R1's room on the closet door. She read the [NAME] aloud, which directed two female staff for all cares, and two staff for all transfers. On 5/22/24 at 1:29 p.m., licensed practical nurse (LPN)-A stated R1 required two female staff with all cares and transfers at all times. On 5/22/24 at 2:32 p.m., the director of nursing (DON) stated two females were required for transfers and personal cares for R1. The intervention of two female staff was implemented on her care plan since R1 returned from the hospital on 5/19/24, following her allegation of sexual assault. The facility's Activities of Daily Living (ADL) Policy and Procedure dated 11/23 directed the residents' [NAME] are located in residents rooms and provide information regarding resident's plan of care and care plan/[NAME] must be followed. The policy also directed interventions to improve and/or minimize a resident's functional abilities will be in accordance with the resident's assessed needs, preferences, stated goals and recognized standards of practice.
Apr 2024 9 deficiencies
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0554 (Tag F0554)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview, and document review, the facility failed to ensure a self administration of medications (SAM) a...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview, and document review, the facility failed to ensure a self administration of medications (SAM) assessment was completed to allow residents to safely administer their own medications for 1 of 1 (R19) resident observed with medications at bedside. Findings include: R19's quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated [DATE], indicated intact cognition and diagnoses of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), congestive heart failure (CHF), and chronic kidney disease (CKD). It further indicated R19 received oxygen therapy. R19's physician's orders dated 12/1/23, indicated oxygen 2.5 liters per minute (lpm) per nasal cannula, continuous. It further lacked an order for R19 to self administer medications. R19's SAM assessment dated [DATE], indicated R19 didn't want to administer her own medications and required assistance taking them. R19's care plan dated 2/13/24, indicated R19 received oxygen therapy (per nasal cannula) related to CHF, to keep oxgyen (02) saturations greater than or equal to 90%. Current oxygen flow rates: 3 lpm. It further indicated oxygen settings: 02 sats with activity and rest notify medical doctor or nurse practioner for respiratory distress 02 saturations less than 90% at rest, if 02 lpm is greater than 2 lpm over the initial rate, and any change in condition. During observation on 4/01/24 at 2:16 p.m., R19 was sitting in her room receiving 4 lpm of oxygen via nasal cannula. R19 stated she was supposed to be receiving 3 lpm and had been receiving the 3 lpm amount for a long time. During observation and interview on 4/2/24 at 12:08 p.m., R19 was sitting in her room receiving 4 lpm of oxygen via nasal cannula. Registered nurse (RN)-F verified R19's oxygen was set at 4 lpm and the doctor's order indicated it should be set at 2.5 lpm. RN-F stated R19 turns the oxygen up on her own and also verified she didn't have a doctor's order to do so. During interview on 4/3/24 at 7:31 a.m., trained medication assistant (TMA)-A stated nurses were responsible for adjusting residents oxygen settings, not the residents and in order for a resident to administer their own medications they need to have an assessment and a doctor's order. During interview on 4/3/24 at 7:41 a.m., RN-A stated only nurses were able to adjust residents oxygen settings, not the residents. Sometimes the residents will adjust them but the nurses were supposed to check it to make sure it's on the correct setting. RN-A verified R19 was not able to administer her own medication and in order for residents to do so, they would need a desire to do it, an assessment and then a doctor's order. During an interview on 4/3/24 at 10:56 a.m., licensed practical nurse (LPN)-A coordinator stated nurses were responsible for changing residents oxygen settings and residents should not be adjusting them. In order for residents to administer their own medications they would need a doctor's order and a SAM assessment. During an interview on 4/3/24 at 12:15 p.m., the director of nursing (DON) stated the nurses were responsible for adjusting residents oxygen settings, not the residents and if the nurses are aware a resident was doing so they should intervene immediately, educate the resident, discuss the risks and benefits, and update care plan. In order for a resident to administer own medications they would need a doctor's orders and an assessment. The DON further stated R19 was not interested in administering her own medications and if R19 was adjusting her oxygen setting it could have an adverse effect from the oxygen setting being too high, could cause harm to her, and she could become extremely ill and end up in the hospital. The facility's policy on SAM dated 11/23, indicated the nurse must complete an assessment and then obtain a physician's order in order for residents to self administer their medications.
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0558 (Tag F0558)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview, and document review, the facility failed to ensure a call light was accessible for 1 of 1 resid...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview, and document review, the facility failed to ensure a call light was accessible for 1 of 1 resident (R385) reviewed for call light accessibility. Findings include: R385's admission Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated [DATE], included R385 was moderately cognitively impaired, had diagnoses of malnutrition and depression, was dependent on staff to turn in bed, always continent of bowel and occasionally incontinent of urine, was at risk for pressure ulcers, and had a history of falls. R385's care plan dated 3/8/24, included R385 had an alteration in safety related to falls and included interventions of keep call light within reach, remind resident when/how to use it, and remind to ask for assistance. In addition, the care plan directed staff to not wake R385 up at night per their request, and R385 will use their call light if they need any assistance. During observation on 4/1/24 at 5:53 p.m., R385 was lying supine and asleep wearing a gown in their bed with their feet flat against the footboard. The call light cord was clipped to the fitted sheet approximately six inches from the top of the mattress with approximately four feet of cord hanging down onto the floor out of reach of R385. At 6:07 p.m., R385 began to call out, help me, help me. The television in the neighboring room was at a very high volume, making it difficult to hear R385 from the hallway. At 6:11 p.m., R385 again called out help me, help me, please, please help me. At 6:30 p.m., R385 continued to lie awake in bed. No staff entered R385's room. During observation on 4/1/24, at 6:37 p.m., director of nursing (DON) walked down the hallway and looked inside R385's room for approximately five seconds and left. During observation and interview on 4/1/24 at 6:42 p.m., registered nurse (RN)-D and nursing assistant (NA)-F were outside R385's room. RN-D stated R385 was newer to the facility and a little confused but could use the call light. NA-F also confirmed R385 was able to use the call light. Both staff identified R385 was not at risk for falls as they had not fallen in the facility since their arrival. Upon entering R385's room both RN-D and NA-F confirmed R385's call light cord was lying on the floor and out of reach. When asked if R385 needed anything, R385 stated That's why I called, I want to face the window and be on my side. When asked if they R385 was having pain, R385 stated wouldn't be in pain anymore if they could lay on their side. During interview on 4/1/24 at 6:46 p.m., DON stated call lights should always be within reach of the resident so they can alert staff if they need anything, and staff should respond to their needs timely. DON stated went to the room only to see if there was an empty bed available and then left and had not noticed the call light on the floor. The Crest View Lutheran Home Policy and Procedure Call Light dated 6/22, indicated staff should ensure call lights are placed within resident reach at all times, never on the floor or bedside stand.
CONCERN (D)

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

Transfer Requirements (Tag F0622)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview and document review, the facility failed to include a physician documented basis for discharge for 1 of 1 res...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview and document review, the facility failed to include a physician documented basis for discharge for 1 of 1 resident (R82) reviewed for facility initiated discharge. Findings include: R82's admission Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated [DATE], identified intact cognition, no behaviors or rejection of care and discharge planning was in place to move to another facility. R82 required supervision with bed mobility, transfers and toileting; and was independent with eating after set up. R82's admission Record dated 4/4/24, identified an admission date of 3/1/24, and a discharge date of 3/8/24. R82's diagnoses included chronic kidney disease and urinary tract infection. R82's Care Plan dated 3/1/24, identified R82 wanted to discharge to an assisted living facility or independent senior living facility with home care services, and the potential for discharge would be reviewed in 30 days. R82's physical (PT) and occupational (OT) therapy notes dated 3/1/24 through 3/8/24, identified the plan was to continue working with therapy, and on 3/8/24, R82 was discharged from therapy to the hospital. R82's physician order dated 3/8/24 at 1:38 p.m., identified discharge with current plan of care and seven days of medications, and follow up with primary care physician in community within seven days of discharge. The order lacked a basis for discharge. R82's Nursing Recapitulation of Stay dated 3/8/24 at 3:13 p.m., identified an admission on [DATE], for short term rehabilitation after a hospitalization for a bladder infection, for short term rehabilitation. Services included skilled nursing, PT/OT 5 days per week, dietary, life enrichment, chaplin and social services. R82 required contact guard assistance with a walker (staff place one or two hands on the resident's body to help with balance but provides no other assistance to perform the functional mobility task). Lastly, R82 would discharge 3/8/24. The progress note lacked a basis for discharge. During an interview on 4/2/24 at 1:33 p.m., R82 stated the facility kicked me out and he was not sure of the basis. R82 stated the facility wanted him to go to a homeless shelter, but he could not do that, because he wanted personal assistance, and had a catheter. R82 stated his family member (FM)-B found him a place to stay and provided assistance. During an interview on 4/2/24 at 2:23 p.m., the PT stated R82 had not met all therapy goals before he discharged , and he was not sure if home therapy was required, but according to their notes R82 discharged to the hospital on 3/8/24. During an interview on 4/2/24 at 2:55 p.m., the director of nursing (DON) stated R82 was considered a facility initiated discharge because neither the hospital R82 was admitted from, nor R82, had notified the facility that R82 was on parole due to felony history. The DON stated for a resident discharge the nurse would document a recapitulate of the resident's stay, and all departments would be involved with discharge planning. The DON stated and the provider would be contacted to write orders to discharge. During an interview on 4/3/24 at 11:05 a.m., FM-B stated on 3/8/24, the facility called FM-B and asked him to pick up R82, as he needed to discharge from the facility immediately. FM-B stated he got a hotel room for R82 for a couple of days and then found him a residence. FM-A stated the facility discharged R82 because he was on parole due to felony history. During an interview on 4/3/24 at 10:47 a.m., the administrator stated she began a facility initiated discharge, after R82's parole officer (PO) notified the facility of his felony history. The administrator stated that information resulted in an immediate discharge in accordance with their Resident Protection Plan. The administrator stated required documentation for a facility initiated discharge was expected to be in the medical record. During an interview on 4/3/24 at 1:16 p.m., R82's medical doctor (MD) stated the facility called him to ask for orders to discharge due to R82's felony history status. The MD stated there was no medical reason to hold R82 at the facility, therefore he wrote orders to discharge, but not the reason for discharge. During an interview on 4/3/24 at 1:30 p.m., R82's PO stated she visited the facility to update R82's address registration and then notified the facility of his status, since R82 had not done so. The PO stated the facility began discharge planning immediately after they were notified. A policy or procedure for facility initiated discharges was requested, however, what was provided was a blank example of a facility discharge and transfer notice form, which included a section for reason for transfer or discharge, along information regarding the resident rights to appeal, and the contact information for the Office of Health Facility Complaints appeals coordinator.
CONCERN (D)

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

Comprehensive Assessments (Tag F0636)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview and document review the facility failed to complete a comprehensive Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment to ensu...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview and document review the facility failed to complete a comprehensive Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment to ensure cognitive and mood needs were evaluated and addressed for 1 of 1 resident (R334) reviewed for comprehensive MDS assessment accuracy. Findings include: The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services Long-Term Care Facility Resident Assessment Instrument 3.0 User's Manual version 1.18.11, dated October 2023, indicated the purpose of the manual was to offer clear guidance about how to use the resident assessment instrument (RAI) correctly and effectively to provide appropriate care. The RAI helps nursing home staff gather definitive information on a resident's strengths and needs, which must be addressed in an individualized care plan. A comprehensive MDS assessment includes completion of both the MDS and the CAA (care area assessment) process, as well as care planning. Comprehensive assessments are completed upon admission, annually, and when a significant change in a resident's status has occurred or a significant correction to a prior comprehensive assessment is required and consist of an admission assessment, annual assessment, significant change in status assessment, and a significant correction to prior comprehensive assessment. The ARD (assessment reference date) is the last day of the observation look back period and day 1 for purposes of counting back to determine the beginning of observation/look back periods. For example, if the ARD is set for day 14 of a resident's admission, then the beginning of the observation period for MDS items requiring a 7 day observation period would be day 8 of admission (ARD plus 6 previous calendar days), while the beginning of the observation period for MDS items requiring a 14 day observation period would be day 1 of admission (ARD plus 13 previous calendar days). Since a day begins at 12:00 a.m., and ends at 11:59 p.m., the actual date of admission, regardless of whether admission occurs at 12:00 a.m., or 11:59 p.m., is considered day 1 of admission. The standard look back period for the MDS 3.0 is 7 days unless otherwise stated. The intent of section C Cognitive Patterns was to determine the resident's attention, orientation, and ability to register and recall information and whether the resident has signs and symptoms of delirium. The intent of section D Mood, was to address mood distress and social isolation. R334's admission Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated [DATE], indicated R334 admitted to the facility 3/20/24, and had an anxiety disorder and depression, and schizoaffective disorder. R334's admission MDS assessment dated [DATE], indicated under Section C Cognitive Patterns a dash located in the enter code boxes under items C0100 Should Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) be Conducted, C0200, Repetition of Three Words, C0300 Temporal Orientation, C0400 Recall, and C0500 BIMS Summary Score indicating the BIMS was not completed. Further, under Section D-Mood, a dash was entered in the enter code boxes for D0100 Should Resident mood Interview be Conducted. Additionally, dashes were entered in the boxes next to symptom presence for little interest or pleasure in doing things, feeling down, depressed, or hopeless, trouble falling or staying asleep, or sleeping too much, feeling tired or having little energy, poor appetite or overeating, feeling bad about yourself or that you are a failure or have let yourself or your family down, trouble concentrating on things, such as reading the newspaper or watching television, moving or speaking so slowly that other people could have noticed, or the opposite being so fidgety or restless that you have been moving around a lot more than usual, thoughts that you would be better off dead, or of hurting yourself in some way. Additionally a dash was entered under D0160, Total Severity Score. The dashes indicated the assessment was not completed. During interview on 4/4/24 at 8:16 a.m., social worker (SW)-A stated she completed sections C-Cognitive Patterns, and D-Mood, of the MDS and the CAAs, if triggered. SW-A verified the sections were marked as not assessed and stated she was not on campus during the timeframe for completion and there was nobody else available who could do the MDS and further stated if she was not able to get sections completed by the date they are due and no staff are authorized to complete the MDS, the sections were marked not assessed. SW-A further stated she tried to complete the sections on the date they are due and stated the MDS was something that was new for her. During interview on 4/4/24 at 9:11 a.m., registered nurse (RN)-B stated not assessed on the MDS means the assessment was not completed and further stated section C was important because you test a resident's memory and cognitive abilities and section D was important to assess depression and it was important to know a resident's status if they were having signs or symptoms of depression or if signs and symptoms of depression needed to be addressed. RN-B stated she expected the SW to let someone know the sections needed to be completed and thought any nurse could complete the assessment. RN-B further stated it was important to complete sections C and D because R334 had anxiety, depression, and schizoaffective disorder and verified a cognitive or mood assessment hasn't been completed after the MDS assessment either. During interview on 4/4/24 at 9:43 a.m., the director of nursing (DON) stated she expected the MDS sections be completed because it was important to make sure R334 was receiving the proper care and to assess whether a referral to ACP or to see a psychiatrist was necessary and make sure R334 was getting help for mental health issues. A policy was requested, however the DON sent an email on 4/5/24 at 11:08 a.m., they did not have a policy, but the MDS's were completed according to the RAI manual and assessments were to be completed before the assessment range date (ARD).
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 document review, the facility failed to ensure physical devices were assessed and reassesse...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview, and document review, the facility failed to ensure physical devices were assessed and reassessed for continued appropriateness for 1 of 1 resident (R66) who had perimeter mattresses placed on their bed as a fall intervention. Findings include: R66's significant change Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated [DATE], identified she was rarely/never understood, with verbal behaviors toward others one to three days in the lookback period which posed no significant risk or interfered with cares. Diagnoses included Alzheimer's disease and resident was on hospice. Extensive assist of two staff was required with transfers and bed mobility, and no falls occurred since the prior MDS assessment. R66's Care Area assessment dated [DATE], identified she was a fall risk related to weakness, Alzheimer's disease, history of falls and poor safety awareness. R66's Care Plan intervention dated 10/20/23, identified a perimeter mattress was placed due to a potential alteration in safety, falls related to dementia, weakness and psychotropic medication use. R66's Fall Risk assessment dated [DATE] and 2/2/24, identified a high risk for falls, but had not assessed physical devices in place. R66's Physical Device Evaluations dated 12/18/23, and 3/5/24, had not assessed nor reassessed the perimeter (edge) defined mattress. R66's progress notes dated 6/6/23 through 4/3/23, identified the following: - 10/19/23 at 11:15 p.m., at 11:00 p.m., fell from bed without injury and a request for a concave mattress was placed. - 10/20/23 at 3:25 p.m., a maintenance request was issued to place a perimeter mattress on bed to help resident identify the edge of the bed. - 2/2/24 at 12:05 p.m., at 10:30 a.m., R66 slid out of her wheelchair without injury. No requests were placed. - 2/2/24 at 4:15 p.m., a request would be made for therapy to assess R66's wheelchair cushion related to her fall. During an observation on 4/1/24 at 6:18 p.m., R66 was in bed with a perimeter mattress in place. The affixed raised edges on both sides of the head and foot of the mattress measured about two inches in height with an ingress/egress opening in the middle of the mattress measuring about 1.5 feet wide. R66 had not attempted to get out of bed (OOB). During an interview on 4/1/24 at 6:20 p.m., nursing assistant (NA)-G stated R66 was on hospice and required total assistance with bed mobility. NA-G stated she was not aware of instances where R66 tried to get OOB on her own, but thought the perimeter mattress was to keep her from rolling OOB, and she had it for at least several months but was not sure how long. NA-G repositioned R66 in bed and R66 could move her feet and arms but had not actively participated in the repositioning. During an interview on 4/3/24 at 10:30 a.m., trained medication aide (TMA)-B stated R66 could not get OOB independently. During an interview on 4/3/24 at 10:35 a.m., registered nurse (RN)-A stated physical devices should be assessed and reassessed to see if they were still needed and to ensure a resident was not restricted. RN-A stated R66 had no falls since it was placed but did not think she was restrained by the perimeter mattress due to her hospice status and inabilty to get out of bed. During an interview on 4/3/24 at 10:56 a.m., the director of nursing (DON) stated perimeter mattresses were used to remind residents of the edges of their bed and should be assessed and reassessed for continue appropriateness quarterly and with MDS assessments. The DON stated she doubted R66 needed the perimeter mattress anymore, was not assessed or reassessed and should have been. During an observation on 4/4/24 at 8:26 a.m., R66 was in bed and the perimeter mattress has been removed. R66's bed was positioned in the lowest position to the floor. The facility policy titled Physical Devices dated 3/23, identified in order to promote the highest level of physical functioning, the unit nurse or designee would complete the physical device assessment on admission, re-admission, significant change of conditioned and annually, and update the care plan.
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 document review, the facility failed to ensure a resident's preferred activities were avail...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview, and document review, the facility failed to ensure a resident's preferred activities were available for 1 of 1 resident (R36) reviewed for activities. Findings include: R36's annual Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated [DATE], indicated R36 had a memory problem, did not have behaviors, did not reject care, was very important to choose her own bedtime, listen to music R36 liked, very important to participate in religious services or practices, and was very important to do her favorite activities. Additionally, the MDS indicated a diagnoses of Alzheimer's disease, anxiety, and psychotic disorder other than schizophrenia. R36's State Optional quarterly MDS dated [DATE], indicated R36 required extensive assist with bed mobility, transfers, eating, and toileting. R36's care plan dated 1/17/24, indicated R36 had an alteration in bathing, dressing, personal hygiene, grooming due to dementia and immobility and interventions included to offer country music while attempting to complete care or shower, and R36's preferred awake time was at 6:30 a.m., and sleep time was at 6:30 p.m. R36's care plan dated revised 12/7/23, indicated R36 had an activity intolerance due to cognitive impairment, physical limitations, dependent on staff to meet activity needs, limited attention span and her goals indicated R36 would accept 1 to 1 visits as needed. Interventions included: listening to music especially Elvis [NAME], dancing, and enjoyed playing piano in the past, provide invite to activities of interest and assistance to and from as needed R36 enjoys music, spiritual, and craft programs. R36's care sheet dated 1/15/24, indicated staff were to offer country music while attempting to complete care or shower. R36's care plan revised on 12/7/23, indicated R36 did not like to take naps, liked to get up early and go to bed early. R36's life enrichment initial and annual assessment dated [DATE], indicated R36 required a wheelchair with assist, was interested in arts and crafts, sports, music (Elvis), newspaper, and was Lutheran. R36's life enrichment notes dated 9/7/23, indicated R36's unit was on lockdown and R36 could not come out for activities as of 9/1. R36's life enrichment notes dated 3/7/24, indicated R36 enjoyed music performances, parties, animal visits, ball games and arts and crafts. R36's activity attendance calendar form for February 2024, indicated R36's unit was on lockdown from 2/2/24, until 2/26/24, and had nine 1 to 1 visits. R36's activity attendance calendar form for March 2024, indicated a Sunday worship for 5 Sundays at 10:30 a.m., and R36 attended two. R36 did not attend a 3:00 p.m., music activity on 3/12/24. On 3/26/24 at 2:00 p.m., the calendar indicated a birthday party with music activity and was documented bed. next to the activity. During observation on 4/1/24 at 1:20 p.m., R36 was in her wheelchair next to the bed and facing the wall moaning. R36 had stuffed animals on her dresser, but none with her. During observation on 4/2/24 from 8:40 a.m., R36 was in bed moaning and had a sheet covering her face. Her dolls and stuffed animals were located on her night stand. Nursing assistant (NA)-B took the sheet off R36's face, but did not provide any dolls. During observation on 4/2/24 At 8:44 a.m., NA-A and NA-E assisted in turning R36 to apply the sling for the mechanical lift and assisted R36 in getting up in the wheelchair and did not provide or offer to play country music during care. During observation on 4/2/24 at 9:11 a.m., R36 was in her wheelchair facing the wall and did not have her dolls and did not have any music on in her room. During observation on 4/2/24 at 11:08 a.m., R36 was sitting in her chair and facing the wall with no doll or stuffed animal near the resident. During observation on 4/2/24 at 2:20 p.m., R36 was heard moaning and was in bed with her eyes closed. R36 did not have her dolls next to her. During observation on 4/3/24 at 7:21 a.m., R36 was in bed and had pants on and a purple blanket covering her top half and did not have shoes or socks on. A radio was located on a nightstand in R36's room, but was not turned on. During observation on 4/3/24 between 7:31 a.m., and 7:43 a.m., NA-A assisted in donning R36's shirt. There was no music playing and NA-A stated R36 took her clothes off and put them over her face. NA-A further stated R36 could not move in bed. NA-A and NA-B assisted in getting R36 up but did not offer country music or dolls during cares. R36 had various stuffed animals including a deer, moose, kangaroo, mouse, bear, rabbit, duck and two dolls. At 7:43 a.m., NA-A assisted in brushing R36's teeth and at 7:48 a.m., gave R36 a doll. During observation on 4/3/24 at 8:06 a.m., R36 was in her room playing with her doll. During interview on 4/3/24 at 8:45 a.m., NA-A stated they looked to the care plans located on the back of the doors in resident's rooms to know what cares to provide. NA-A stated R36 required extensive assist with her activities of daily living (ADLs) and loved her dolls and listening to music. NA-A further stated they never played music for R36 and did not know there was a radio in R36's room and did not know if the radio in the room was R36's. NA-A further stated she did not think the radio belonged to R36 because it was located on R36's room mate's night stand and further stated you could tell the radio had not been used. NA-A further stated they needed to have a radio in R36's room in order to play music and added it would be good for R36 to have something to do due to the COVID outbreak. During interview on 4/3/24 at 8:56 a.m., R27 stated the radio was her radio, but it did not work. During interview on 4/3/24 at 9:36 a.m., to 9:46 a.m., registered nurse (RN)-A stated staff looked to the care plan to know what cares a resident required and stated activities assist residents to various activities but were holding off on activities due to the outbreaks. At 9:43 a.m., RN-A verified there was a radio in R36's room and asked R27 whose radio it was and she replied it was hers. RN-A verified the care plan in the room indicated to offer country music while attempting to complete care or shower and expected the care plan to be followed and stated management may be able to get a radio. At 9:46 a.m., RN-A provided a copy of the care plan that was located behind R36's door. During interview on 4/3/24 at 9:53 a.m., the director of life enrichment (DOLE) stated they were not meeting in large groups but were completing 1 to 1 crafts. DOLE stated they documented on the paper and high lighted activities the resident went to and marked if a resident refused. DOLE provided R36's activities attendance calendars for January, February, and March 2024 and stated anything on the calendar that was highlighted meant the resident attended the activity. DOLE further stated they know what activities a resident prefers based on their initial assessment on admission under life enrichment assessment in the electronic medical record (EMR). DOLE stated R36 liked stories and being around people and had a baby doll which calmed her humming. DOLE further stated NA's didn't help with activities and life enrichment completed a preferences assessment annually. DOLE viewed R36's life enrichment assessment dated [DATE] that indicated R36 liked Elvis, was Lutheran, and liked cats. DOLE verified they had music entertainment come on 3/26/24 and R36 was marked in bed and also did not go to music entertainment on 3/12/24 and stated staff lay R36 down in the afternoons which may be why R36 missed afternoon activities and was mostly up for morning activities. DOLE verified R36's care plan indicated R36 did not like to take naps and verified music was very important and stated she would look for a radio for R36 and stated if R36 didn't like to take naps, could go to activities. DOLE stated it would be important to have music during lockdown and was something that could be provided. During interview on 4/3/24 at 11:30 a.m., the director of nursing (DON) stated RN-A spoke with her about getting a radio and stated she would look into R36 lying down because R36 was to be checked and changed and did not know if R36 requested to stay in bed. DON further stated R36 was not very verbal and pointed to things she wanted and expected staff provide a radio for R36 according to the care plan and with the outbreak it was important to have activities in rooms. A policy Communities Life Enrichment Planning and Implementing Programs, undated, indicated life enrichment programs were planned, implemented, and evaluated, based on each resident's life enrichment assessment, including preferences, lifestyle, habits, routines, and cultural and spiritual considerations. It is the responsibility of all facility staff, not just the life enrichment staff to ensure that each resident is able to participate in life enrichment programs of his or her choice. Facility staff shall work together to develop a schedule that accommodates both attendance at life enrichment programs, and the resident's other needs, such as medical, therapy, and ADL needs. Rescheduling of therapies, bathing, or other nursing and medical procedures shall occur as needed, to accommodate the resident's preferences for group, one to one, and independent, self directed activities. Accommodations the facility may need to provide include transporting residents who need assistance to and from activities, providing needed supplies such as books, magazines, music, craft projects etc.
CONCERN (E)

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

Transfer Notice (Tag F0623)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview and document review, the facility failed to provide the resident with a written discharge notice and basis fo...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview and document review, the facility failed to provide the resident with a written discharge notice and basis for discharge; and failed notify the Ombudsman Office for Long-Term Care (OOLTC) of transfers and discharges for 1 of 1 resident (R82) reviewed for facility initiated discharge, which has the potential to affect all residents who transfer or discharge. Findings include: R82's admission Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated [DATE], identified intact cognition, no behaviors or rejection of care and discharge planning was in place to move to another facility. R82 required supervision with bed mobility, transfers and toileting; and was independent with eating after set up. R82's admission Record dated 4/4/24, identified an admission date of 3/1/24, and a discharge date of 3/8/24. R82's diagnoses included chronic kidney disease and urinary tract infection. R82's medical record dated 3/1/24 through 3/8/24, lacked a discharge notice with the basis for discharge, statement of appeal rights, and OOLTC contact information. The facility Discharges list dated 2/4/24 through 4/4/24, identified 18 total residents had discharged : -Four residents discharged to acute care hospital -Five residents discharged to board and care/assisted living/group home -Three residents discharged to nursing home -Six residents discharged to other (including R82). During an interview on 4/2/24 at 1:33 p.m., R82 stated the facility kicked me out and he was not sure of the basis. R82 stated the facility wanted him to go to a homeless shelter, but he could not do that, because he wanted continued personal assistance. R82 stated some paperwork was emailed to his family member (FM)-B, but was unsure what was included. During an interview on 4/3/24 at 10:47 a.m., the administrator stated the social worker would have provided any required notices for discharges or transfers. The administrator stated R82 was discharged in accordance with their Resident Protection Policy when they found out he was on parole due to felony history. During an interview on 4/3/24 at 11:05 a.m., FM-B stated on 3/8/24, the facility called FM-B and asked him to pick up R82, as he needed to discharge from the facility immediately. FM-B stated he got a hotel room for R82 for a couple of days and then found him a residence. FM-B stated the facility discharged R82 because he was on parole due to felony history. FM-B stated the facility provided him with an emailed medication list, but not a notice explaining the basis of the discharge or rights related to discharge. During an interview on 4/3/24 at 2:12 p.m., the facility's OOLTC representative stated she had not received discharge or transfer notices for the residents listed on the facility discharge list, and she would have expected to. During an interview on 4/4/24 at 8:32 a.m., the social worker (SW) stated she was not aware resident discharge and transfer notices needed to be sent to the OOLTC, therefore she had not completed this task since she started work nine months ago. The facility polity titled Ombudsman Notification dated 11/18, identified the resident, family and OOLTC would be notified of a residents transfer to the hospital or discharge within 72 hours. The facility policy titled Resident Protection plan dated 2/23, identified a predatory offender was required to self-identify and failure to do so was a felony. If a predatory offender was admitted and had not self-identified, the facility could discharge the offender and the offender had no right to appeal. The undated example of the facility discharge and transfer notice form, identified a blank reason for transfer or discharge, along information regarding the resident rights to appeal, and the contact information for the Office of Health Facility Complaints appeals coordinator.
CONCERN (F)

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

Food Safety (Tag F0812)

Could have caused harm · This affected most or all residents

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure food was labeled, dated, and stored to prevent fo...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure food was labeled, dated, and stored to prevent foodborne illness. The facility failed to maintain clean vents over clean dishes. In addition, the facility failed to ensure dishware was cleaned and sanitized in a manner to reduce the risk of foodborne illness. This had potential to affect all residents and staff who eat from the main kitchen. Findings include: During observation and interview on 4/1/24 at 11:58 a.m., cook and chef supervisor (cook) stated he was cleaning out the refrigerator after the weekend. The refrigerator contained undated items which included a sandwich, Styrofoam container of soup, opened container of a cucumber salad, and bag of lettuce. Director of dining services (CD) confirmed the items were undated and from over the weekend. CD removed other undated items from the refrigerator described as chicken and pork from meals over the weekend. CD stated they keep leftovers for three days, and the lettuce was opened and used today. CD stated they were cleaning out items to rotate and get ready for new items, and the weekend staff were not as organized. CD stated leftovers and opened items should be dated. The refrigerator had salmon in a plastic bag labeled with R2's name and no date. CD confirmed the salmon was a resident's and undated and not supposed to be in the kitchen's refrigerator. During observation and interview on 4/2/24 at 12:24 p.m., dietary aid (DA)-B washed dishes with the dish machine which included pans for serving on steam table and food prepping equipment. DA-B stated she tested the dish machine with the test strips before completing breakfast, lunch, and dinner dishes. DA-B stated she had completed the test for lunch already and sanitizer level was recorded as 200. DA-B followed the levels according to the Dishmachine/PPM [parts per million] Temperature Log sheet and stated if the dish machine was out of range she would report to cook or CD. The adequate sanitizer range on the log was 50-100 PPM. DA-B stated the color of the strip reflected the sanitizer level of the dish machine washer. DA-B grabbed the tube of strips with green colored indicators and ran the dish machine with the strip on the dish machine rack. The strip fell off the rack, and DA-B grabbed another strip and dipped it in the side area of the dish machine which filled with water and partially drained and filled as the dish machine ran. DA-B stated placing the test strip in the side area of the dish machine was another way to test the sanitizer level. The stip was not changing colors. There was another tube of purple colored indicators, and DA-B stated the two tubes of test strips were similar. DA-B ran a test strip through the dish machine again, and the strip fell again. A coffee pot and clear container used for juice went to the clean section to dry during observation and interview. During observation and interview on 4/2/24 at 12:40 p.m., [NAME] stated the test strips should be dipped in the excess water found on top of the dishes after the dish machine cycle. [NAME] grabbed a test strip from the tube with the purple colored indicators and dipped the test strip in excess water on a pan which ran through the dish machine cycles. The strip changed to a light purple color which indicated somewhere between 10 and 50 ppm (parts per million). [NAME] stated they just had someone out servicing the machine and had to replace some hoses of the dish machine. [NAME] pushed the pans to the clean section. The dishes were then removed from the dish machine rack to dry on the rack designated for drying dishes. Serving utensils were washed in the dish machine and cook moved the level labeled for the sanitizer. [NAME] tested water collected from the dishes ran through the dishwasher, and cook stated the levels showed closer to 10 ppm. [NAME] stated the sanitizer level in the dish machine were not as high as it should be, and the dishes were not properly sanitized. [NAME] stated if the dishes were silverware and plates then they would be washed again, but prep dishes and utensils used for cooking could keep going through the dish machine. Silverware and plates were not being used for residents because of the norovirus outbreak. DA-A continued to place items which ran through the dish machine on the designated shelf rack to dry. During observation and interview on 4/2/24 at 12:55 p.m., CD stated strips from the tube with the purple indicators were used to determine the sanitizer level of the dish machine and strips from the tube with the green colored indicators were used for the Ecolab quat sanitizer for the tables and floors. CD verified the [NAME] Chlorine test papers with code 4250-BJ and purple indicators showed an expiration of January 2024. CD stated they would get more, and the test strips were probably good but may lose accuracy. CD threw away the expired test strips and showed another tube of test strips from [NAME] Machine Products (FMP) which they would use. Instructions from [NAME]'s chlorine test papers indicated to immerse one inch of test strip in solution. Remove immediately. Blot strip once on a paper towel to stabilize color. And then to compare strip to color chart. The color chart ranged from a light purple to dark purple labeled 10, 50, 100, and 200 ppm. The FMP chlorine test paper's color chart also ranged from a light to dark purple labeled 10, 50, 100, 200 ppm. Instructions included to use dry fingers to remove strip of paper from vial, dip strip into solution to be tested, without agitation and compare immediately with color chart on label. The time of test was one second. Instructions from [NAME]'s QAC ( quaternary ammonium compounds) QR Test strips with code 2951 had a color chart ranged from a yellow-green to blue-green labeled 50, 100, 200, 400 ppm. During interview on 4/3/24 at 10:13 a.m., CD stated the dish machine was fixed by a repair representative so the sanitizer came out to appropriate levels. During observation and interview on 4/3/23 at 10:38 a.m., DA-C had the dishes almost all completed, and the document posted by the dish machine labeled Dishmachine/PPM Temperature Log had blanks for breakfast wash and rinse temperatures and sanitizer level for 4/3/24. During observation and interview on 4/3/24 at 10:43 a.m., culinary supervisor (CS) stated the dish machine is a chemical dish machine and the person washing dishes normally checked the temperature and levels with the test strips. CS stated the dish machine should be checked with breakfast, lunch, and dinner. [NAME] CS stated she got in at 9 a.m., and no documentation may mean no one had checked the dish machine today. [NAME] stated he had not checked the dish machine level, and the staff member completing the dishes should check the dish machine. CS checked the dish machine temperature when the dish machine ran and used the test strip from the tube with the purple indicators to check the chemical level after it ran. CS wrote 120 in for the breakfast wash temperature and stated she needed to check the chemical level again. CS stated the second check showed a ppm level between 10 and 50 and was too light in color and wrote 50 in for the breakfast sanitizer level. CS took the strainer and serving utensil from the dish machine and placed back into the dirty section of the dish washing station. During interview on 4/3/24 at 10:58 a.m., CD stated the representative to fix the sanitizer solution was out yesterday and did not check the sanitizer level. During observation and interview on 4/3/24 at 11 a.m., cook tested the chemical sanitization level and stated it was in between 10 and 50 ppm but closer to 50. [NAME] stated he was shown how to adjust the dish machine sanitizer level and opened the top cover of the dish machine to adjust the gauge so more sanitizer was coming out when the dish machine ran. [NAME] checked the sanitizer level and showed to 50 ppm where it needed to be. [NAME] stated they did not know if the pots and pans used and washed this morning were sanitized at the appropriate level if the sanitizer level was not checked and documented earlier. During observation on 4/4/24 at 9:09 a.m., air was noted from a small vent above clean silverware and a rack was nearby with items drying or dried. The gray and whitish fuzzy particles hung about a quarter of an inch or less on two of the shorter perimeters of the vent. During observation and interview on 4/4/24 at 9:11 a.m., CS stated staff checked for dates on food items and threw away items without dates. CS stated staff cleaned the kitchen all day and once a month cleaned the vents. CS had CA-D clean the large vent in the kitchen this week but usually did not clean the smaller vents above the area where the clean dishes came out of dish machine and dried. The larger vent in the central area of the kitchen looked clean. CS stated cold air came out of the smaller vent and dried the dishes, and they take a rag across the smaller vents once in a while. CS verified the smaller vent above the clean dish area looked dusty enough to be concerned of dust falling and asked DA-B to clean the vent with a rag once the clean dishes were put away. CS stated they had cleaning tasks hung on the refrigerators in the kitchen but no documentation of cleaning tasks. During observation and interview on 4/4/24 at 9:23 a.m., a sanitizer repair representative (rep) was testing the dish machine and sanitizer level. Rep showed the level was at 50 ppm and adequate. Rep stated on Tuesday he switched out the sanitizer hose because it was bad quality. Rep stated the sanitizer level was very low this morning but worked now. Rep stated every time they buy chemical sanitizer a new tube of test strips should come with it. Rep stated the test strips get hard and do not absorb the chemical as well when expired. During interview on 4/4/24 at 9:29 a.m., DA-B stated they keep leftover food for a couple days and items in refrigerators should be dated or thrown out if not dated. DA-B stated residents have unit refrigerators where their personal food should be kept. DA-B stated R2's friend brings in the salmon for her and knows it should not be kept in the kitchen refrigerators. Review of the Dishmachine/PPM Temperature Log from March and April 2024 showed sanitizer levels ranged from 125 to 300 and identified 50-100 ppm as the adequate sanitizer range. During interview on 4/4/24 at 10:53 a.m., DA-B stated the dish machine sanitizer level had not been too high. DA-B reviewed the March and April Dishmachine/PPM Temperature Log and stated the levels balanced out so had not notified anyone. DA-B reconfirmed she used the test strips from the tube with the green indicators for the dish machine chemical level and showed what level of green 200 ppm was. During interview on 4/4/24 at 11:08 a.m., CD stated cook worked on the dish machine 4/1/24 into 4/2/24, and they thought the dish machine worked after rep came out on 4/2/24. CD stated they had not washed more dishes 4/3/24 until after rep came out and fixed the sanitizer 4/4/24, and they had a stack of pans which were drying and sent back through the dish machine after it worked properly. CD stated they were using paper products for the residents at this time and maybe a few dishes got through when the dish machine was not working properly earlier in the week. CD reviewed the Dishmachine/PPM Temperature Log and stated she thought it would be okay if the dish machine ran at a higher PPM and was unsure which level would indicate the chemical level of the dish machine was too high. CD stated they cleaned every single day and recently cleaned the vents on the ceiling. CD stated they cleaned the vents once a month but did not have documentation of cleaning. CD stated air from vents circulated through the kitchen and germs flow through. CD stated if they see dirty dishes, they do not use them and send them back to be cleaned and had not heard of concerns with dust on dishes. CD looked at the vent above the silverware and stated she would have someone clean the vent and stated the silverware below the vent were not being used and would be washed again before using. The facility provided dish machine manual was a parts manual and did not state chemical sanitization levels. The facility's Storage of Food and Supplies policy and procedures dated April 2019, indicated refrigerated products were rotated to the front, and new stock was placed in the cooler behind with label facing outward. The policy and procedure did not mention dating opened items or leftovers. The facility's The Use and Storage of Foods from Outside Sources policy and procedure dated 4/1/23, directed food items brought in from outside sources to be labeled with resident's name, content, date it was prepared if known, and a use by/discard date. Resident's perishable food will be kept in refrigeration units separate from the main facility kitchen food storage. The facility's Dish Sanitation policy and procedure dated April 2019, indicated they used a low temperature machine which required a sanitizer to be used and to check sanitizer at least twice each shift using the paper strips provided.
CONCERN (F)

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

Infection Control (Tag F0880)

Could have caused harm · This affected most or all residents

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** R53's quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated [DATE], indicated intact cognition, had verbal behaviors, did not reject care, requ...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** R53's quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated [DATE], indicated intact cognition, had verbal behaviors, did not reject care, required partial to moderate assist with most activities of daily living (ADLs), did not have skin or ulcer treatments. R53's Medical Diagnosis form indicated the following diagnoses: type two diabetes mellitus, chronic viral hepatitis C. R53's physician orders indicated the following orders: • 3/27/24, diabetic wound right dorsal 5th toe apply skin prep every day shift for wound care. • 4/3/24, diabetic wound to right medial foot cleanse with VASHE (wound cleanser), apply Santyl (removes dead tissue) to wound bed, then apply calcium alginate (an absorptive dressing), cut to fit wound, skin prep to peri wound, apply ABD, wrap with kerlix, secure with tape every day shift for wound. • R53's orders lacked evidence R53 was on enhanced barrier precautions. R53's medication administration record (MAR) and treatment administration record (TAR) dated April 2024, was reviewed and lacked evidence R53 was on enhanced barrier precautions. R53's care plan dated 3/29/23, indicated R53 required assist with dressing and undressing, oral cares, showering, and grooming. The care plan lacked information R53 was on enhanced barrier precautions. R53's care plan dated 4/2/24, indicated R53 had several wounds including a diabetic wound to the right medial foot, skin tears to the left and right upper and lower shins, diabetic wound to the left 2nd toe, and the right 5th toe with interventions to apply skin prep every day to the left foot 2nd toe, and right foot 5th toe. Diabetic wound right medial foot included cleansing with VASHE, pat dry, apply Santyl to the wound bed, then apply calcium alginate. Cut to fit the wound, skin prep to peri wound apply ABD, wrap with kerlix, secure with tape every day. The care plan lacked information R53 was on enhanced barrier precautions. During interview and observation on 4/1/24 between 1:41 p.m., and 1:51 p.m., R53 had a dressing on the right foot with a golf ball sized reddish brown discoloration on the dressing on the right lateral inner foot. R53 stated the discoloration was blood. There was no sign located outside R53's room indicating R53 was on enhanced barrier precautions. During interview and observation on 4/2/24 at 2:42 p.m., the infection preventionist (IP) assisted in changing R53's dressings and had gloves and a gown donned. There was no sign on the door indicating R53 was on any kind of precautions and stated R53 was not on precautions and were working on a policy for enhanced barrier precautions and stated requirements for enhanced barrier precautions went into effect on 4/1/24, and had not completed education with staff, but planned to complete as soon as possible and stated once they completed education and got the enhanced barrier precautions signs out, she expected staff to have the gowns. During interview on 4/4/24 at 9:39 a.m., the director of nursing (DON) stated they found out about the requirement for enhanced barrier precautions on 4/1/24 and hadn't had a chance to look at anything and stated they needed to get isolation carts. On 4/4/24, at 12:58 p.m., the DON emailed a policy, dated 4/2024, Enhanced Barrier Precautions (EBP), that indicated enhanced barrier precautions would be used for residents with indwelling medical devices, wounds, or those colonized by or infected with a multidrug resistant organism (MDRO). EPB are an infection control intervention designed to reduce transmission of resistant organisms that employs targeted gown and glove use during high contact resident care activities. Effective implementation of EBP requires staff training on the proper use of personal protective equipment (PPE) and the availability of PPE and hand hygiene supplies at the point of care. Staff will gather all supplies and materials before entering an enhanced barrier precaution room. During observation between 4/3/24 at 2:19 p.m., and 2:23 p.m., the laundry aide (LA)-D was going down the hallway and delivered personal linens to residents. The clean personal items were uncovered. At 2:23 p.m., LA-D hung a t shirt on the outside doorknob for R75's room. A sign was located on the door indicating contact and droplet precautions. At 2:23 p.m., LA-D moved the laundry cart outside the double doors. During interview on 4/3/24, at 2:34 p.m., LA-D stated she started in September 2023, as a laundry aid and stated she did not know if personal clothes should be covered and stated she had never seen clean personal clothing covered and verified she placed a t-shirt on R75's room on the outside doorknob and stated if a resident had something that was very contagious, clothes were hung outside the resident's room on the door knob and staff would bring it in and further stated she did not want to spread infection. During interview on 4/4/24 at 9:05 a.m., the assistant director of nursing (ADON) stated the clean clothing cart is typically not covered and would have to check whether or not it should be covered and further stated it would be important to keep covered due to germs and stated the housekeeper should not place clothing on the door knobs outside doors for residents with contact and droplet precautions, the clothing should be brought into the rooms. During interview on 4/4/24 at 9:39 a.m., the director of nursing (DON) stated the linen cart should be covered and clothing should not be on the door due to infection control reasons and due to an outbreak. A policy, Laundry-General Handling 7/16/2018, indicated staff were required to be educated in and to follow established infection control practices. The policy lacked information on how clean linens were handled and distributed to the residents. Based on observation, interview, and document review, the facility failed to implement transmission-based precautions (TBP) for 1 of 1 resident (R17) reviewed who had emesis and loose stools while there was an outbreak of confirmed rotavirus and norovirus cases (contagious viruses which causes vomiting and diarrhea and are spread through feces) in the facility, failed to implement TBP for 1 of 1 residents (R65) who had a history of MRSA (methicillin resistant staphylococcus aureus - a potentially dangerous type of staph bacteria that is resistant to certain antibiotics), and failed to implement enhanced-barrier precautions for 2 of 2 residents (R385, R53) and failed to ensure proper handling of linens observed for infection prevention practices. Findings include: During observation on 4/1/24 at 11:45 a.m., bright pink signs were observed on the front doors to the building which identified the facility had an outbreak of norovirus, rotavirus, and Covid-19. Additional signs were posted on hallway doors throughout the building. On 4/1/24 at 6:04 p.m., the facility provided a list of residents with current infections which included: 3 residents with confirmed Rotavirus 3 residents with suspected GI illnesses 1 resident with confirmed Norovirus 1 resident with clostridium difficile (C-diff- a bacteria which causes an infection in the colon resulting in diarrhea) 6 residents with ESBL in urine (Extended -Spectrum Beta-Lactamase - an antibiotic resistant bacteria) 1 resident with MRSA in urine 3 residents with MRSA or VRE (other than GI or urine) (VRE- Vancomycin resistant enterococcus - an antibiotic -resistant bacteria) R17 R17's quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated [DATE], included R17 was moderately cognitively impaired, had diagnoses of kidney failure and dementia, was independent with transfers to and from the toilet, required setup for walking, and did not use a wheelchair for mobility. R17 was occasionally incontinent of urine and frequently incontinent of bowel. R17's care plan dated 11/7/23, indicated they ambulated with setup assistance and a walker, and directed staff to toilet upon arising, before and after meals, before bedtime, and at night as needed. R17's progress note dated 4/1/24 at 10:03 a.m., indicated R17 had an emesis while on the patio, the provider was notified, and there were no new orders. During observation on 4/1/24 at 1:10 p.m., R17 was seated on the toilet in their bathroom projectile vomiting very large amounts of liquid which began flowing out the bathroom door and into the room entrance area. R17's clothing was soiled with emesis and their spouse was in the bathroom attempting to assist them. R17's roommate ambulated with their walker to the bathroom to check on R17. At 1:29 p.m., nursing assistant (NA)-C was wearing gloves, and mask, and eye protection was helping R17 change clothes and get cleaned up in the bathroom. There was no personal protective equipment (PPE) cart or signage on R17's door identifying transmission-based precautions and NA-C was not wearing a protective gown. At 1:30 p.m. another aide stopped at R17's room to offer a snack, at which time NA-C exited R17's room carrying a garbage bag containing R17's soiled clothing items without gloves. NA-C told the other aide R17 had loose stool and was throwing up and would likely not want a snack. The vitals machine was sitting in the hallway outside of the room. At 1:32 p.m., R17 was seated on their bed on the far side of the room next to the window. Registered nurse (RN)-E entered R17's room with the vitals machine, donned gloves, and took R17's vital signs. RN-A was not wearing a gown. During observation at 1:38 p.m., RN-E left R17's room with the vitals machine and performed hand hygiene. The bathroom floor had remnants of debris in several areas, the wall next to the toilet had numerous striped trails of liquid residue from approximately 2 feet from the ground to the floor, the toilet seat and the interior of the bowl were speckled with hundreds of flecks of brown matter, and a brown smear was present on the top left side of the toilet seat. During interview on 4/1/24 at 2:16 p.m. NA-C stated a nurse told them about R17's vomiting and diarrhea earlier that morning and again a second time around 1:00 p.m. They stated they wiped up the floor with towels and then let housekeeping know so they could sanitize the bathroom, however they had not yet seen housekeeping. NA-C confirmed they did not wear a gown to assist with cleaning up R17 and did not think they got anything on their clothes, however, they needed to wash their shoes with bleach to remove contamination. NA-C identified both R17 and their roommate ambulated and toileted independently and used the same bathroom. During observation on 4/1/24 at 2:26 p.m., NA-C went to the nurse's station to ask staff if anyone called housekeeping to clean R17's bathroom. Another staff person stated they had not seen them and would contact them. During interview on 4/1/24 at 2:26 p.m., RN-E stated R17 vomited on the patio that morning but did not have loose stools at that time. They stated the director of nursing (DON) and the infection preventionist (IP) brought R17 back into the facility and R17 was assessed. RN-E stated R17's vital signs were elevated at that time. RN-E updated the provider, but the provider had not yet returned the call. RN-E wanted to get a stool sample from R17 because norovirus and other GI issues were going around, however the aide had already cleaned R17 up. They stated emesis was all over the bathroom floor and into the room entrance area, and it was difficult to find room for the vitals machine. They stated they used nursing judgement when deciding to obtain a stool sample and/or place a resident on precautions, but they were not sure about the facility protocols as they worked for an agency. RN-E stated any of the staff could have called housekeeping to have them come and clean the bathroom, but usually the aides did it. RN-E verified the soiled state of the bathroom floor, toilet, and wall as previously described, and stated it was a big concern which needed to be escalated to the infection preventionist (IP). During interview on 4/1/24 at 2:38 p.m., IP stated the current outbreak started on 3/29/24, when a group of people began having loose stools. They had a standing order to collect a stool sample if a resident had three or more loose stools, so they collected samples. Three residents tested positive for rotavirus, one tested positive for norovirus, and another tested positive for c-diff earlier that morning. IP stated if any additional residents had a loose stool, they planned to send a sample for testing. IP stated they were told R17 had an emesis in the morning, but they were not aware they had loose stools at that time. They were informed about the more recent emesis, and they should probably put precautions up until they received results back in case it was rotavirus, norovirus, or c-diff, however no sample had gone out yet. IP stated staff should wear a gown to assist residents in cleaning up any emesis or diarrhea to protect themselves and other residents from bodily fluids and IP would follow up with the staff. IP indicated nursing staff cleaned up body fluids using towels or a mop and should use bleach wipes to clean each surface if there is suspected c-diff or norovirus, and then housekeeping came afterward to sanitize the rest of the bathroom, however housekeeping did not clean bodily fluids. IP stated they needed to educate staff regarding the cleaning process, and even after it was cleaned it was not safe for both R17 and their roommate to use the same bathroom and they would provide a commode for one of them. During observation on 4/1/24 at 6:33 p.m., R17's roommate had a commode available in their room. The bathroom toilet was still soiled as previously described. R17's spouse was still present in the room as they had been throughout the day. A contact precautions sign was on the door and a PPE cart was in the hallway. During observation on 4/1/24 at 6:40 p.m., R17's spouse came to the nurse in the hallway and informed them R17 threw up again. During interview outside of R17's room on 4/1/24 at 6:46 p.m., DON stated the provider ordered testing for norovirus and c-diff for R17, however, they decided to send R17 to the hospital due to the risk of dehydration. At 6:51 p.m. RN-G was wearing a gown and gloves as they assessed R17's vital signs in preparation for transport to the hospital. RN-G removed their used gown and gloves and handed them to R17's spouse who was in the bathroom and requested the spouse place them in the garbage. The spouse was not wearing gloves. DON intervened and asked RN-G to request R17's spouse to wash their hands. When asked about sharing the bathroom with a roommate, DON stated if there was a not another room available, they provided a commode for the resident who was not affected so they were not sharing a bathroom. DON indicated R17's roommate in the first bed was independent with toileting and could pull the curtain when privacy was needed, however was unsure how the roommate would wash their hands or brush their teeth without use of the bathroom unless they went across the hall to the communal bathroom or used wipes. In addition, DON indicated R17's spouse visited R17 in their room from mid-morning until after dinner every day and confirmed it would be difficult for R17's roommate to get the privacy they needed to use the commode in that situation. DON confirmed the aide should have worn a gown when assisting R17 after the emesis and diarrhea, and nursing staff should have cleaned up the bodily fluids with towels or a mop and then called housekeeping to sanitize the bathroom right afterward. They stated they were present when the supervisor told housekeeping staff to clean R17's bathroom and housekeeping immediately went to clean it. DON then walked across the hallway, observed R17's bathroom, and verified it had not been cleaned and was still spattered with brown matter. R17's progress note dated 4/1/24 at 7:00 p.m. indicated R17 had emesis during the evening and was sent to the hospital at approximately 7:20 p.m. R17's progress note dated 4/1/24 at 10:54 p.m. indicated R17 had two emesis and loose stools between 3:00 p.m., and 4:00 p.m., was given clear liquids, and was not keeping anything down. The provider gave orders to send R17 to the hospital for further evaluation. A progress note dated 4/2/24 at 1:59 a.m., indicated R17 returned from the hospital at 1:00 a.m. with an order for an anti-emetic and did not have vomiting or loose stools at that time. During interview on 4/2/24 at 9:00 a.m., R17 stated they went to the hospital the previous night due to vomiting and diarrhea, but they gave them some medication and they were feeling better. They stated the hospital tested for Covid-19 and influenza and took some blood samples, but they did not take a stool sample. R17's roommate was moved to a different room as of 4/2/24. During interview on 4/3/24 at 1:08 p.m., DON stated they sent stool samples per provider orders, however they were unable to send one for R17 as ordered since they ran out of specimen containers and the shipment had not yet been delivered as planned so they went to pick some up that morning. They stated R17 was not yet tested for c-diff or norovirus in the hospital. R65 R65's admission Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated [DATE], included R65 was cognitively intact, used an indwelling foley catheter, and had a diagnosis of urinary tract infection (UTI) in the previous 30 days. R65's Crest View Lutheran Home admission Information dated 1/22/24, included R65 had diagnoses of UTI, chronic ulcer of left ankle, and MRSA. The hospital admission History and Physical dated 1/18/24, included R65 was admitted for severe sepsis, recurrent UTIs, and recommended possible infectious disease consultation. A progress notes dated 2/14/24, indicated R65 was send to the hospital for evaluation of left lower leg circulation related to peripheral vascular disease (restricted blood flow). A progress note dated 2/21/24, indicated R65 returned to the facility after having a left below the knee amputation (BKA). R65's care plan dated 1/23/24, included R65 used a foley catheter and instructed staff to complete catheter care per orders and document output every shift. R65's electronic medical record header reviewed 4/1/24, included R65 was on contact precautions due to MRSA. R65's Order Summary Report dated 4/3/24, included change left stump dressing daily starting 3/5/24, provide foley catheter cares every shift, document foley catheter output every shift, and resident may be placed in isolation precautions (standard, contact, droplet, airborne) per facility infection control policy. During observation and interview on 4/1/24 at 12:47 p.m., R65 stated he used a foley catheter, had seven or eight urinary tract infections in the past, and used a leg bag during the day and a larger bag at night. A leg bag was visible attached to R65's right lower leg and a larger foley bag was in the bathroom in a plastic bag hanging from a grab bar. No TBP signs or PPE supplies were in or outside the room. During observation on 4/2/24 at 8:43 a.m., 12:49 p.m., and 2:15 p.m., there was no TBP sign on R65's door or PPE cart outside the room. On 4/3/24 at 8:07 a.m., there was no TBP sign on R65's door or PPE cart outside the room. During observation on 4/03/24 at 9:23 a.m., R65 was lying in bed with a catheter bag hanging on the side of the bed frame. During observation and interview on 4/3/245 at 9:38 a.m., NA-D stated R65 was not on any transmission-based precautions since there was no sign on the door and no PPE cart outside the room. NA-D performed hand hygiene, donned gloves, removed R65's catheter bag, cleaned the port on the leg bag with an alcohol wipe, and connected the leg bag to R65's catheter. NA-D was not wearing a protective gown. R385 R385's admission MDS dated [DATE], indicated they were moderately cognitively impaired, had diagnoses of depression and malnutrition, and did not use a urinary catheter. R385's care plan dated 4/1/24, included R385 used an indwelling catheter and instructed staff to change and provide cares per orders. R385's Order Summary Report dated 4/3/24, included foley catheter care and document foley catheter output every shift. During observation on 4/1/24 at 2:02 p.m., and 5:58 p.m., R385 was lying in bed and a foley catheter bag hung from the bed frame. There was no PPE cart outside of the room or precaution sign on R385's door. During observation on 4/2/24 at 3:25 p.m. there was no PPE cart outside of the room or precaution sign on R385's door. During observation on 4/3/24 at 7:14 a.m., there was no PPE cart outside of the room or precaution sign on R385's door. During observation and interview on 4/3/24 at 9:13 a.m., NA-C and NA-D were providing cares to R385. NA-D stated aides completed catheter cares, changed the drainage bags, and emptied the urine from resident catheters. NA-C performed hand hygiene, donned gloves, obtained the urinal from the bathroom, emptied the catheter bag into the urinal, sanitized the spout with an alcohol wipe, and secured the spout. Neither NA-C nor NA-D wore a protective gown during catheter cares. Both aides indicated they only wore them when a resident had an infection. During interview on 4/3/24 at 12:23 p.m., IP stated residents were assessed prior to admission and TBP signs and a PPE cart were place outside of the resident's door upon their arrival to the facility as needed for those with MRSA and other drug resistant organisms. IP reviewed R65's medical record and was not sure if the MRSA was in their wounds related to the PVD (peripheral vascular disease) and/or subsequent amputation or if it was catheter related, however R65 should have been on contact precautions to ensure MRSA was not spread to other residents. IP stated they knew the enhanced barrier precautions, including gowns, were required during close contact situations for residents with indwelling devices and wounds started on 4/1/24, however the staff had not been educated and the policy procedures were not yet developed or implemented, therefore R65 and R385 had not yet been placed on enhanced barrier precautions. During interview on 4/3/24 at 1:08 p.m. DON stated the facility was in the process of discussing the implementation of enhanced barrier precautions to reduce the risk of spread of infections, and residents with MRSA or other antibiotic-resistant organisms should be on appropriate transmission-based precautions. The Crest View Lutheran Home Transmission Based Precautions Policy dated 1/2022, indicated transmission-Based Precautions are for patients who are known or suspected to be infected or colonized with infectious agents, including certain epidemiologically important pathogens, which require additional control measures to effectively prevent transmission. Contact Precautions were defined as direct or indirect contact with a patient and/or his or her environment including person's room or objects in contact with the person, that has an infection with an organism transmitted fecal-orally, such as Clostridium difficile, or wound and skin infections, or multi-drug resistant bacteria such as methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA). Contact precautions require the use of PPE such as disposable gowns, gloves, and masks when exposure to a patient's body fluids is anticipated. Residents on Transmission-based-Precautions will have a sign outside their room stating what type of precautions they are on and an isolation bin outside their room stocked with appropriate PPE. The sign outside of the resident's room will direct you on what PPE should be used for that specific precaution.
Jul 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

Notification of Changes (Tag F0580)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview and document review, the facility failed to ensure a physician was notified of a change in condition for 1 of...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview and document review, the facility failed to ensure a physician was notified of a change in condition for 1 of 1 resident (R1) who was lethargic, sweating profusely, developed a hand tremor and had uncontrolled pain following a spinal surgery. Findings include: R1's admission Mimimum Data Set (MDS) dated [DATE], indicated diagnoses of encounter for surgical aftercare following surgery on the nervous system, spinal stensosis (lumbar region), low back pain, chronic kidney disease (stage 3), and congestive heart failure. It further indicated R1 had intact cognition and required limited assistance with bed mobility, transfers, dressing, toileting, and personal hygiene. R1's hospital discharge papers dated 6/25/23, indicated under the heading: Call your surgeon if you have: -any change in movement such as new weakness or inability to move affected arm or leg. -severe pain that is not relieved by medicine, rest or ice. -any other problems, questions, or concerns about your surgery. R1's progress note dated 6/26/2023 at 1:46 p.m., indicated a change in condition: R1 complained of pain rate 7/10 , blood pressure 142/72 , temperature 98.7 degrees, pulse 78, respirations 16 breaths per minute, oxygen saturation 90% on room air, and blood sugar 247. Licensed practical nurse (LPN)-A administered morphine 15 milligrams (mg) and called the on call physician at Twin Cities Physicians (TCP) and they told her to call his surgeon. The progress note did not include a notation regarding a call to the surgeon or any response from the surgeon. R1's therapy progress note dated 6/26/2023 at 3:07 p.m., indicated during evaluation, R1 was profusely sweating, had difficulty holding his head upright and keeping his eyes open, was swaying while sitting on the edge of the bed, required assistance with bed mobility, reached for objects without being able to grab them, and was confused. Nursing was notified of R1's current condition. R1's progress noted dated 6/27/2023 at 10:59 a.m., included change in condition: R1 has a new tremor noted in bilateral arms, more significant in right arm and hand, unable to bring cup or spoon to his mouth without spilling or dropping items, more lethargic, unable to participate in therapy, and pain is not being controlled well with the morphine. R1 had surgery for spinal stenosis post operation day 7. Writer called and spoke with the Physician's assistant (PA) for the surgeon who performed R1's surgery 14 hours after the noted change in condition and they would like him sent to the emergency department (ED) for evaluation for medication management and new tremor. R1's progress noted dated 6/27/2023 at 3:02 p.m., indicated R1 was taken to mercy hospital at 3:00 pm by emergency medical technicians (EMT). R1 was sent to the ER 24 hours after the first sign of a change in condition. During an interview on 7/6/23 at 11:50 a.m., LPN-A stated on 6/26/23, R1 was drowsy, groaning, had facial grimacing, uncontrolled pain, and therapy had reported to her he was a bit shaky. LPN-A further stated she had checked his blood sugar, vital signs, and called Twin Cities Physician's (TCP) and they told her to call the surgeon. LPN-A stated her shift was ending and she didn't have the surgeon's phone number, so she told her supervisor (LPN-B) and passed the information on to the on-coming nurse (but was unable to recall who the on-coming nurse was). During an interview on 7/6/23 at 10:59 a.m., LPN-B stated on 6/26/23, she had assisted LPN-A to reposition R1 in bed and noticed he was sleepy, difficult to boost up in bed, and unable to participate in his care. She further stated he had a hand tremor and rated his pain at a 9 out of 10 (on the pain scale). LPN-A asked her for the surgeon's phone number and LPN-B told her to look in R1's paper chart or ask the health unit coordinator (HUC), stating I thought she was going to follow up. The next day (6/27/23), LPN-B went to the MDS therapy meeting and discovered R1's change in condition hadn't been followed up on. The therapists (unknown) were discussing R1 and the fact he wasn't acting like himself, was lethargic, and wasn't able to participate in therapy. LPN-B called the surgeon and updated the physician's assistant on R1's change in condition. The surgeon instructed LPN-B to send R1 to the emergency department. During an interview on 7/6/23 at 2:44 p.m., LPN-C stated on 6/26/23, R1 was sleepy, unable to feed himself, and stated he was in pain. LPN-C further stated (while giving her report) LPN-A asked her to keep an eye on him and that LPN-A was going to call his surgeon. LPN-C stated she did not follow up with the surgeon because LPN-A said she was going to take care of it. During an interview on 7/6/23 at 3:09 p.m., the medical director stated reporting a change in condition and following through with the physician is important. When a person is not doing well we would expect the nursing staff to reach out and notify them and get a plan in place. It's difficult for the nurses when they don't get a satisfactory resolution but what I would've liked to have heard (if they couldn't reach the surgeon) was they reached back out to TCP and told them they couldn't get a hold of the surgeon, so what should we do now? No change of condition policy provided.
Mar 2023 10 deficiencies 1 IJ
CRITICAL (J)

Immediate Jeopardy (IJ) - the most serious Medicare violation

Deficiency F0578 (Tag F0578)

Someone could have died · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure a do-not-resuscitate (DNR) order was accurately reflected t...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure a do-not-resuscitate (DNR) order was accurately reflected throughout the medical record for 1 of 26 residents (R81) reviewed for advanced directives. This resulted in an immediate jeopardy (IJ) for R81 who would have received cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR), contrary to their wishes, in the absence of a pulse or respirations. The IJ began on [DATE], when the facility obtained a physician's order for R81 to have a full code status even though the physician order for life sustaining treatment (POLST) indicated do not resuscitate (DNR). The IJ was identified on [DATE]. The administrator and director of nursing (DON) were notified of the IJ on [DATE], at 3:15 p.m. The immediate jeopardy was removed on [DATE], but noncompliance remained at the lower scope and severity level of D-isolated scope and severity level, which indicated no actual harm with potential for more than minimal harm that is not immediate jeopardy. Findings include: R81's quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated [DATE], indicated intact cognition. R81's MDS dated [DATE], indicated the following diagnoses: alcohol dependence, alcoholic cirrhosis of the liver, and depression. R81's clinical profile in the electronic medical record (EMR) indicated R81 was her own representative. R81's care plan dated [DATE] indicated full code status. R81's hospital Discharge summary dated [DATE], indicated a code status of DNR was confirmed while in the hospital. R81's physician orders in the EMR dated [DATE], indicated R81 was a full code. R81's POLST in the paper chart dated [DATE], indicated do not attempt resuscitation/DNR allow natural death and was signed by R81 and the nurse practitioner (NP). A care conference summary note dated [DATE], indicated R81 and the nursing supervisor were present at the care conference, but nursing was unable to review R81's code status due to R81 not being able to stay awake. R81's nursing progress notes were reviewed from [DATE], through [DATE], and lacked additional documentation the code status was reviewed. During review of the EMR on [DATE], at 1:26 p.m. R81's face sheet indicated full code status and under the miscellaneous tab, a document named POLST not valid, was the POLST dated [DATE], which indicated DNR. During interview on [DATE], at 10:42 a.m. registered nurse (RN)-B stated he would check for the code status of a resident on the profile in the EMR and on the paper chart under the advanced directives tab. RN-B reviewed R81's paper chart which indicated a POLST dated and signed on [DATE], by R81 and the NP. The POLST indicated R81 did not want to be resuscitated. Further, at 11:07 a.m. RN-B stated if there was a discrepancy, he would need to ask the supervisor, and would start CPR in an emergent situation. During interview on [DATE], at 10:50 a.m. R81 was sitting up in bed and alert. R81 stated, let me die if her heart stopped. During interview on [DATE], at 11:04 a.m. RN-D stated if there was a discrepancy on a resident's code status, and the resident was alert and oriented, she would ask the resident if they wanted full treatment, otherwise she would contact the family and the physician and added they could not have both full code and DNR status. RN-D further stated if a resident did not have a pulse, she would check the code status on the face sheet and added the code status which was also located in the hard chart. During interview on [DATE], at 11:05 a.m. RN-E stated if a resident did not have a pulse, she would check the code status in the EMR and then in the hard chart, and if there was a discrepancy, would start CPR and then clarify the code status. During interview on [DATE], at 11:05 a.m. licensed practical nurse (LPN)-E stated if a resident did not have a pulse, he would look for the code status in the care plan behind the door, or in the EMR on the banner. He also stated there was a yellow POLST in the chart, and if there was a discrepancy, he would first administer CPR and sort the rest out later. During an interview on [DATE], at 11:23 a.m. the director of nursing (DON) stated staff went to profile or miscellaneous in point click care to find code status. When the POLST and orders don't match, residents were considered full code. DON verified R81's profile indicated full code. Staff were expected to check the paper chart to confirm. DON stated when the POLST was identified as not valid, it indicated social services had an updated POLST form. The DON stated R81's POLST had recently been updated. However, the record lacked an updated POLST. When there was a discrepancy, she would expect the staff to administer CPR. During interview and record review on [DATE], at 11:38 a.m. the DON stated facility staff were concerned R81 may not have been coherent when the NP reviewed the POLST with R81 on [DATE], so a note was sent to the NP per the patient portal (an electronic communication) on [DATE]. DON provided a copy of the patient portal note sent to the nurse practitioner [DATE]. The note indicated facility staff requested R81's POLST be reviewed a second time with the NP and R81 remain a full code until the POLST was reviewed a second time. The NP replied on [DATE], at 7:24 a.m. that R81 was coherent when the POLST was reviewed on [DATE]. A policy, Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation dated 3/17, indicated if an individual resident, visitor, or staff is found unresponsive and without a pulse, a licensed staff person who is certified in CPR shall initiate CPR unless it is known that a do not resuscitate order that specifically prohibits CPR exists for that individual. Under the procedure If there was no response, no pulse and no respirations, the code status was checked under the advanced directives tab in the front of the chart. The IJ was removed on [DATE], at 2:45 p.m. when the facility implemented a removal plan which was verified by interview and document review. -On [DATE], reviewed the POLST and code status with R81. -On [DATE], the updated POLST with DNR status was signed by the NP and R81. R81's physician orders, code status, POLST, and care plan were updated with the DNR status. -On [DATE], audits were completed for all residents to ensure physician orders, code status, POLST, and care plan had no discrepancies. -On [DATE] and [DATE], the facility CPR and POLST policies/procedures were reviewed and updated. -On [DATE] and [DATE], education for all professional nursing staff on the CPR and POLST policies/procedures and talking to the resident when there's a question regarding code status was conducted. Professional nursing staff not educated would receive the education prior to the next shift worked.
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0582 (Tag F0582)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on interview and document review, the facility failed to ensure the required Skilled Nursing Facility Advance Beneficiary Notice (CMS-10055) was provided to 2 of 3 residents (R91, R94) who conti...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on interview and document review, the facility failed to ensure the required Skilled Nursing Facility Advance Beneficiary Notice (CMS-10055) was provided to 2 of 3 residents (R91, R94) who continued to reside in the facility upon termination of Medicare A benefits. Findings include: The Skilled Nursing Facility Advance Beneficiary Notice (CMS-10055) informs resident/beneficiaries of potential liability for payment and related standard claim appeal rights. R91's census report printed 3/2/23, indicated 91's Medicare A benefit ended on 2/23/23. R91's census report further indicated R91 continued to reside in the facility. R91's CMS-10055 was requested however was not provided. R94's census report printed 3/2/23, indicated R94's Medicare A benefit ended on 2/7/23. R94's census report further indicated R94 continued to reside in the facility. R94's CMS-10055 was requested however was not provided. When interviewed on 3/2/23, at 1:23 p.m. the administrator verified a CMS-10055 was not completed for R91 and R94. The administrator further stated the CMS-10055 was not used at the facility and residents were only provided Notice of Medicare Non-Coverage (NOMNC) forms when Medicare A benefits were expiring. A facility policy for beneficiary notification was requested however was not received.
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0676 (Tag F0676)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview and document review, the facility failed to maintain a walking program for 1 of 1 resident (R25)...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview and document review, the facility failed to maintain a walking program for 1 of 1 resident (R25) reviewed for activities of daily living (ADL) decline. Findings include: R25's quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated [DATE], indicated R25 had minimal cognitive impairment and required extensive one-person physical assistance with most ADLs. Walk in room and walk in corridor assessment indicated the activity did not occur. R25 used a wheelchair for mobility. R25's diagnoses included hemiplegia and hemiparesis (weakness or paralysis affecting one side of the body), diabetes, and peripheral vascular disease (condition affecting blood circulation). R25's annual MDS dated [DATE], indicated R25 required one-person physical assist to walk in room and that R25 used a walker and wheelchair for mobility. R25's ADL care plan dated 12/15/22, indicated R25 had an ADL self-care deficit with a goal to maintain current level of function. Interventions included, Ambulate 1 time a day, 7 days a week CGA [contact guard assist] 30 feet [ft] with FWW [front wheel walker] and w/c [wheelchair] to follow. R25's physical therapy (PT) note dated 12/13/22, at 1:46 p.m. indicated, At d/c [discharge from PT], he is CGA for transfer and ambulation c [with] FWW up to 30' [feet]. R25's PT Discharge summary dated [DATE], indicated a discharge recommendation to be placed on an ambulation program with staff. R25's visual/bedside [NAME] report (nursing care sheet) dated 3/1/23, indicated, Ambulate 1 time a day, 7 days a week CGA 30ft with FWW and w/c to follow. R25's provider order dated 12/22/22, indicated, Ambulate 1 time a day, 7 days a week CGA 30ft with FWW and w/c to follow every day shift. R25's walking program task report for 1/30/23 through 12/27/23, indicated resident refused three times and not applicable 19 times. R25's February treatment record (TAR) for 2/28/23, indicated resident refused ambulation. R25's Resident Referral/Interdepartmental Communication dated 12/20/22, instructed nursing to ambulate R25 one time daily, seven days a week 30 feet with CGA using FWW and w/c to follow. During observation and interview on 2/28/23, at 4:04 p.m. R25 was in the dining room seated in a wheelchair. R25 stated he was not offered to walk today and had not been offered to walk in quite a while. He stated he wanted to walk every day to get strong and he would not refuse if offered. R25 stated he always says yes if they offered to walk him. During observation and interview on 3/1/23, at 9:02 a.m. R25 was in the dining room seated in a wheelchair. R25 stated he had not walked today and had not been offered to walk yesterday or today and staff probably would not offer to walk him today. During observation on 3/1/23, at 9:09 a.m. R25 self-propelled in hallway and stated, I would be thrilled if I could walk to the washroom. During interview on 3/1/23, at 12:15 p.m. nursing assistant (NA)-D stated she was the restorative NA with the responsibility to walk residents who were on walking programs. NA-D stated R25 refused to walk, and she had never walked him. NA-D stated R25's legs were not strong enough to walk. During interview on 3/1/23, at 12:33 p.m. NA-E stated R25 did not walk anymore and had only seen him walk twice since last April. NA-E stated that the restorative nurse typically walked any resident on a walking program, but other NAs could walk them as well when they had enough staff and time. NA-E stated she never offered to walk R25. During interview on 3/1/23, at 12:45 p.m. NA-F stated it was difficult for R25 to walk. NA-F stated the last time she had offered to walk R25 was a month ago and he declined because he was too weak. NA-F stated R25 had not actually walked in months and months. NA-F confirmed R25 had a walking task and stated they should be offering to walk him every day. NA-F stated she indicated resident refused and did not verbally report it to a nurse. R25's TAR for 3/7/23 and 2/14/23, indicated ambulation was completed and signed off by licensed practical nurse (LPN)-D. During interview on 3/1/23, at 12:54 p.m. LPN-D stated R25 did not walk and she had not seen him walk in three to four months. LPN-D stated the NAs were supposed to walk residents who were on a walking program and report to the nurse. The nurse would sign it off as completed in the TAR and the NA would sign it as completed in their tasks. LPN-D did not inidicate any communication to leadership or therapy regarding R25 not completing the walking task. R25's walking program task revision history indicated the walking task was last revised on 1/11/23 by LPN-C. During interview on 3/1/23, at 1:30 p.m. LPN-C stated she had not seen R25 walk and was not aware he was on a walking program. LPN-C reviewed point click care (PCC) and stated confirmed revising the task so that it would display on R25's [NAME] so NAs would see the task would need to be completed. LPN-C further stated she would expect to be notified if a resident on a daily walking program routinely refused to ambulate. During interview on 3/1/23, at 1:46 PM assistant director of nursing (ADON) stated she did not think R25 walked any more. ADON further stated if a resident was on a walking program, it should be indicated on the [NAME], and the NA's should be offering ambulation. During observation on 3/1/23, at 2:11 p.m. NA-D and NA-F assisted R25 using a FWW and CGA to walk with shuffling steps approximately 20 feet. R25 sat down for one minute on the wheelchair the staff followed with, and then walked an additional 12 feet. R25 smiled and stated it had been a while since he did that. During interview on 3/1/23, at 2:20 p.m. physical therapist stated R25 was discharged from PT on 12/13/22 on a walking program and was not aware ambulation was not occurring. Nursing was provided a referral using an interdepartmental communication form. The expectation was staff would be walking any resident on a walking program and would notify PT if they routinely refused or the resident was not physically able to complete the task. During interview on 3/1/23, at 2:30 p.m. director of nursing stated she expected residents on a walking program would be walked by staff. R25 should have been offered to walk daily. Nursing should notify therapy if resident consistantly unable to complete a walking task. Facility policy Ambulation dated 7/04, indicated, residents would be encouraged and assisted to ambulate for increased independence, to improve morale, and to increase circulation. Walking programs could be initiated by therapy or nursing and communication would occur between nursing and therapy. Facility policy Restorative Nursing Program dated 1/10, indicated the program was to assist residents to achieve and maintain optimal health and the highest practicable physical, mental and psychological well being.
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 document review the facility failed to ensure residents were appropriately assessed post di...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview, and document review the facility failed to ensure residents were appropriately assessed post dialysis treatments and resident's health status communicated between dialysis center and facility for 1 of 1 resident (R90) reviewed for dialysis. Findings include: R90's admission Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated [DATE], indicated R90 was cognitively intact, received dialysis treatment, and had diagnoses including end stage renal disease (advanced state with loss of function), diabetes, syncope (feeling lightheaded) and collapse. R90's care plan dated 2/2/23, indicated R90 received dialysis related to renal failure and instructed staff to monitor, document and report signs of infection at the access site, bleeding, changes in level of consciousness and changes in heart and lung sounds. R90's care plan instructed staff to obtain vital signs (VS) and weight per protocol and report significant changes in pulse, respirations, and blood pressure immediately. R90's physician orders indicated R90 had dialysis three times a week and instructed staff to check dialysis site in chest daily for signs of infection. R90's orders lacked further instruction for post dialysis treatment assessment. R90's VS record indicated last documented VS dated 2/25/23, at 22:12 p.m. (10:12 p.m.) During interview on 2/28/23, at 8:28 a.m. R90 stated dialysis was Mondays, Wednesdays, and Fridays. During observation on 3/1/23, at 9:27 a.m. licensed practical nurse (LPN)-D provided wound care and flushed R90's port in preparation for dialysis. Nursing assistant (NA)-D and NA-F provided morning personal care, groomed, dressed, and transferred R90 to a wheelchair using a Hoyer lift. No other assessment or VS obtained. During interview on 3/2/23, at 11:05 a.m. registered nurse (RN)-F stated VS and access site should always be assessed before and after dialysis treatment. RN-F further stated dialysis center should send a run sheet (summary of resident's status during treatment) which should be reviewed by the nurse caring for the resident so they are aware of any complications which may have occurred. RN-F stated the run sheet should be kept in the resident's chart. During interview on 3/2/23, at 11:08 a.m. LPN-C stated the dialysis facility was supposed to send the run sheet back with the resident and the nurse caring for the resident should review it. If the run sheet did not return with the resident, the nurse should call the facility and request one. LPN-C further stated nurses should assess dialysis resident's weight, VS, and access site before and after treatment. During interview on 3/2/23, at 11:58 a.m. RN-C stated VS should be checked before and after dialysis treatment. RN-C further stated mental status, respiratory status, and access site should also be assessed after treatment and the run sheet should be reviewed for any pertinent information. During interview on 3/2/23, at 12:01 p.m. R90 stated could not recall staff ever listening to her lungs post dialysis or checking the access site and they would occasionally check VS. R90 stated she would not refuse such assessments and she always took and brought back an envelope from dialysis and gave to staff. During interview on 3/2/23, at 12:09 p.m. director of nursing stated expectation was for nurses to review the run sheet post dialysis, document pertinent information and file the run sheet in the resident's hard chart. DON further stated expectation for nurses to assess the resident's mental and respiratory status, access site and VS after every dialysis treatment. Assessment should be documented in a progress note and VS should be documented in point click care (PCC). DON confirmed R90 had dialysis on 3/1/23 and her last assessment and VS were documented on 2/28/23, at 12:33 p.m. DON stated residents took a referral to dialysis in an envelope and that the dialysis center would send the envelope back with a run sheet. DON expectation was there would be a run sheet filed in R90's hard chart for every dialysis treatment and could not explain why the run sheets were not there. Facility policy Dialysis Care dated 3/17, indicated the policy of the facility was to maintain communication with and coordination of services with outside dialysis providers for the people we serve. The policy further indicated, Nursing will monitor referrals to/from dialysis center to ensure that information regarding the resident's health status are communicated between the facility and the dialysis center. The policy indicated a pre and post dialysis assessment should include a complete nursing assessment and VS prior to and upon return from dialysis and documented appropriately. Facility policy Dialysis assessment dated 5/18, indicated, to ensure any change in condition a resident had prior to or after a dialysis run should be communicated to the dialysis center and the primary care provider. A general assessment will be completed prior to and post dialysis run.
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0700 (Tag F0700)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview, and document review the facility failed to ensure ongoing assessments for safety and appropriat...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview, and document review the facility failed to ensure ongoing assessments for safety and appropriate use of grab bars were completed for 1 of 1 resident (R11) who was observed to have grab bars affixed to their bed. Findings include: R11's quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated [DATE], indicated R11 was cognitively intact and had diagnoses of chronic pain and heart failure. Furthermore, R11's MDS indicated R11 did not use bed rails. R11's medical record lacked indication R11 was assessed for grab bar use since 11/2021. R11's care plan revised 1/20/19, indicated R11 had an alteration in activities of daily living (ADL) related to decreased mobility and utilized two grab bars for independent bed mobility and repositioning. During an observation on 2/27/23, at 12:49 p.m. R11 was laying in bed. R11's bed had bilateral grab bars. When interviewed on 2/27/23, at 12:49 p.m. R11 stated the grab bars helped him with getting out of bed and was not aware of any safety assessment related to them. When interviewed on 3/2/23, at 9:56 a.m. registered nurse (RN)-A verified R11's grab bars were present. RN-A further stated residents required consent and an assessment for safe use. When interviewed on 3/2/23, at 1:45 p.m. the Director of Nursing (DON) expected bed rails and grab bars to be assessed in the resident's physical device assessment. DON verified R11's grab bars were not included in R11's physical device assessments for the past year. DON further stated this was a miss and should have been completed. A facility assessment titled Physical Devices- Bed Mobility revised 4/2017, directed staff to complete the physical device evaluation upon admission, re-admission, significant change and annually.
CONCERN (D)

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

Pharmacy Services (Tag F0755)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on interview, observation, and document review, the facility failed to ensure accurate administration of initial COVID-19 vaccination series for 1 of 5 residents (R56) reviewed for COVID-19 vacc...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on interview, observation, and document review, the facility failed to ensure accurate administration of initial COVID-19 vaccination series for 1 of 5 residents (R56) reviewed for COVID-19 vaccinations who received an incorrect initial COVID-19 vaccine. Findings include: R56's immunization record in point click care (PCC) lacked documentation of R56 receiving an initial primary series of COVID-19 vaccinations. R56's medication administration record (MAR) dated December 2022, indicated R56 received the Pfizer bivalent booster vaccine in the right arm with no immediate adverse reactions noted. R56's progress note dated 12/16/22, indicated R56 received Pfizer bivalent booster with no immediate adverse reactions and lacked documentation the physician was notified of the medication error. R56's progress notes were reviewed from 12/16/22, through 3/2/23, and lacked documentation the physician was notified of the medication error and lacked documentation on any follow-up from the medication error. During interview on 3/2/23, at 4:13 p.m. licensed practical nurse (LPN)-B stated R56 received the bivalent booster on 12/16/22, instead of the regular Pfizer and needed another dose because R56 had not had a second dose and would be eligible after March 16, 2023, for a second dose. LPN-B stated physician notifications were documented in the progress notes and verified there was no documentation of the physician being notified of R56 receiving the incorrect COVID-19 vaccine. During interview on 3/2/23, at 5:04 p.m. the clinical pharmacist stated a potential outcome for not being fully vaccinated was it could lead to lower immunity and risk for COVID infection. During interview on 3/2/23, at 5:13 p.m. the director of nursing (DON) stated Pfizer had an initial two step vaccination series, if R56 received the bivalent booster prior to completing the initial Pfizer two step series, a medication error occurred and a medication error report should be completed as well as the physician should have been notified. The DON's expectation was nursing staff document the physician notification under progress notes and stated the physician would need to be notified to determine next steps for completing the COVID-19 vaccination series. A policy, Managing Medication Errors and Adverse Consequences dated 3/13, indicated the nurse or trained medication aide (TMA) would follow relevant clinical guidelines and manufacturer's specifications for use, dose, administration, during, and monitoring of the medication. When it is found that there is/are clinically significant medication consequences and medication errors, the resident's primary physician must be notified immediately.
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0757 (Tag F0757)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview and document review, the facility failed to monitor side effects for 1 of 3 (R43) residents reviewed for anti...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview and document review, the facility failed to monitor side effects for 1 of 3 (R43) residents reviewed for anticoagulation (blood thinner) therapy. Findings include: R43's annual Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated [DATE], indicated R43 was cognitively intact and had diagnoses of heart disease and pulmonary embolism (blood clot in lung). Furthermore, R43's MDS indicated R43 received anticoagulation therapy. R43's provider order summary printed 3/2/23, indicated R43 required Rivaroxaban (anticoagulation medication) 20 milligrams(mg) tablet daily to prevent blood clots. R43's weekly skin assessment dated [DATE], indicated no skin concerns. R43's care plan dated 1/27/23, indicated R43 had alterations to skin related to decreased mobility, edema, history of pressure ulcer and aspirin use and directed staff to monitor R43's skin with cares. R3's R43's care plan further indicated R43 had fragile skin on hands however refused Geri sleeve protection. R43's medical record lacked evidence R43 required monitoring for side effects of anticoagulation therapy. During an observation on 2/27/23, at 5:29 p.m. R43 had several bruises on left hand. One bruise near knuckle on left hand appeared to be raised. When interviewed on 2/27/23, at 5:29 p.m. R43 stated he was on blood thinners and frequently had bruises. R43 further stated the bruise on the knuckle was like a blood blister. During a follow up interview on 3/1/23, at 12:29 p.m. R43 stated he placed some tape over the bruise on the knuckle as he did not want it to pop. When interviewed on 3/1/23, at 12:32 p.m. nursing assistant (NA)-A stated if any skin issues or bruising was noted on residents, she would let the nurse know right away. NA-A further stated she was unaware of any bruising on R43's hands and wasn't sure why there was tape on the left hand. When interviewed on 3/1/23, at 12:34 p.m. licensed practical nurse (LPN)-A stated residents on anticoagulation therapy needed to be monitored for bleeding or bruising. LPN-A further stated monitoring was an order that would be signed off each shift and would reflect on the treatment record. LPN-A verified R43 was on anticoagulation therapy with no side effect monitoring in place. LPN-A had not been notified of any skin concerns for R43 and was unaware of any bruising. When interviewed on 3/1/23, at 12:59 p.m. LPN-C verified residents on anticoagulation therapy required monitoring for side effects. LPN-C further stated it was a nursing driven order and verified no monitoring was in place to monitor side effects of R43's anticoagulation therapy. When interviewed on 3/2/23, at 12:37 p.m. the clinical pharmacist (CP) stated she was unsure of how the facility policy directed staff to monitor anticoagulation therapy. CP reviewed labs, vital signs, and nursing notes to help identify concerns during the monthly medication review. CP further stated ensuring an order for anticoagulation monitoring was in place was not something she had needed to recommend at this point and would need to review the facility policy to determine if it was needed. When interviewed on 3/2/23, at 1:45 p.m. the director of nursing (DON) expected staff to monitor for bruising, bleeding, or any adverse reactions when residents are on anticoagulation therapy. DON further stated any bruising was expected to be documented in the progress notes and also expected an order for daily monitoring of side effects would be placed. A facility policy on anticoagulation therapy monitoring was requested however was not received.
CONCERN (D)

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

Antibiotic Stewardship (Tag F0881)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview and document review, the facility failed to assess appropriateness of antibiotic use was completed for 1 of 1...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview and document review, the facility failed to assess appropriateness of antibiotic use was completed for 1 of 1 residents (R60) who was prescribed oral antibiotics for a skin infection. Findings include: R60's quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated [DATE], indicated R60 had moderate cognitive impairment and diagnoses of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). R60's provider order dated 2/24/23, indicated R60 required Doxycycline (antibiotic) tablet 100 milligrams(mg) by mouth twice daily for cyst/cellulitis (skin infection) for 10 days. R60's provider order dated 2/27/23, indicated R60 required a 72-hour time out assessment on the evening of 2/27/23. R60's medical record lacked evidence a 72-hour antibiotic time out assessment was completed. When interviewed on 3/1/23, at 10:51 a.m. licensed practical nurse (LPN)-A verified R60 was on Doxycycline for a cyst on his buttock. LPN-A stated when residents were placed on antibiotics, nurses were required to complete a 72-hour assessment to determine if the antibiotics were working. LPN-A verified R60 had started Doxycycline on 2/27/22, but was unable to find a 72-hour assessment in R60's medical record. When interviewed on 3/1/23, at 12:59 p.m. LPN-C stated residents receiving antibiotics required a 72-hour nursing assessment to evaluate the effectiveness of the antibiotic treatment. LPN-C acknowledged R60 had not had a 72-hour assessment completed. Furthermore, LPN-C verified there was an order to complete one on 2/27/23, however the assessment was not done. When interviewed on 3/2/23, at 10:13 a.m. the infection preventionist (IP) stated completion of the 72-hour assessment was part of the antibiotic stewardship program. The 72-hour assessment was in the electronic medical record. The nurse sees an order, completes the assessment, and then updates the provider to determine the appropriateness of the antibiotic and if it needed to be stopped, continued, or changed to something else. When interviewed on 3/2/23, at 1:45 p.m. the director of nursing (DON) expected staff to complete a 72-hour time out assessment and further stated this is part of the antibiotic stewardship policy. DON further stated the assessment was important to minimize antibiotic use when able to and ensure antibiotic treatment was effective for the residents. A facility policy titled Antibiotic Stewardship revised 1/2019, directed all residents would participate in the facility antibiotic stewardship program. Furthermore, the policy directed staff to reassess antibiotic therapy and to consider if the antibiotic was warranted and effective. Providers will be notified of the process.
CONCERN (E)

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

Infection Control (Tag F0880)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview and document review, the facility failed to ensure resident ice packs were stored separately fro...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview and document review, the facility failed to ensure resident ice packs were stored separately from resident food in 2 of 4 nursing unit resident refrigerators. This had the potential to impact 73 residents residing on those units. Furthermore, the facility failed to ensure current standards of practice for glove use and handwashing were being followed for 1 of 1 resident (R31), when staff provided personal care. Findings include: Ice pack storage for resident use An observation on 2/27/23, at 3:03 p.m. the unit-A resident refrigerator sign indicated refrigerator storage was only for items intended for human consumption. Inside the refrigerator's freezer several blue gel ice packs were noted along with smaller white reusable shipping ice packs. An observation on 2/27/23, at 7:02 p.m. unit B and C's resident refrigerator sign indicated refrigerator storage was only for items intended for human consumption. Inside the refrigerator's freezer two blue gel ice packs were noted along with one smaller white reusable shipping ice pack. When interviewed on 3/2/23, at 7:32 a.m. registered nurse (RN)-C stated if a resident requested an ice pack to use, the facility had ice packs in a freezer located in the medication room. Ice packs were used on various body parts to help with swelling or pain control. The resident refrigerator was only for food storage. RN-C verified an ice pack was in unit B and C's refrigerator and further stated it looked like one from pharmacy. RN-C removed the ice pack and threw it away. When interviewed on 3/2/23, at 9:34 a.m. trained medication assistant (TMA)-A stated the medication room contained a freezer that stored ice packs for resident use to help with swelling or pain control. TMA-A verified the unit-A refrigerator should not have ice packs stored there and the refrigerator was only for food storage. Upon review of unit-A refrigerator, TMA-A verified there were three gel ice packs and several smaller white ice packs in the resident refrigerator. TMA-A stated they should not be there. When interviewed on 3/2/23, at 1:45 p.m. the director of nursing (DON) expected resident refrigerators to contain food only. Furthermore, the DON stated there were freezers for ice packs in the storage room. Storing resident care items separate from food was important to minimize risk of infection or food contamination. Personal care R31's quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated [DATE], indicated R31 was cognitively intact and had diagnoses of heart failure. Furthermore, R31's MDS indicated R31 required extensive assist of one for toileting. An observation on 3/1/23, at 10:13 a.m. nursing assistant (NA)-B and NA-C entered R31's room to assist R31 off the bedpan. NA-B and NA-C assisted R31 to turn, and NA-B removed the bedpan from underneath R31. The urine in the bedpan was discarded before NA-B provided R31 perineal care. Without removing soiled gloves or performing hand hygiene, NA-B placed a clean brief under R31 and assisted R31 to roll onto her back. NA-B realized R31's pants were wet with urine. NA-B then removed soiled gloves and without performing hand hygiene obtained new pants from R31's closet. Without performing hand hygiene, NA-B donned clean gloves and assisted R31 to remove the soiled pants. The soiled pants were placed at the bottom of R31's bed on top of the clean sheets and blanket. NA-B took the dirty pants and placed them in a laundry bag. Without removing soiled gloves or performing hand hygiene, NA-B and NA-C assisted R31 to pull up her pants. NA-B and NA-C then removed gloves without performing hand hygiene and continued to assist R31 with the Hoyer lift into the wheelchair. When interviewed on 3/1/23, at 10:29 p.m. NA-B verified he did not perform hand hygiene after removing soiled gloves as there was not hand sanitizer in the room. Furthermore, NA-B stated performing hand hygiene should have been done and was important to minimize infection. When interviewed on 3/1/23, at 12:59 p.m. licensed practical nurse (LPN)-C stated hand hygiene was required in between glove changes and when moving from any dirty or soiled tasks to clean ones. When interviewed on 3/2/23, at 1:45 p.m. the DON stated staff were expected to remove gloves and perform hand hygiene when moving from any dirty area to clean areas. DON further stated this was important to prevent the spread of bacteria and infection. A facility policy titled Hand Washing Policy and Procedures revised 7/2020, directed staff to hand wash or hand sanitize before and after providing personal cares for a resident, after touching anything that may have been contaminated with bodily fluids and after removing gloves.
CONCERN (F)

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

QAPI Program (Tag F0867)

Could have caused harm · This affected most or all residents

Based on interview and document review the facility failed to ensure the quality assessment and assurance (QAA)/Quality Assurance Process improvement (QAPI) committee was effective in identifying and ...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on interview and document review the facility failed to ensure the quality assessment and assurance (QAA)/Quality Assurance Process improvement (QAPI) committee was effective in identifying and implementing appropriate action plans to correct quality deficiencies identified during previous surveys related to infection control, respiratory therapy and advanced directives resulting in deficiencies identified during this survey. In addition, the facility failed to review and/or revise policies affecting resident care periodically to ensure the policy/practice was still appropriate. This deficient practice had the potential to affect all 95 residents currently residing in the facility. Findings include: The Certification and Survey Provider Enhanced Reports (CASPER)-3 (assessment data was converted to quality measures (QM) to evaluate nursing home's performance) dated 2/16/23, identified the following prior deficiencies by month and year: -F578-Request/Refuse/Discontinue treatment; Formulate advance directives was cited on prior surveys 10/7/21, 11/19 and 3/18. All were cited at a scope and severity (S&S) of a D. -F880-Infection control was cited on prior surveys on 10/7/21, at a S&S of a D; and on 11/19 and 10/18 both at a S&S of an E. See also F578. Based on interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure a do-not-resuscitate (DNR) order was accurately reflected throughout the medical record for 1 of 26 residents (R81) reviewed for advanced directives. This resulted in an immediate jeopardy (IJ) for R81 who would have received cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR), contrary to their wishes, in the absence of a pulse or respirations. See also F880. Based on observation, interview and document review, the facility failed to ensure resident ice packs were stored separately from resident food in 2 of 4 nursing unit resident refrigerators. This had the potential to impact 73 residents residing on those units. Furthermore, the facility failed to ensure current standards of practice for glove use and handwashing were being followed for 1 of 1 resident (R31), when staff provided personal care. January and February 2023 QAPI meeting minutes indicated survey prep (preparing for survey at any time) with infection control, assessments, and POLSTS listed as areas of concerns from last survey. The meetings indicated, no changes at this time. During interview on 3/2/23, at 4:45 p.m. administrator stated areas of concern were identified during each QAPI meeting, and confirmed, we have not followed up appropriately with the previous survey deficiencies. Administrator further stated there was no continued auditing occurring and stated, We should periodically monitor to check if we are still in compliance and not just say no action needed at this time. Administrator further stated all policies should be reviewed and revised as needed periodically and many of their policies are outdated and have not been reviewed in many years. Facility policies used during survey with last review/revision date: Ambulation Policy 7/04 Antibiotic Stewardship Policy 1/9/19 Dialysis Care 3/17 Hand Washing 7/2020 Influenza Policy 9/08 Managing Medication Errors and Adverse Consequences 3/13 Medication Administration 12/31/19 Physical Devices - Bed Mobility 4/17 Restorative Nursing 1/10 The facility QAPI 2022 plan dated 3/2/21, indicated data would be collected from a variety of areas to include CASPER report and survey results and the performance indicators would be monitored and tracked through internal audits, quality measures and quality indicators. The plan further indicated the QAPI plan would be reviewed and revised on an annual basis. The undated facility QAPI charter indicated the administrator would ensure the QAPI plan was on an annual basis. The charter indicated, To ensure the planned changes/interventions are implemented and effective in making and sustaining improvements, our organization chooses indicators/measures that tie directly to the new action and conducts ongoing periodic measurement and review to ensure that the new action has been adopted and is performed consistently.
Jan 2023 1 deficiency
MINOR (C) 📢 Someone Reported This

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

Minor Issue - procedural, no safety impact

Abuse Prevention Policies (Tag F0607)

Minor procedural issue · This affected most or all residents

Based on observation, interview and document review, the facility failed to develop written policies and procedures to establish coordination with the Quality Assurance and Performance Improvement (QA...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, interview and document review, the facility failed to develop written policies and procedures to establish coordination with the Quality Assurance and Performance Improvement (QAPI) program. In addition, the facility failed to ensure postage/signage of employee rights related to retaliation prohibition for reporting suspicions of abuse, neglect, and crimes were posted within the facility. This deficient practice had the potential to affect all 91 residents currently residing in the facility. Findings include: During an observation of the facility and interview on 1/18/23, at 8:14 a.m. with the administrator, she confirmed there was not signage posted anywhere within the facility which described employees' rights related to retaliation when reporting suspicions of abuse, neglect, crimes, etc. The administrator stated she was not aware of the posting or QAPI requirements. During an interview on 1/18/23, at 8:16 a.m. the staffing coordinator (SC) confirmed the facility policy was last revised on 1/2021, and lacked information related to the QAPI program and the staff posting related to prohibition of retaliation when reporting suspicions of abuse, neglect, crimes being posted within facility. During an interview on 1/18/23, at 8:18 a.m. staff development (SD) confirmed the facility did not have a posting anywhere in the building regarding employee rights related to prohibition of retaliation when reporting suspicions of abuse, neglect, and crimes. During an interview on 1/18/23, at 9:00 a.m. nursing assistant (NA)-B indicated she was not aware of any signs posted within the building about employee rights related to retaliation prohibition when reporting suspicions of abuse, neglect and crimes. During an interview on 1/18/23, at 9:09 a.m. registered nurse (RN)-B stated he was unaware of any signs posted regarding employee rights related to retaliation prohibition when reporting suspicions of abuse, neglect, and crimes within facility. During an interview on 1/18/23, at 11:30 a.m. the director of nursing (DON) confirmed the above findings and indicated the facility's current policy dated 1/2021, had not been updated to reflect the current requirements. The DON indicated she was not aware of the recent changes and verified the facility had no postings within the building regarding employee rights related to prohibition of retaliation when reporting suspicions of abuse, neglect, and crimes. During an interview on 1/18/23, at 11:45 a.m. the administrator confirmed the above findings and indicated the facility's resident protection plan had not been updated since 1/2021, and did not reflect the new guidelines. The administrator confirmed the facility had no signs posted regarding employee rights related to prohibition of retaliation when reporting suspicions of abuse, neglect, and crimes. The administrator indicated she would expect the facility's VA policy to be updated with recent changes and for staff to post signs as required. During an interview on 1/18/23, at 12:04 p.m. licensed practical nurse (LPN)-A indicated abuse training was provided yearly or when needed. LPN-A stated she was unaware of the facility's retaliation prohibition policy and indicated she did not know what retaliation meant. LPN-A stated she was not aware of any signs posted within the building regarding retaliation prohibition. Review of the facility policy titled, Resident Protection Plan revised on 1/2021, lacked written policies and procedures to establish coordination with the (QAPI) program and to prohibit and prevent retaliation, which included posting a conspicuous notice of employee rights regarding retaliation. .
Understanding Severity Codes (click to expand)
Life-Threatening (Immediate Jeopardy)
J - Isolated K - Pattern L - Widespread
Actual Harm
G - Isolated H - Pattern I - Widespread
Potential for Harm
D - Isolated E - Pattern F - Widespread
No Harm (Minor)
A - Isolated B - Pattern C - Widespread

Questions to Ask on Your Visit

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

Our Honest Assessment

Strengths
  • • 43% turnover. Below Minnesota's 48% average. Good staff retention means consistent care.
Concerns
  • • Multiple safety concerns identified: 1 life-threatening violation(s), 1 harm violation(s), Payment denial on record. Review inspection reports carefully.
  • • 47 deficiencies on record, including 1 critical (life-threatening) violation. These warrant careful review before choosing this facility.
  • • $20,933 in fines. Higher than 94% of Minnesota facilities, suggesting repeated compliance issues.
  • • Grade F (21/100). Below average facility with significant concerns.
Bottom line: Trust Score of 21/100 indicates significant concerns. Thoroughly evaluate alternatives.

About This Facility

What is Crest View Lutheran Home's CMS Rating?

CMS assigns CREST VIEW LUTHERAN HOME an overall rating of 1 out of 5 stars, which is considered much below average nationally. Within Minnesota, 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 Crest View Lutheran Home Staffed?

CMS rates CREST VIEW LUTHERAN HOME's staffing level at 5 out of 5 stars, which is much above average compared to other nursing homes. Staff turnover is 43%, compared to the Minnesota average of 46%. This relatively stable workforce can support continuity of care.

What Have Inspectors Found at Crest View Lutheran Home?

State health inspectors documented 47 deficiencies at CREST VIEW LUTHERAN HOME during 2023 to 2025. These included: 1 Immediate Jeopardy (the most serious level, indicating potential for serious harm or death), 1 that caused actual resident harm, 42 with potential for harm, and 3 minor or isolated issues. Immediate Jeopardy findings are rare and represent the most serious regulatory concerns. They require immediate corrective action.

Who Owns and Operates Crest View Lutheran Home?

CREST VIEW LUTHERAN HOME is owned by a non-profit organization. Non-profit facilities reinvest revenue into operations rather than distributing to shareholders. The facility operates independently rather than as part of a larger chain. With 106 certified beds and approximately 77 residents (about 73% occupancy), it is a mid-sized facility located in COLUMBIA HEIGHTS, Minnesota.

How Does Crest View Lutheran Home Compare to Other Minnesota Nursing Homes?

Compared to the 100 nursing homes in Minnesota, CREST VIEW LUTHERAN HOME's overall rating (1 stars) is below the state average of 3.2, staff turnover (43%) is near the state average of 46%, and health inspection rating (1 stars) is much below the national benchmark.

What Should Families Ask When Visiting Crest View Lutheran Home?

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

Is Crest View Lutheran Home Safe?

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

Do Nurses at Crest View Lutheran Home Stick Around?

CREST VIEW LUTHERAN HOME has a staff turnover rate of 43%, which is about average for Minnesota 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 Crest View Lutheran Home Ever Fined?

CREST VIEW LUTHERAN HOME has been fined $20,933 across 2 penalty actions. This is below the Minnesota average of $33,288. While any fine indicates a compliance issue, fines under $50,000 are relatively common and typically reflect isolated problems that were subsequently corrected. Families should ask what specific issues led to these fines and confirm they've been resolved.

Is Crest View Lutheran Home on Any Federal Watch List?

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