NORRIS SQUARE

6993 80TH STREET SOUTH, COTTAGE GROVE, MN 55016 (651) 769-6650
Non profit - Corporation 40 Beds PRESBYTERIAN HOMES & SERVICES Data: November 2025
Trust Grade
85/100
#61 of 337 in MN
Last Inspection: October 2024

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

Overview

Norris Square in Cottage Grove, Minnesota, has received a Trust Grade of B+, which indicates that it is above average and recommended for families considering options for their loved ones. It ranks #61 out of 337 facilities in the state, placing it in the top half, and is the best option among the 8 facilities in Washington County. The facility shows an improving trend, with issues decreasing from 8 in 2023 to just 2 in 2024. Staffing is a strong point, earning a 5/5 star rating with a turnover rate of 42%, which is on par with the state average, suggesting that staff are familiar with the residents. There have been no fines recorded, which is a positive sign. However, there were some concerning incidents noted, including a serious failure to perform timely skin assessments for a resident, leading to the development of pressure ulcers. Additionally, there were concerns about not maintaining a resident's wheelchair properly and not administering oxygen therapy as required for another resident. While the facility has strengths in areas like staffing and an overall high rating, these specific incidents highlight areas that need improvement.

Trust Score
B+
85/100
In Minnesota
#61/337
Top 18%
Safety Record
Moderate
Needs review
Inspections
Getting Better
8 → 2 violations
Staff Stability
○ Average
42% turnover. Near Minnesota's 48% average. Typical for the industry.
Penalties
✓ Good
No fines on record. Clean compliance history, better than most Minnesota facilities.
Skilled Nurses
✓ Good
Each resident gets 100 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
○ Average
10 deficiencies on record. Average for a facility this size. Mostly minor or procedural issues.
★★★★★
5.0
Overall Rating
★★★★★
5.0
Staff Levels
★★☆☆☆
2.0
Care Quality
★★★★☆
4.0
Inspection Score
Stable
2023: 8 issues
2024: 2 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 (42%)

    6 points below Minnesota average of 48%

Facility shows strength in staffing levels, fire safety.

The Bad

Staff Turnover: 42%

Near Minnesota avg (46%)

Typical for the industry

Chain: PRESBYTERIAN HOMES & SERVICES

Part of a multi-facility chain

Ask about local staffing decisions and management

The Ugly 10 deficiencies on record

1 actual harm
Oct 2024 2 deficiencies
CONCERN (D)

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

Safe Environment (Tag F0584)

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 clean and maintain a resident's wheelchair for 1 of...

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 clean and maintain a resident's wheelchair for 1 of 1 resident (R4) reviewed for safe, clean, and homelike environment. Findings include: R4's quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated [DATE], indicated R4 was cognitively intact, was dependent on staff for mobility in a manual wheelchair, required partial/moderate assistance with transfers and set up/clean up assistance with meals. The MDS indicated R4 would have a loss of liquids/solids from mouth when eating or drinking. R4's diagnoses included progressive supranuclear ophthalmoplegia (a condition affecting the movement of the eyes), dysphagia (a condition affecting one's speech), and anxiety. R4's care plan dated 9/6/24, indicated R4 had an activities of daily living (ADL) self-care performance deficit and instructed staff to assist as needed with dressing, grooming, eating, bathing, and mobility. The care plan instructed staff to place a clothing protector on shirt and lap during meals. R4's clinical nutrition assessment dated [DATE], indicated R4 required an extra clothing protector for lap protection from spills and that R4 had a loss of food/liquids from mouth. R4's nursing assistant care sheet (south unit) dated 10/22/24, indicated R4's bath day was Monday mornings and laundry was pulled from R4's room on Sunday evenings. The south unit laundry/wheelchair cleaning schedule dated 6/13/24, indicated R4's room number was listed on Sunday (wash sling) and Wednesday. During observation and interview on 10/21/24 at 2:24 p.m., R4's right side of her wheelchair seat and seat cushion had dried liquids, cereal ,and other unidentified dried food items. R4 stated did not like the chair being dirty and did not know last time it had been cleaned. During observation and interview on 10/22/24 at 1:18 p.m., nursing assistant (NA)-A confirmed R4's wheelchair was very dirty with dried cereal and other food items on and under the right side of the seat cushion. NA-A stated that there was a schedule for wheelchair cleaning and the overnight staff cleaned them per the schedule, however it was the responsibility of all staff to ensure the resident's wheelchairs were clean. NA-A stated that if a dirty wheelchair was identified by staff, that staff should clean it or ensure it was cleaned right away. During observation on 10/23/24 at 1:00 p.m., R4 was in the dining room eating lunch in her wheelchair. The right corner of the seat appeared dirty with dried food items. During observation on 10/23/24 at 1:58 p.m., R4's wheelchair was still extremely dirty with the same dried liquids, cereal, and other unidentified food items. During interview on 10/23/24 at 2:06 p.m., registered nurse (RN)-A stated wheelchairs were cleaned weekly on the resident's bath day per the schedule but should be cleaned on an as needed basis as well. RN-A stated staff were expected to clean the wheelchairs immediately when identified as dirty, and should not just wait for the weekly scheduled washing. RN-A stated R4's wheelchair could get pretty dirty during meals due to the way she ate and leaned to the right side. During interview on 10/23/24 at 2:10 p.m., director of nursing (DON) stated wheelchairs were scheduled to be cleaned weekly on the resident's bath day, but the expectation was for staff to maintain a clean wheelchair throughout the week. DON further stated R4's wheelchair could get pretty dirty during meals and should probably be on a twice a week schedule for cleaning. Facility policy Infection Control Wheelchair Cleaning dated October 2015, indicated, Wheelchairs will be maintained in a clean, hygienic condition.
CONCERN (D)

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

Respiratory Care (Tag F0695)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview, and document review, the facility failed to ensure oxygen therapy was administered as ordered 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 oxygen therapy was administered as ordered and maintained appropriately for 1 of 1 resident (R16) reviewed for respiratory services. Findings include: R16's admission Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated [DATE], indicated R16 had moderately impaired cognition and required assistance with many activities of daily living (ADLs). The MDS indicated R16 required oxygen therapy and had diagnoses including respiratory failure, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), congestive heart failure (CHF), dementia, and anxiety. R16's care plan dated 9/19/24, indicated R4 had an alteration in respiratory status related to COPD, respiratory failure, and CHF and required the use of oxygen. The care plan instructed staff to ensure R16 had a full portable oxygen tank prior to leaving his room for meals and activities and to ensure oxygen was delivered via nasal cannula as ordered. R16's provider order dated 10/16/24 indicated, oxygen 4lits [liters] continuous. Can increase to 6lits [liters] PRN [as needed] to keep sats [blood oxygen saturation level] above 90%. R16's October 2024 treatment administration record (TAR) indicated, Fill and check portable liquid and O2 [oxygen] tank supply sufficiency every shift and as frequently as needed depending on liter flow rate .Tubing and canula in plastic bag and hang appropriately when not in use. R16's care sheet dated 10/22/24, instructed staff to Fill portable O2 tank before leaving room for meals and to help with O2 tubing. During observation and interview on 10/21/24 at 2:38 p.m., R16 was in his room sitting in the recliner but still receiving oxygen via nasal cannula through the portable tank hanging on the back of his wheelchair. The level of O2 in the portable tank was on the lowest edge of green indicating very low or almost empty. R16's oxygen concentrator was off and sitting next to the recliner. The tubing connected to the concentrator was undated and laying on the floor between the recliner and the bathroom. R16 stated he did not know when the staff last checked or filled the portable tank or changed the O2 tubing. During observation on 10/22/24 at 9:49 a.m., R16 was sitting in common area with several other residents waiting for an exercise activity to begin. R16 had O2 on through nasal cannula connected to a portable tank. The level in the tank was again at the lowest limit of the green indicator, appearing very low. During observation on 10/22/24 at 11:56 a.m., R16 was in his room sitting in the recliner. He was receiving oxygen via nasal cannula connected to the portable tank hanging on his wheelchair. The O2 level indicator now in the red indicating the tank was almost empty or empty. The concentrator was next to him, turned off and tubing lying on the floor. During observation on 10/22/24 at 12:04 p.m., R16 self-propelled out into the hallway. Nursing assistant (NA)-A walked by and told R16 he would assist him to lunch in a minute and would fix his oxygen. At 12:06 p.m., NA-A adjusted R16's nasal cannula and wheeled R16 to the dining room. NA-A did not check the level of oxygen in the portable O2 tank. During observation on 10/22/24 t a12:59 p.m., licensed practical nurse (LPN)-A pushed R16's wheelchair out of the dining room into the hallway and encouraged R16 to self-propel back to his room. LPN-A did not check the portable tank. Director of nursing (DON) approached R16 and offered to assist him back to his room. R16 declined. DON did not check R16's portable tank. R16 self-propelled approximately 60 feet to his room. During observation and interview on 10/22/24 at 1:38 p.m., unidentified hospice music therapist left R16's room after 30 minutes of music therapy. R16 was sitting in his room in his wheelchair and was not wearing his nasal cannula which was hanging off the arm of the wheelchair. R16 stated he thought the tank was empty and checked the nasal cannula confirming no O2 flow. R16 stated he could not remember the last time staff checked or filled the portable tank. During observation on 10/22/24 at 1:45 p.m., R16 was standing in the hallway inquiring about the upcoming activities. NA-B identified R16 standing unassisted and escorted him back into his room and into his wheelchair. NA-B asked if R16 needed anything from her, he declined, and she left the room. NA-B did not address R16's oxygen and did not place R16 back on the nasal cannula. During observation and interview on 10/22/24 at 1:50 p.m., LPN-A stated nurses were responsible for oxygen therapy maintenance. LPN-A stated her practice was to round at the start of the shift to ensure O2 was on as ordered and tubing was maintained appropriately. LPN-A further stated portable tanks were supposed to be checked by any staff prior to placing a resident on the tank and prior to leaving the room. LPN-A entered R16's room and identified R16 without his nasal cannula in place. LPN-A immediately placed R16 on O2 via the concentrator. LPN-A stated R16 should be on his concentrator when in his room and that all staff were responsible for ensuring he was wearing the nasal cannula and on the concentrator when in his room. LPN-A confirmed the portable tank was empty and also that the concentrator tubing should not be lying on the floor. LPN-A replaced the portable tank with a full one, refilled the water on the concentrator humidifier, and replaced the concentrator tubing with new tubing. During interview on 10/23/24 at 8:15 a.m., registered nurse (RN)-A stated staff should always check the portable O2 tanks when the resident was placed on the tank and each time prior to leaving the room. RN-A stated the resident should be on the concentrator when they were in their room rather than the portable to conserve the oxygen in the portable tank. RN-A stated R16 was on 4 liters of O2 and could go through a portable tank pretty quickly and checking his tank prior to leaving the room was very important. RN-A further stated O2 tubing should not be lying on the floor when not in use. During interview on 10/23/24 at 12:01 p.m., DON stated it was the nurse's responsibility to ensure oxygen therapy was maintained per provider orders. DON stated residents should be on the O2 concentrator when in their room and that the portable tank should be checked and full when the resident leaves their room and the expectation for any staff to check the portable tank prior to the resident leaving his room. DON further stated O2 tubing should not be lying on the floor when not in use for infection control. Facility policy Oxygen Administration dated February 2017, indicated nurses should check each shift, or more frequently as appropriate, the O2 tank to ensure appropriate flow and sufficient O2 is present in tank. The policy further indicated, Tubing, humidifier and nasal cannula, mask or other apparatuses to administer oxygen should be placed in a plastic bag when not in use. Facility policy Oxygen Equipment Care and Maintenance dated October 2011, indicated, Tubing is not to touch the floor .Curl tubing and place, with mask/cannula, in a plastic bag and hang appropriately .On each shift the nurse should monitor liter flow of oxygen.
Nov 2023 8 deficiencies 1 Harm
SERIOUS (G)

Actual Harm - a resident was hurt due to facility failures

Pressure Ulcer Prevention (Tag F0686)

A resident was harmed · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview, and document review, the facility failed to perform timely comprehensive skin assessments, and ...

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 perform timely comprehensive skin assessments, and implement interventions to promote healing and reduce the risk for further pressure ulcer development for 1 of 2 resident (R22) who was admitted to the facility without pressure ulcers. This resulted in harm for R22 when the facility failed to develop interventions to promote healing and prevention resulting in R22 developing three pressure ulcers. Findings include: A stage one pressure injury is intact skin with a localized area of redness that is non-blanchable (does not turn white when pressed). A stage two pressure ulcer is partial thickness loss of the skin with exposed dermis, presenting as a shallow open ulcer. A stage three pressure ulcer is full thickness loss of the skin in which subcutaneous fat may be visible. Additionally, slough (non-viable yellow, tan, gray, green or brown tissue; usually moist, can be soft, stringy and mucinous in texture) or eschar (dead or devitalized tissue that is hard or soft in texture; usually black, brown, or tan in color, and may appear scab-like) may be visible but does not obscure the depth of the tissue loss. R22's Face Sheet form indicated the following diagnoses: unspecified protein calorie malnutrition, pressure ulcer of unspecified buttock stage three, major depressive disorder, and type two diabetes. R22's admission Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated [DATE], indicated intact cognition, did not reject care, required partial to moderate assistance with toileting, showering, was occasionally incontinent of bladder, was five feet tall and 105 pounds, was at risk of developing pressure ulcers and did not have one or more unhealed pressure ulcers at a stage one or higher. Under the section Skin and Ulcer Treatments R22 had a check mark next to applications of ointments and medications other than to feet. R22's significant change in status (MDS) dated [DATE], indicated R22 had moderate cognitive impairment, did not reject care, was occasionally incontinent of bladder, and frequently incontinent of bowel, was 104 pounds, was at risk for pressure ulcers and had one stage three pressure ulcer and under the section, Skin and Ulcer Treatments had a check mark next to pressure relieving device for R22's chair and bed, had nutrition or hydration intervention to manage skin problems, pressure ulcer care, and applications of ointments and medications other than to feet. R22's significant change in status (MDS) dated [DATE], indicated moderate cognitive impairment, did not exhibit behaviors, and did not reject care. Required substantial maximal assistance for toileting hygiene, partial moderate assist for moving from sitting to lying, and chair to bed to chair, and toileting transfers required supervision or touching assistance, was occasionally incontinent of urine and always continent of bowels. R22's weight was 101 pounds, was at risk of developing pressure ulcers and had two stage three pressure ulcers, and under the section, Skin and Ulcer Treatments had a check mark next to pressure reducing device for chair, bed, pressure ulcer care, applications of ointments and medications other than to feet. R22's care plan dated 7/7/23, indicated an activity in daily living (ADL) self care performance deficit and required staff assistance due to limited mobility, impaired balance and an intervention included to observe skin for redness, open areas, scratches, cuts, bruises and report changes. R22's care plan dated 7/7/23, indicated R22 had limited physical mobility and required staff assistance due to limited mobility and impaired balance. The care plan was later updated on 11/2/23, to include an intervention identifying R22 required assist of one to reposition in bed and assist of two to boost up in bed. This intervention further indicated R22 had an air pressure reduction mattress on the bed, and R22 preferred to sleep in the recliner and had an air pressure cushion. Prior to 11/2/23, the bed mobility intervention was last revised on 9/13/23, to include R22 required assist of 1 to reposition self in bed and encourage off loading in bed and chair. R22's care plan dated 10/9/23, indicated an altered nutritional status due to weight loss and impaired skin integrity. Interventions indicated providing a diet as ordered, monitor intake, obtain weights, monitor lab work, honor food preferences and requests. R22's care plan dated 10/13/23, indicated R22 was at risk for impaired skin integrity due to limited mobility, medication side effects, bladder incontinence, malnutrition and had two stage three pressure ulcers on the left buttock and coccyx. R22's goal indicated the current pressure ulcers would show signs of improvement by the next review date as evidenced by a decrease in size or a resolved status. Interventions indicated following facility protocols and policies for prevention of skin breakdown, a pressure reducing mattress, able to request assistance for toileting and repositioning, observe for signs and symptoms of breakdown and update the nurse promptly if noted. The most recent intervention on the care plan was dated 8/4/23, and indicated R22 required a pressure reducing wheelchair cushion. No new interventions were added following the development of new pressure ulcers. R22's care sheet dated 10/11/23, indicated R22 required assist of one with a transfer belt for transfers and ambulating short distances. Additionally, R22 required assist of one when going to the bathroom, and with dressing, grooming, and bathing and required a body audit completed on Thursdays, further, R22 required frequent repositioning and offloading while in the bed and wheelchair. The care sheet had a yellow highlighted instruction dated 8/4/23, to remind R22 to reposition off bottom for a few minutes every two to three hours due to having a pressure ulcer. The care sheet lacked any information or instruction resident had a cushion for the reclining chair. R22's Amount Eaten Task form dated 10/3/23, to 10/31/23, indicated variable appetite, however mostly ate 76-100% of meals. R22's nursing progress notes dated 6/21/23 at 12:25 p.m., indicated R22's skin was clean, dry, and intact. R22's nutritional summary note dated 6/22/23 at 11:21 a.m., indicated R22 admitted to the facility with a wedge compression fracture, malnutrition, type two diabetes and consumed 76 to 100% at meals since admission. Additionally, the note indicated skin was clean dry and intact, and had a history of a pressure injury to R22's sacrum. An oral nutritional supplement (ONS) was discontinued due to refusals and a p.m. snack was added to promote intake. R22's nursing progress note dated 7/16/23 at 4:30 p.m., indicated R22 required an assist of one to transfer and usually self transferred and refused to be assisted and stayed in her recliner most of the time. R22 was checked changed and repositioned every two to three hours and as needed. R22's nutrition risk assessment dated [DATE], indicated R22 consumed 76 to 100% at most meals and received a p.m. snack every day with good acceptance and at times was sleeping and skipped the snack. Additionally, R22's weight on 7/19/23, was 110.2 pounds and was trending upwards which was desired due to malnutrition, but weight could fluctuate due to taking a diuretic medication. R22's nursing progress note dated 8/1/23 at 6:45 p.m., indicated a 1 inch stage two to three pressure ulcer on the right buttocks. The note indicated the coccyx, buttocks was macerated and erythematous and tender to touch and R22 was educated about frequent repositioning and sleeping in R22's bed versus the chair. The note indicated to continue to monitor and the next registered nurse was updated. R22's nursing progress note dated 8/4/23 at 8:21 a.m., indicated a late entry wound assessment and R22's daughter was notified of a stage two wound on buttocks and the practitioner, dietician, and therapy were notified. R22's nursing progress note dated 8/15/23 at 10:32 a.m., indicated R22 had a change in condition and was sent to the emergency room. At 5:58 p.m., nursing progress notes indicated R22 was admitted to the hospital and the hospital stated R22 had multiple sores on her bottom. R22's nursing progress note dated 8/16/23, indicated R22 came back to the facility, was fatigued and had a triad hydrophilic wound dressing. (A paste that maintains an optimal wound healing environment and facilitates a natural debridement.) Documentation lacked information a wound assessment was completed upon return from the hospital and a wound assessment was not completed until 8/25/23. R22's culinary progress note dated 8/22/23 at 8:16 p.m., indicated R22 had a weight gain and was 112.6 pounds. R22's weight continued to increase as a result of a good appetite and would be appropriate to discontinue from high risk monitoring however the dietician noted a wound assessment from 8/4/23, indicating a pressure area to R22's coccyx and body audits indicated the wound remained present, however a more recent wound assessment was not available. R22's nursing progress note dated 9/26/23 at 3:46 p.m., indicated R22 had two pressure ulcers; one on the coccyx (tailbone), and one on the left gluteal fold (the horizontal skin crease that forms below the buttocks). An additional progress note on 9/26/23, indicated R22 had a new pressure ulcer on her coccyx. R22's Order Summary Report form indicated the following orders: - 8/4/23 Boudreauxs butt paste external ointment 40% zinc oxide topical. Apply to buttock topically three times a day for pressure ulcer educate about not applying Vaseline to area; may use house supply of zinc oxide cream - 9/26/23 treatment for both open areas on buttocks (left gluteal fold, and below the coccyx area) to be done Monday, Wednesday, Friday, and as needed. Cleanse both buttocks open areas with normal saline, pat dry with gauze, use skin prep around both areas avoiding going into the wound, apply Manuka hd dressing directly in the wound and cover each area with a barrier film dressing every 1 hours as needed and replace dressing when soiled or if it falls off. During the month of 6/12/23 through 10/19/23, R22's completed body audit form indicated the following: - On 6/21/23, which indicated R22 had a trace of a healed pressure ulcer on her sacrum, with a small area of discoloration and required frequent reposition/offloading to avoid recurrence. - On 6/29/23, no skin concerns - On 7/2/23, skin was clean dry and intact clean, dry and intact (CDI) - On 7/6/23, skin was CDI. - On 7/13/23, R22 had blanchable redness to buttocks and skin was intact. - On 7/20/23, R22 had blanchable redness on gluteal folds, some parts were minimally excoriated and butt paste was applied and the rest of R22's skin was CDI. - On 7/27/23, R22 had blanchable redness to buttocks and butt paste was applied. - On 8/3/23, R22 had blanchable redness on gluteal folds and noted excoriation on the left gluteal fold and Boudreauxs Butt Paste was applied and the rest of the skin was CDI. - On 8/10/23, R22 had blanchable redness to buttocks and excoriation on left gluteal fold and butt paste was applied. - On 8/16/23, under comments indicated pressure on left gluteal fold and surrounding areas were excoriated and wound treatment was in place. - On 8/24/23, body audit indicated R22 had a stage two pressure injury to the left gluteal buttock and treatment and monitoring was in place. - On 8/31/23, body audit indicated R22 had pressure on the left gluteal fold and blanchable redness on surrounding areas and wound treatment was in place. - On 9/7/23, the body audit form indicated a stage two pressure ulcer to the left gluteal fold and a hydrocolloid was applied after R22's shower. - On 9/14/23, R22 continued with the left gluteal fold pressure ulcer with blanchable redness on the surrounding areas. - On 9/21/23, The body audit form indicated the pressure injury to the left gluteal fold and no increase in size. - On 9/28/23, the body audit form indicated R22 had pressure ulcers on the coccyx and the left gluteal fold. - On 10/5/23, the body audit indicated two pressure ulcers to left buttock coccyx region. - On 10/12/23, the body audit indicated a pressure injury on both the coccyx and left gluteal fold were still present. - On10/19/23,the body audit indicated a pressure injury on the coccyx and left gluteal fold. - On 10/26/23, the body audit indicated no new skin issues were observed and had a pressure injury on both the coccyx and left gluteal fold. The body audits lacked any kind of assessment of the wounds. R22's Bowel Bladder and Skin Risk assessment dated [DATE], indicated R22 stayed in her recliner most of the time. Additionally, R22's Bowel Bladder and Skin Risk assessment dated [DATE], indicated R22 self transferred to the bathroom and spent most of each shift in her recliner. The assessment indicated R22 self transferred and was occasionally incontinent of bowels and was checked, changed, and repositioned every 2-3 hours and as needed. R22's Skin and Wound Evaluation Assessment form indicated a skin and wound evaluation was completed on the following dates in the electronic medical record (EMR): - 8/4/23, a new stage two in-house acquired pressure ulcer to the coccyx measuring 0.6 centimeters (cm) long by 0.4 cm wide and was documented as not applicable for the depth, no tunneling (a passageway of tissue destruction under the skin) or undermining (destruction of skin tissue extending under the skin edges. The goal of care for the wound was documented as healable - 8/25/23, the coccyx pressure ulcer measured 0.7 cm long by 0.8 cm wide and had a depth of 0.5 cm and 10% of the wound contained slough. - 9/1/23, the coccyx pressure ulcer measured 0.7 cm long by 0.6 cm wide and the depth was not applicable and 10% of the wound contained slough. - 9/18/23, the coccyx pressure ulcer now identified as a stage three ulcer measuring 0.8 cm long by 0.8 cm wide with a depth of 0.5 cm and 10% of the wound contained slough. Under the section labeled, Additional Care which included check boxes of various interventions such as cushion, air flow pad, or mattress with a pump, none was indicated. - 9/26/23, contained two wound assessments: At 8:29 a.m., a stage three coccyx pressure ulcer that measured 0.8 cm long by 0.8 cm wide by 0.5 cm deep. At 8:33 a.m., a stage three pressure area to the coccyx documented as New as of 9/26/23 and measured 1.1 cm long by 0.7 cm wide with a depth of 0.5 cm and 50% of the wound contained slough with 4 cm of redness to the surrounding tissue. A cushion, turning and repositioning program was indicated in the check boxes under the section, Additional Care. - 10/2/23, at 1:47 p.m., indicated a stage three pressure ulcer to the coccyx that measured 1 cm long by 0.9 cm wide by 0.5 cm deep and contained 10% slough. - 10/10/23, at 1:24 p.m., indicated a stage three pressure ulcer to the coccyx that measured 0.8 cm long by 1.1 cm wide by 0.5 cm deep. At 1:23 p.m., a stage three pressure ulcer to the coccyx that measured 1.1 cm long by 0.9 cm wide and 0.5 cm deep and 10% of the wound contained slough. - 10/26/23, at 9:25 a.m., indicated a stage three pressure ulcer to the coccyx that measured 1.1 cm long by 11.1 cm wide by 0.3 cm deep. - 10/31/23, indicated a stage three pressure ulcer that measured 1.2 cm long by 1.0 cm wide and no depth. An additional form indicated 0.8 cm long by 0.8 cm wide by 0.5 cm deep. The Skin and Wound Evaluation Assessment form identified each wound was located on the coccyx. A record request form was provided to the facility requesting all assessments related to skin and wounds since admission including picture assessments that identified each wound and their measurements, however the requested information was not entirely received. During interview and observation on 10/30/23 between 5:48 p.m., and 5:50 p.m., R22 stated she had irritation on her bottom that was hard to heal and stated they provided a pillow to use, and had not spoken with her about staying off her bottom. R22 had a circular cushion in another chair but did not have a cushion in the recliner R22 was in. R22 had a cushion in the wheel chair and additionally had an air mattress on her bed. R22's care sheet updated on 10/11/23, lacked interventions for a cushion in the recliner. During observation on 11/1/23 at 6:56 a.m., R22 was in her room in her reclining chair and her head was bent forward. During interview at 11/1/23 at 7:19 a.m., registered nurse (RN)-B stated R22 slept in her recliner 90% of the time and refused to sleep in the bed despite encouragement and added it was R22's choice. RN-B stated R22 was supposed to have a cushion in the chair she slept in. During interview and observation on 11/1/23 at 7:25 a.m., R22 was in the bathroom with staff and had a circular type cushion in her arm chair, but was not in R22's recliner chair where she slept. nursing assistant (NA)-B stated she had worked at the facility for two years and stated R22 slept in her chair. NA-B verified the circular cushion was not in R22's recliner chair she slept in this morning when R22 got up and verified R22 did not have any type of cushion in her recliner when she assisted her to get up. NA-B stated they toileted and repositioned R22 and stated R22 was continent. NA-B offered to apply the circular cushion to R22's recliner chair and R22 accepted. NA-B stated as the day goes on, R22 got weaker and needed assist and stated R22 could shift positions in her chair and added they tried to push for R22 to sleep in the bed as much as possible. During interview on 11/1/23 at 10:19 a.m., NA-C stated R22 could not get out of the recliner by herself and when R22 stood, she pushes off, but cannot get up on her own and just rocks in her chair and needed assist. During interview on 11/1/23 at 12:54 p.m., licensed practical nurse (LPN)-B stated wounds were measured once a week and stated R22 had two pressure ulcers and one was near the coccyx and the other on the left gluteal fold. LPN-B clarified R22's left buttocks was deteriorating and stated it looked like it was deeper and like the wounds were not improving. LPN further stated the pressure ulcers were hard to heal because R22 did not get off her bottom and wasn't eating well. LPN-B stated R22 could get up to go to the bathroom by herself and added R22 slept in her recliner chair. During interview on 11/1/23 at 1:07 p.m., nurse manager (NM)-G stated she asked hospice about an offloading cushion for R22 at the care conference on 10/13/23, and added R22 received an air mattress for her bed, and a gel cushion for R22's wheel chair. NM-G verified the care conference note lacked information regarding a cushion for the recliner chair. NM-G further stated R22 wished to only sleep in her chair and when asked about a circular cushion observed in R22's room, NM-G stated the cushion could have come from hospice and hoped the family brought in the cushion because hospice should notify the facility if they bring items in. NM-G further stated she had not followed up to see if interventions were effective and did not follow up to verify if a cushion was in place. During interview on 11/1/23 at 1:14 p.m., LPN-B verified no wound assessments were completed after 8/4/23, until 8/25/23. LPN-B stated from 10/10/23, to 10/26/23, they were missing a week of assessments. LPN-B further stated the problem with putting the cushion in the chair when they had therapy look at it, was the manufacturer wouldn't approve a cushion in the recliner because they couldn't guarantee it wouldn't slide out and that was why they asked hospice to look into it. During interview on 11/1/23 at 2:20 p.m., the health unit coordinator (HUC)-H verified the hospice notes in the paper chart and in the electronic medical record (EMR) lacked any information regarding a cushion or follow up on a cushion for the reclining chair. During interview and observation on 11/1/23 at 3:38 p.m., R22 was in her reclining chair with a pillow behind her back, but there was no cushion on the seat of the recliner chair. RN-F measured the wound on R22's left buttocks and was 1.6 cm long by 0.9 cm wide and 0.3 cm deep. RN-F measured the wound to R22's coccyx and was 1 cm long by 1 cm wide that included tunneling in the corner right inside corner that measured 0.4 cm at 1 O'clock. RN-F also stated R22 had a new stage one pressure injury to R22's right inner buttocks that measured 0.7 cm long by 0.9 cm wide. RN-F stated R22 did not want the cushion her daughter gave her and stated R22 didn't always use it and stated R22 was on a repositioning schedule and occupational therapy got R22 a special cushion she thought was the circular cushion. RN-F stated since R22 had a new wound they may have to do something different and verified that wound assessments were supposed to be done weekly and used to be completed on Wednesdays, but stated there had been some changes and verified wound assessments were documented in the chart and were missed. RN-F further stated if wounds are not monitored they are going to get worse because you cannot evaluate a wound if you are not assessing them and expected there to be interventions in place regarding R22's recliner chair. During interview on 11/2/23 at 8:11 a.m., the director of nursing (DON) stated she found a wound assessment in a file and provided four of five pages of a hand written note on a Body Audit form dated 10/16/23. The form indicated R22's left gluteal fold measured 0.8 cm long by 0.76 cm wide by 0.5 cm deep and the coccyx measured 0.57 cm long by 0.66 cm wide by 0.5 cm deep. During interview on 11/2/23 at 8:25 a.m., LPN-B stated she had the mobile application for documenting the wound assessment on her phone and it was deleted so the assessment dated [DATE], did not pull over and stated the assessment was completed on 10/16/23, and stated they were 100% paperless and verified prior to 10/16/23, R22 was missing several wound assessments. During interview on 11/2/23 at 10:52 a.m., the hospice RN stated, she just met R22 on 10/27/23, and was hopeful R22's wounds would heal and was dependent on her nutrition status. Hospice RN stated she just forwarded an email from the house hold coordinator (HHC)-C to check on the status of a wound cushion. During interview on 11/2/23 at 11:02 a.m., hospice RN stated she was not notified of a new wound and was not aware R22 was not sleeping in her bed and stated it would be important if R22 was in her chair to have an intervention for her recliner chair and further stated wound assessments were important to complete to make sure new interventions were put in place if the wound was not healing according to the plan. During interview on 11/2/23 at 12:34 p.m., hospice RN stated HHC-C sent her an email on 11/1/23, regarding a cushion and stated it was the first time she had heard about a cushion and further stated she ordered a standard cushion and the nursing facilities wound care team was taking care of the wounds and updating her on the wound measurements. During interview on 11/2/23 at 12:46 p.m., nurse practitioner (NP)-J stated R22's albumen level (an indicator of nutritional status) was completed on 8/15/23, and was 3.7 which was within normal limits. NP added R22 sitting in general like she preferred to do, put her at increased risk, but not having a cushion in addition to the reclining chair could have contributed to worsening pressure ulcers and additional ones as well and further stated she would have expected weekly skin assessments because even if there were no pressure ulcers, you want to see if there was one developing and once one was present, you want to make sure it doesn't worsen and if you have one pressure ulcer, you are at additional risk of getting another one. During interview on 11/2/23 at 1:27 p.m., DON stated wound assessments should be completed according to their policy of every seven days at a minimum and would have expected staff to document wound assessments and additional interventions in place knowing R22 did not want to lie in bed. During interview on 11/3/23 at 11:40 a.m., DON stated assessments were not getting completed and they were looking to adjust staff loads to include trained medication aides. A policy, Skin Integrity Management Policy dated October 2022, indicated it was the facility policy to properly identify, assess, and monitor residents whose clinical conditions increase the risk for impaired skin integrity, and pressure ulcers/injuries; to implement preventative measures; and to provide appropriate treatment modalities for pressure ulcers/injuries according to industry standards of care. A Braden scale was completed on admission and weekly to determine level of risk and regardless of the resident's total risk score, each risk factor and potential causes should be reviewed individually, addressed in the analysis and interventions implemented. Based upon findings of the clinical assessment in partnership with the resident and or family input, a care plan will be developed or modified to reflect alterations in interventions and implementation of new interventions specific to the resident. When a non surgical wound is discovered a new Wound Assessment is documented in point click care that includes the onset of the skin condition, type of wound, location, date, stage, length, width and depth; wound base description, surrounding skin description and if present drainage, odor, undermining, tunneling, and or pain. Documentation on the wound using the wound assessment with a structured progress note generating from the assessment should be done at least weekly, or more frequently depending on the wound characteristics or type dressing used. Implement appropriate interventions and update care plan and nursing assistant assignment sheets. An avoidable pressure ulcer/injury means the resident developed a pressure ulcer/injury and that the facility did not do one or more of the following: evaluate the resident's clinical condition and risk factors; define and implement interventions that are consistent with resident needs, resident goals, and professional standards of practice; monitor and evaluate the impact of the interventions; or revise the interventions as appropriate.
CONCERN (D)

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

Grievances (Tag F0585)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview and document review, the facility failed to follow their grievance process to ensure a voiced grievance conce...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview and document review, the facility failed to follow their grievance process to ensure a voiced grievance concerning activities was resolved to satisfaction for 1 of 2 residents (R29) reviewed for grievances. Findings include: R29's significant change Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated [DATE], indicated it was very important R29's family or close friend was involved in discussions about care, was very important to have books, newspapers, and magazines to read, listen to music, do things with groups of people, do favorite activities, and participate in religious services or practices. R29's quarterly MDS dated [DATE], indicated R29 had a memory problem, was dependent on staff for most activities of daily living (ADLs), had minimal difficulty hearing and wore a hearing aid. R29's Medical Diagnosis form (undated), indicated the following diagnoses: unspecified severe dementia with other behavioral disturbance, delusional disorders, major depressive disorder, and difficulty in walking. R29's care plan dated 9/25/23, indicated R29 was dependent on staff for activities due to dementia and would attend activities of choice. An intervention dated 10/31/23, indicated R29 had an electric keyboard to use at the table. Other interventions included R29 required one to one visits if R29 was unable to attend group activities, assistance to attend activity functions, invite to scheduled activities including church, special music, bingo, exercise, socials, outdoor activities, and coloring, take to any and all religious services and take to communion, when R29 chose not to participate in organized activities to provide independent activities in common areas to include cards, and activity blankets. R29's Quality Concern form dated 10/18/23, completed by house hold coordinator (HHC)-C indicated family member (FM)-B was concerned the common area television was not set to a TV program channel, but was set to music and wanted more at R29's table to keep busy. Additionally, HHC-C contacted R29's family to provide ideas on items to keep R29 busy and followed up with staff by posting a small reminder sign on the TV for the appropriate volume level and generation appropriate shows to enjoy. Under section four of the form, the administrator spoke with life enrichment about giving R29 more options on 10/19/23, however the form was undocumented under the sections, Person that completed this form contacted and updated on this date along with Name of person making the follow up contact. During observation 10/30/23 at 6:01 p.m., R29 was in her room in bed. During observation on 10/31/23 at 9:39 a.m., R29 was out in a day room with the television on and had a stuffed cat next to her. During interview on 10/31/23 at 10:11 a.m., FM-B stated R29 had no social interaction and added R29 used to be a director of a program and went to nursing facilities every day to entertain residents and was now spending her life alone. FM-B further stated R29 was an extremely social person. FM-B stated staff turned on the music channel, but stated it was so quiet, FM-B could not hear the television. FM-B stated they have expressed concerns for the past couple of years, and the answer they received was they were working on it, but nothing ever changed. During observation on 10/31/23 at 1:40 p.m., R29 was in bed and the door to the room had been closed and R29's shades were drawn and the room was dark. R29 had mouth movements. During interview on 10/31/23 at 1:48 p.m., nursing assistant (NA)-A stated R29 required total assist for cares and staff lay R29 down after lunch. During interview and observation on 10/31/23 at 2:20 p.m., R29 was brought out to the day room and was given a key board, activity coordinator (AC)-A turned on a black and white movie and left resident by herself. AC-A stated they documented who attended activities. During interview on 11/2/23 at 9:09 a.m., registered nurse (RN)-A stated R29 had severe dementia and could not effectively communicate her needs to staff. When R29 saw staff she called for their attention and most of the time wanted to hold your hand and stated staff should pay attention and talk with R29 and offer a keyboard. RN-A stated R29 wanted to be involved in activities and exercises, especially music. During interview on 11/2/23 at 12:22 p.m., administrator (A)-D stated he documented responses such as following up with culinary on the Quality Concern form and stated he hoped to follow up with the resident or family to see if they were satisfied. During interview on 11/2/23 at 3:28 p.m., A-D stated he expected grievances to be taken care of immediately because he did not want someone to get the courage to submit a grievance and then not hear about if for a couple of days. A policy, Quality Concern/Grievance Process undated, indicated if the concern or grievance was being filed orally, the staff member receiving the information should write a brief description of the concern, if the staff member receiving the concern can immediately address the issue this will be noted in section three and the form will be signed and dated with a copy routed to the administrator. The concern or grievance will be addressed minimally within five working days and action items will be communicated to the individual filing the grievance unless indicated as anonymous.
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 residents were free from physical restraints...

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 free from physical restraints for 1 of 1 resident (R29). Findings include: R29's quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated [DATE], indicated R29 was dependent on all activities of daily living (ADLs), incontinent of bowel and bladder, had fallen, and did not use restraints. R29's Medical Diagnosis form (undated), indicated the following diagnoses: unspecified dementia, severe, with behavioral disturbance, delusional disorders, senile degeneration of the brain, disorientation, muscle weakness, and difficulty in walking. R29's clinical physician orders were reviewed and lacked orders for a restraint. R29's care plan dated 2/23/23, indicated R29 required one person assist to reposition and turn in bed. Additionally, R29 was at high risk for falling and should not lie down if she was not sleeping. R29's care plan dated 9/13/23, indicated R29 was at risk for falls due to a history of falling and had a perimeter mattress on the bed. During observation on 10/30/23 at 6:01 p.m., R29 was in bed lying on a perimeter mattress and resident had a pillow located on the outer right side of the bed and was not under R29. During observation on 10/31/23 at 1:40 p.m., R29 was in bed and had pillows located under R29's fitted bed sheet on the side of the bed facing R29's door. During interview and observation on 10/31/23 at 1:48 p.m., nursing assistant (NA)-A stated R29 required complete assistance with cares and was at risk for falling. NA-A stated in order to prevent falls, the bed is placed in the lower position and pillows were placed under the bed sheet to prevent R29 from jumping out of bed. During interview and observation on 10/31/23 at 2:04 p.m., registered nurse (RN)-A stated R29 should not have pillows under the bed sheet because it was a form of a restraint and removed the pillows and further stated R29 has tried to get out of bed in the past. During interview on 11/2/23 at 1:37 p.m., the director of nursing (DON) stated residents cannot be restrained. A policy, Physical Restraint Policy dated November 2022, indicated the facility had a stringent policy regarding the use of physical and chemical restraints. A physical restraint is defined as any manual method, physical or mechanical device, equipment or material that is attached or adjacent to the resident's body, cannot be removed easily by the resident, and restricts the resident's freedom of movement or normal access to their body.
CONCERN (D)

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

ADL Care (Tag F0677)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview, and document review, the facility failed to ensure grooming was offered and/or provided for 1 o...

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 grooming was offered and/or provided for 1 of 1 resident (R31) reviewed for shaving. Findings include: R31's quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated [DATE], indicated intact cognition, rejected cares four to six days, had moderate difficulty in hearing, required extensive assistance for bed mobility, transfers, ambulation in the room, dressing, toileting, and hygiene, and was frequently incontinent of bowel and bladder. R31's admission Record form dated 11/2/23, indicated R31 had the following diagnoses: anxiety disorder, unspecified dementia, psychotic disturbance, mood disturbance, and anxiety, major depressive disorder, and senile degeneration of the brain. R31's care plan dated 3/9/23, indicated R31 had an activities of daily living (ADL) deficit related to depression, anxiety, and mild dementia and refused baths and was resistive with cares at times and required assist of one with dressing, grooming, and hygiene. Additionally R31 required an explanation of the reasoning for the care to be done as needed, what cares would be done prior to starting cares, and if R31 refused, was to be reapproached. Additionally, if R31 refused care or bathing, to report to the nurse. R31's nursing progress notes were reviewed 3/9/23 through 11/2/23, and on 3/18/23, had refused brief change despite explanation and a progress note dated 3/14/23, indicated R31 refused baths at times, was hard of hearing, used a pocket talker to communicate and staff were to use the pocket talker to help R31 communicate. Additionally on 9/15/23, R31 was incontinent of bowels and had initially refused to be changed, however allowed the staff to change after staff provided an explanation. R31's Weekly Body Audit form dated 10/19/23 and 10/26/23, indicated R31 received a shower. R31's care sheet dated 10/11/23, indicated R31 had a bath on Thursdays, could be resistive with cares, and would refuse baths at times, staff should avoid yes or no questions related to cares and showers but instead state it was time to do a certain task, and explain the task. The care sheet lacked information regarding providing shaving assistance. R31's Task Personal Hygiene form from 10/4/23 through 11/2/23, indicated how R31 maintained personal hygiene such as combing hair, brushing teeth, shaving, applying makeup, and washing and drying face and hands. The form indicated R31 refused the task four times on 10/14/23, 10/24/23, 10/25/23, and 10/29/23. The form identified, R31 required extensive assistance 29 times, limited assistance 16 times, supervision twice, and was independent three times on 10/13/23, 10/20/23, and 11/2/23. R31's Task Bathing form from10/3/23 through 10/31/23, indicated R31 did not refuse bathing. During observation on 10/30/23 at 2:03 p.m., R31 had hairs approximately one half an inch long on her chin. During observation 10/31/23 at 9:27 a.m., R31 was in her room and still had a thick patch of hairs on R31's chin. During observation on 11/1/23 at 8:50 a.m., nursing assistant (NA)-A assisted R31 in a.m., cares that included assisting in washing R31's face, under arms, peri cares, combing hair, doffing night clothing and dressing R31. NA-A did not offer to shave or provide any explanation on shaving R31. During interview on 11/1/23 at 9:07 a.m., R31 stated NA-A did not offer to shave R31's chin hairs and stated this would have been something she wanted done. During interview on 11/1/23 at 1:44 p.m., R31 stated she did not receive assistance with shaving and still had the long chin hairs. During interview on 11/1/23 at 1:44 p.m., NA-A stated they looked at the care sheet to know what cares a resident required, refusals were documented in the nurse aide documentation, R31 did not refuse any cares today and further stated if R31 refused cares, staff had to reapproach and then R31 would usually agree to cares. NA-A stated personal hygiene included washing hair, face, and shaving and stated R31 did not get shaved because she did not have any chin hairs and if R31 did have chin hairs, NA-A would have to check the care plan. NA-A verified shaving hygiene was not on the care sheet and later stated, he thought he had seen the chin hairs and was not sure how long they had been there, but there was nothing on the care sheet to indicate they needed to shave R31. During interview on 11/1/23 at 1:56 p.m., registered nurse (RN)-B stated the NA's had care sheets to know what kind of cares a resident required and stated personal hygiene consisted of brushing teeth, combing hair, washing face, and shaving. RN-B stated she had seen the chin hairs and staff should ask if R31 wanted to shave. RN-B further stated R31's chin hairs have been like that since mid September and expected female residents to not have chin hairs. During interview on 11/2/23 at 1:34 p.m., the director of nursing (DON) stated she expected cares to be completed as care planned. A policy, Bath, Partial dated December 2014, indicated the purpose was to clean, refresh, and sooth the resident, but lacked information on shaving the resident. A policy, Shaving the Resident dated December 2014, indicated the purpose was to remove facial hair and improve the resident's appearance and morale. The policy provided instruction on how shaving was to be completed, but lacked information regarding when shaving was to be completed.
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 interview, observation, and document review, the facility failed to provide meaningful activities for 1 of 2 residents ...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview, observation, and document review, the facility failed to provide meaningful activities for 1 of 2 residents (R29) who was dependent on staff for activities. Findings include: R29's significant change Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated [DATE], indicated it was very important R29's family or close friend was involved in discussions about care, was very important to have books, newspapers, and magazines to read, listen to music, do things with groups of people, do favorite activities, and participate in religious services or practices. R29's quarterly MDS dated [DATE], indicated R29 had a memory problem, was dependent on staff for most activities of daily living (ADLs), had minimal difficulty hearing and wore a hearing aid, and did not reject care. R29's Medical Diagnosis form (undated), indicated the following diagnoses: unspecified severe dementia with other behavioral disturbance, delusional disorders, major depressive disorder, and difficulty in walking. R29's care plan dated 9/25/23, indicated R29 was dependent on staff for activities due to dementia and would attend activities of choice. An intervention dated 10/31/23, indicated R29 had an electric keyboard to use at the table. Other interventions included R29 required one to one visits if R29 was unable to attend group activities, assistance to attend activity functions, invite to scheduled activities including church, special music, bingo, exercise, socials, outdoor activities, and coloring, take to any and all religious services and take to communion. When R29 chose not to participate in organized activities to provide independent activities in common areas to include cards, and activity blankets. R29's Task Activity Participation form dated 10/4/23 through 11/2/23, indicated R29 did not refuse activities, was unavailable for activities 16 times after 1:00 p.m., including Wednesdays on 10/4/23, 10/11/23, 10/18/23, 10/25/23, and11/1/23. R29's Task Event dated 10/4/23 through 11/2/23, indicated R29 attended the following activities: • Bingo one time • Campus wide activity one time • Exercise 25 times • Games one time • Guest or family visit two times • Music 5 times • Chaplain visit zero times • Had zero 1:1 visits R29's activity calendar dated October 2023 and November 2023, indicated the following activities were offered during the time frame 10/4/23 through 11/2/23: • Bingo was an activity 7 times • Exercise 36 times • Catholic Mass at 11:00 a.m., on Wednesdays 5 times, Chapel Service at 2:00 p.m., on Wednesdays 5 times, and, rosary at 11:00 a.m., on Thursdays 5 times • Music 8 times R29's Quality Concern form dated 10/18/23, completed by house hold coordinator (HHC)-C indicated family member (FM)-B was concerned the common area television was not set to a TV program channel, but was set to music and wanted more at R29's table to keep busy. Additionally, HHC-C contacted R29's family to provide ideas on items to keep R29 busy and followed up with staff posting a small reminder sign on the TV for the appropriate volume level and generation appropriate shows to enjoy. Under section four of the form, the administrator spoke with life enrichment about giving R29 more options on 10/19/23, however the form was undocumented under the sections, Person that completed this form contacted and updated on this date along with Name of person making the follow up contact. During observation 10/30/23 at 6:01 p.m., R29 was in her room in bed. During observation on 10/31/23 at 9:39 a.m., R29 was out in a day room with the television on and had a stuffed cat next to her. During interview on 10/31/23 at 10:11 a.m., FM-B stated R29 had no social interaction and added R29 used to be a director of a program and went to nursing facilities every day to entertain residents and was now spending her life alone. FM-B further stated R29 was an extremely social person. FM-B stated staff turned on the music channel, but stated it was so quiet, FM-B could not hear the television. FM-B stated they have expressed concerns for the past couple of years, and the answer received was they were working on it, but nothing ever changed. During observation on 10/31/23 at 1:40 p.m., R29 was in bed and the door to the room had been closed. R29's shades were drawn and the room was dark. R29 had mouth movements. During interview on 10/31/23 at 1:48 p.m., nursing assistant (NA)-A stated R29 required total assist for cares and staff lay R29 down after lunch. During interview and observation on 10/31/23 at 2:20 p.m., R29 was brought out to the day room and was given a key board, activity coordinator (AC)-A turned on a black and white movie and left resident by herself. AC-A stated they documented who attended activities. During observation 11/1/23 at 6:57 a.m., R29 was in the day room and playing the keyboard with the television off. During observation on 11/1/23 at 9:24 a.m., R29 was in the day room and the TV was turned on. An activity calendar for 11/1/23, indicated catholic mass was at 11:00 a.m., chapel services were at 2:00 p.m., short stories started at 10:30 a.m., and morning exercises began at 10:00 a.m. During interview on 11/2/23 at 9:09 a.m., registered nurse (RN)-A stated R29 had severe dementia and could not effectively communicate her needs to staff, stated when R29 saw staff she called for their attention and most of the time wanted to hold your hand, staff should pay attention and talk with R29 and offer a keyboard. RN-A stated R29 wanted to be involved in activities and exercises, especially music. RN-A stated staff had care sheets or a care plan that summarized the care a resident required. During interview on 11/2/23 at 9:42 a.m., the life enrichment specialist (LES)-B stated she completed an MDS assessment about preferences, resident's attendance was tracked and reported at resident care conferences. LES-B stated she could go back months to review attendance. LES-B stated R29 attended music one time in the past 30 days, and added R29 hasn't attended church services because they were in the afternoon. LES-B further stated R29 did not receive one to one visits from the chaplain, but was something they could set up. Additionally, from 10/4/23 to 11/1/23, LES-B stated R29 attended bingo only once because that was held in the afternoon. LES further stated R29 went to church twice in the past month and church services were held every week on Wednesdays. LES-B stated it was very important for R29 to attend church, very important to have books and magazines, listen to music, be in groups of people. LES-B stated expected there to be care planning for R29 to take a nap around the times of scheduled activities so R29 could attend. LES-B added they spoke with nursing about staff changing nap times however, it was difficult to find a balance. LES-B expected the chaplain to visit if R29 could not attend church. During interview on 11/2/23 at 1:37 p.m., the director of nursing (DON) stated the purpose of a preferences assessment was to create an individualized care plan and meet the needs of the resident and expected the assessment to reflect what R29 was capable of or what was appropriate for R29. During interview on 11/2/23 at 4:32 p.m., LES-B stated after 1:00 p.m., activity participation indicated not available because R29 was put to bed in the afternoons. LES-B further stated, staff state, oh shoot, we just put her to bed, when asked about activities. Additionally, despite the October calendar for activities on 10/18/23 and 10/25/23, indicated chaplain, LES-B stated the chaplain had a function work group and was not at the facility on 10/18/23 and 10/25/23. A policy, Care Plan Policy and Procedure dated November 2022, indicated the person centered care plan will ensure the resident has the appropriate care required to maintain or attain the resident's highest practicable physical, mental, and psychosocial well-being. The team will continue to collect additional information and data including but not limited to the registered nursing assistant, licensed nurse, life enrichment representative and will develop a comprehensive care plan that contains both strengths and vulnerabilities and dependencies. The care plan is to be changed and updated as the care changes for the resident and as the resident changes occur it will be updated in the electronic medical record. It is to be current at all times.
CONCERN (D)

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

Quality of Care (Tag F0684)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview and document review, the facility failed to ensure effective collaboration between the facility and a contrac...

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 effective collaboration between the facility and a contracted hospice organization for 1 of 2 resident (R22) reviewed for hospice services. Findings include: See also F686 R22's Face Sheet form indicated the following diagnoses: unspecified protein calorie malnutrition, pressure ulcer of unspecified buttock stage three, major depressive disorder, and type two diabetes. R22's hospice election benefit indicated R22 enrolled in hospice on 10/4/23. R22's admission Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated [DATE], indicated intact cognition, did not reject care, required partial to moderate assistance with toileting, showering, was occasionally incontinent of bladder, was five feet tall and 105 pounds, was at risk of developing pressure ulcers and did not have one or more unhealed pressure ulcers at a stage one or higher. Under the section Skin and Ulcer Treatments R22 had a check mark next to applications of ointments and medications other than to feet. R22's significant change in status (MDS) dated [DATE], indicated R22 had moderate cognitive impairment, did not reject care, was occasionally incontinent of bladder, and frequently incontinent of bowel, was 104 pounds, was at risk for pressure ulcers and had one stage three pressure ulcer and under the section, Skin and Ulcer Treatments had a check mark next to pressure relieving device for R22's chair and bed, had nutrition or hydration intervention to manage skin problems, pressure ulcer care, and applications of ointments and medications other than to feet. R22's significant change in status (MDS) dated [DATE], indicated moderate cognitive impairment, did not exhibit behaviors, and did not reject care. Required substantial maximal assistance for toileting hygiene, partial moderate assist for moving from sitting to lying, and chair to bed to chair, and toileting transfers required supervision or touching assistance, was occasionally incontinent of urine and always continent of bowels. R22's weight was 101 pounds, was at risk of developing pressure ulcers and had two stage three pressure ulcers, and under the section, Skin and Ulcer Treatments had a check mark next to pressure reducing device for chair, bed, pressure ulcer care, applications of ointments and medications other than to feet. R22's care plan dated 10/6/23, indicated R22 received hospice services. R22's care plan dated 7/7/23, indicated an activity in daily living (ADL) self care performance deficit and required staff assistance due to limited mobility, impaired balance and an intervention included to observe skin for redness, open areas, scratches, cuts, bruises and report changes. R22's care plan dated 7/7/23, indicated R22 had limited physical mobility and required staff assistance due to limited mobility and impaired balance. The care plan was later updated on 11/2/23, to include an intervention identifying R22 required assist of one to reposition in bed and assist of two to boost up in bed. This intervention further indicated R22 had an air pressure reduction mattress on the bed, and R22 preferred to sleep in the recliner and had an air pressure cushion. Prior to 11/2/23, the bed mobility intervention was last revised on 9/13/23, to include R22 required assist of one to reposition self in bed and encourage off loading in bed and chair. R22's care plan dated 10/9/23, indicated an altered nutritional status due to weight loss and impaired skin integrity. Interventions indicated providing a diet as ordered, monitor intake, obtain weights, monitor lab work, honor food preferences and requests. R22's care plan dated 10/13/23, indicated R22 was at risk for impaired skin integrity due to limited mobility, medication side effects, bladder incontinence, malnutrition and had two stage three pressure ulcers on the left buttock and coccyx. R22's goal indicated the current pressure ulcers would show signs of improvement by the next review date as evidenced by a decrease in size or a resolved status. Interventions indicated following facility protocols and policies for prevention of skin breakdown, a pressure reducing mattress, able to request assistance for toileting and repositioning, observe for signs and symptoms of breakdown and update the nurse promptly if noted. The most recent intervention on the care plan was dated 8/4/23, and indicated R22 required a pressure reducing wheelchair cushion. No new interventions were added following the development of new pressure ulcers. R22's care sheet dated 10/11/23, indicated R22 required assist of one with a transfer belt for transfers and ambulating short distances. Additionally, R22 required assist of one when going to the bathroom, and with dressing, grooming, and bathing and required a body audit completed on Thursdays, further, R22 required frequent repositioning and offloading while in the bed and wheelchair. The care sheet had a yellow highlighted instruction dated 8/4/23, to remind R22 to reposition off bottom for a few minutes every two to three hours due to having a pressure ulcer. The care sheet lacked any information or instruction resident had a cushion for the reclining chair. During interview and observation on 10/30/23 between 5:48 p.m., and 5:50 p.m., R22 stated she had irritation on her bottom that was hard to heal and stated they provided a pillow to use, and had not spoken with her about staying off her bottom. R22 had a circular cushion in another chair but did not have a cushion in the recliner R22 was in. R22 had a cushion in the wheel chair and additionally had an air mattress on her bed. R22's care sheet updated on 10/11/23, lacked interventions for a cushion in the recliner. During observation on 11/1/23 at 6:56 a.m., R22 was in her room in her reclining chair and her head was bent forward. During interview at 11/1/23 at 7:19 a.m., registered nurse (RN)-B stated R22 slept in her recliner 90% of the time and refused to sleep in the bed despite encouragement and added it was R22's choice. RN-B stated R22 was supposed to have a cushion in the chair she slept in. During interview and observation on 11/1/23 at 7:25 a.m., R22 was in the bathroom with staff and had a circular type cushion in her arm chair, but was not in R22's recliner chair where she slept. Nursing assistant (NA)-B stated she had worked at the facility for two years and stated R22 slept in her recliner chair. NA-B verified the circular cushion was not in R22's recliner chair she slept in this morning when R22 got up and verified R22 did not have any type of cushion in her recliner when she assisted her to get up. NA-B stated they toileted and repositioned R22 and stated R22 was continent. NA-B offered to apply the circular cushion to R22's recliner chair and R22 accepted. NA-B stated as the day goes on, R22 got weaker and needed assist and stated R22 could shift positions in her chair and added they tried to push for R22 to sleep in the bed as much as possible. During interview on 11/1/23 at 10:19 a.m., NA-C stated R22 could not get out of the recliner by herself and when R22 stood, she pushes off the chair, but cannot get up on her own and just rocks in her chair and needed assist. During interview on 11/1/23 at 12:54 p.m., licensed practical nurse (LPN)-B stated wounds were measured once a week and stated R22 had two pressure ulcers and one was near the coccyx and the other on the left gluteal fold. LPN-B clarified R22's left buttocks was deteriorating and stated it looked like it was deeper and like the wound was not improving. LPN further stated the pressure ulcers were hard to heal because R22 did not get off her bottom and wasn't eating well. LPN-B stated R22 could get up to go to the bathroom by herself and added R22 slept in her recliner chair. During interview on 11/1/23 at 1:07 p.m., nurse manager (NM)-G stated she asked hospice about an offloading cushion for R22 at the care conference on 10/13/23, and added R22 received an air mattress for her bed, and a gel cushion for R22's wheel chair. NM-G verified the care conference note lacked information regarding a cushion for the recliner chair. NM-G further stated R22 wished to only sleep in her chair and when asked about a circular cushion observed in R22's room, NM-G stated the cushion could have come from hospice and hoped the family brought in the cushion because hospice should notify the facility if they bring items in. NM-G further stated she had not followed up to see if interventions were effective and did not follow up to verify if a cushion was in place. During interview on 11/1/23 at 1:14 p.m., LPN-B verified no wound assessments were completed after 8/4/23, until 8/25/23. LPN-B stated from 10/10/23, to 10/26/23, they were missing a week of assessments. LPN-B further stated the problem with putting the cushion in the chair when they had therapy look at it, was the manufacturer wouldn't approve a cushion in the recliner because they couldn't guarantee it wouldn't slide out and that was why they asked hospice to look into it. During interview on 11/1/23 at 2:20 p.m., the health unit coordinator (HUC)-H verified the hospice notes in the paper chart and in the electronic medical record (EMR) lacked any information regarding a cushion or follow up on a cushion for the reclining chair. During interview and observation on 11/1/23 at 3:38 p.m., R22 was in her reclining chair with a pillow behind her back, but there was no cushion on the seat of the recliner chair. RN-F measured the wound on R22's left buttocks and was 1.6 cm long by 0.9 cm wide and 0.3 cm deep. RN-F measured the wound to R22's coccyx and was 1 cm long by 1 cm wide that included tunneling in the right inside corner that measured 0.4 cm at 1 O'clock. RN-F also stated R22 had a new stage one pressure injury to R22's right inner buttocks that measured 0.7 cm long by 0.9 cm wide. RN-F stated R22 did not want the cushion her daughter gave her and stated R22 didn't always use it and stated R22 was on a repositioning schedule and occupational therapy got R22 a special cushion she thought was the circular cushion. RN-F stated since R22 had a new wound they may have to do something different and verified that wound assessments were supposed to be done weekly and used to be completed on Wednesdays, but stated there had been some changes and verified wound assessments were documented in the chart and were missed. RN-F further stated if wounds are not monitored they are going to get worse because you cannot evaluate a wound if you are not assessing them and expected there to be interventions in place regarding R22's recliner chair. During interview on 11/2/23 at 10:52 a.m., the hospice RN stated, she just met R22 on 10/27/23, and was hopeful R22's wounds would heal and was dependent on her nutrition status. Hospice RN stated she just forwarded an email from the house hold coordinator (HHC)-C to check on the status of a wound cushion. During interview on 11/2/23 at 11:02 a.m., hospice RN stated she was not notified of a new wound and was not aware R22 was not sleeping in her bed and stated it would be important if R22 was in her chair to have an intervention for her recliner chair and further stated wound assessments were important to complete to make sure new interventions were put in place if the wound was not healing according to the plan. During interview on 11/2/23 at 12:34 p.m., hospice RN stated HHC-C sent her an email on 11/1/23, regarding a cushion and stated it was the first time she had heard about a cushion and further stated she ordered a standard cushion and the nursing facilities wound care team was taking care of the wounds and updating her on the wound measurements. During interview on 11/3/23 between 11:38 a.m., and 11:40 a.m., the director of nursing (DON) stated they talked about getting a cushion and hospice was going to provide it and they received the cushion on 11/2/23. DON further stated hospice was aware R22 was not sleeping in bed. A policy, Hospice Care Coordination dated November 2017, indicated the purpose of the policy was to provide guidance and clarity for facility staff to ensure coordination of care when a resident chooses to enroll in a Medicare or Medicaid approved hospice benefit program. The facility will continue to maintain 24 hour accountability for the resident when a resident chooses the hospice benefit. This includes but is not limited to continue to meet the resident's personal and medical needs. The facility's services must be consistent with the coordinated plan of care developed with the hospice provider and the facility must continue to offer the same services to the resident who chooses the hospice benefit as they do to those who have not chosen the hospice benefit. The hospice provider maintains responsibility for provision of the hospice care and services based on the residents assessment and individualized needs including but not limited to: nursing to support the resident's ongoing care, provision of medical supplies and DME (durable medical equipment) and drugs necessary for palliation of pain and symptoms associated with the terminal illness. A communication process will be maintained 24 hours a day to ensure resident care.
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

Pharmacy Services (Tag F0755)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Deficiency Text Not Available

Read full inspector narrative →
Deficiency Text Not Available
CONCERN (D)

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

Drug Regimen Review (Tag F0756)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview and record review the facility failed to follow up on pharmacy recommendations for 1 of 5 residents (R34) rev...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview and record review the facility failed to follow up on pharmacy recommendations for 1 of 5 residents (R34) reviewed for unnecessary medications. Findings include: R34's quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated [DATE], indicated moderately impaired cognition, inattention, disorganized thinking and diagnoses of alzheimer's disease and major depressive disorder. It further indicated R34 required substantial assistance with activities of daily living (ADL), mobility, and received an antidepressant 7/7 days in the lookback period without attempting a gradual dose reduction (GDR) and not noted to be clinically contraindicated. R34's care plan dated 10/17/23, indicated R34 used antidepressant medication for depression with an intervention to consult with pharmacy and my physician to consider dosage reduction when clinically appropriate. R34's physician's orders dated 4/5/23, indicated Lexapro oral tablet 20 milligrams (Escitalopram Oxalate). Give 20 milligrams by mouth in the morning for major depressive disorder. R34's pharmacy consultation report dated 6/14/23, indicated R34 receives Escitalopram 20 milligrams (mg) daily for major depressive disorder (MDD), a dose which exceeds the maximum recommended daily dose of 10 mg daily in those [AGE] years of age and older. The resident also receives Quetiapine 100 mg every day at hour of sleep (QHS) for psychosis. It further indicated a recommendation to re-evaluate Escitalopram for risk versus benefit of current dose, considering a decrease to 10 mg daily if warranted. The pharmacy constultation lacked a physician's response to the recommendation. During an interview on 11/02/23 at 4:11 p.m., the director of nursing (DON) verified they had not received a response from the physician/NP regarding R34's pharmacy recommendation on 6/14/23 and did not follow up on it stating they had changed pharmacies and it was a messy transition and some of the older recommendations had slipped through the cracks. A policy related to follow up on the consultant pharmacists recommendations was requested but not received.
Understanding Severity Codes (click to expand)
Life-Threatening (Immediate Jeopardy)
J - Isolated K - Pattern L - Widespread
Actual Harm
G - Isolated H - Pattern I - Widespread
Potential for Harm
D - Isolated E - Pattern F - Widespread
No Harm (Minor)
A - Isolated B - Pattern C - Widespread

Questions to Ask on Your Visit

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

Our Honest Assessment

Strengths
  • • Grade B+ (85/100). Above average facility, better than most options in Minnesota.
  • • No fines on record. Clean compliance history, better than most Minnesota facilities.
  • • 42% turnover. Below Minnesota's 48% average. Good staff retention means consistent care.
Concerns
  • • 10 deficiencies on record, including 1 serious (caused harm) violation. Ask about corrective actions taken.
Bottom line: Generally positive indicators. Standard due diligence and a personal visit recommended.

About This Facility

What is Norris Square's CMS Rating?

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

How is Norris Square Staffed?

CMS rates NORRIS SQUARE's staffing level at 5 out of 5 stars, which is much above average compared to other nursing homes. Staff turnover is 42%, compared to the Minnesota average of 46%. This relatively stable workforce can support continuity of care.

What Have Inspectors Found at Norris Square?

State health inspectors documented 10 deficiencies at NORRIS SQUARE during 2023 to 2024. These included: 1 that caused actual resident harm and 9 with potential for harm. Deficiencies causing actual harm indicate documented cases where residents experienced negative health consequences.

Who Owns and Operates Norris Square?

NORRIS SQUARE is owned by a non-profit organization. Non-profit facilities reinvest revenue into operations rather than distributing to shareholders. The facility is operated by PRESBYTERIAN HOMES & SERVICES, a chain that manages multiple nursing homes. With 40 certified beds and approximately 35 residents (about 88% occupancy), it is a smaller facility located in COTTAGE GROVE, Minnesota.

How Does Norris Square Compare to Other Minnesota Nursing Homes?

Compared to the 100 nursing homes in Minnesota, NORRIS SQUARE's overall rating (5 stars) is above the state average of 3.2, staff turnover (42%) is near the state average of 46%, and health inspection rating (4 stars) is above the national benchmark.

What Should Families Ask When Visiting Norris Square?

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

Is Norris Square Safe?

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

Do Nurses at Norris Square Stick Around?

NORRIS SQUARE has a staff turnover rate of 42%, 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 Norris Square Ever Fined?

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

Is Norris Square on Any Federal Watch List?

NORRIS SQUARE 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.