The Estates at Delano LLC

433 COUNTY ROAD 30, DELANO, MN 55328 (763) 972-2987
For profit - Corporation 39 Beds MONARCH HEALTHCARE MANAGEMENT Data: November 2025
Trust Grade
53/100
#208 of 337 in MN
Last Inspection: October 2024

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

Overview

The Estates at Delano LLC has a Trust Grade of C, which means it is average compared to other nursing homes, neither excelling nor failing significantly. It ranks #208 out of 337 facilities in Minnesota, placing it in the bottom half of the state, and #7 out of 7 in Wright County, indicating limited local competition. The facility is showing improvement, with issues decreasing from 14 in 2024 to just 1 in 2025. Staffing is a relative strength, earning 4 out of 5 stars, although a turnover rate of 58% is concerning, higher than the state average. While the facility has more RN coverage than 76% of Minnesota facilities, which is good for resident care, it has faced some issues. For example, there was a serious incident where the facility failed to accurately report staffing data, potentially affecting all residents. Additionally, there were concerns regarding food safety practices, as refrigerators were not properly secured and cleanliness was lacking. These findings highlight both strengths in staffing and RN coverage, alongside weaknesses in compliance and food safety standards.

Trust Score
C
53/100
In Minnesota
#208/337
Bottom 39%
Safety Record
Moderate
Needs review
Inspections
Getting Better
14 → 1 violations
Staff Stability
⚠ Watch
58% turnover. Above average. Higher turnover means staff may not know residents' routines.
Penalties
✓ Good
$11,928 in fines. Lower than most Minnesota facilities. Relatively clean record.
Skilled Nurses
✓ Good
Each resident gets 60 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
20 deficiencies on record. Higher than average. Multiple issues found across inspections.
★★★☆☆
3.0
Overall Rating
★★★★☆
4.0
Staff Levels
★★★★☆
4.0
Care Quality
★★★☆☆
3.0
Inspection Score
Stable
2024: 14 issues
2025: 1 issues

The Good

  • 4-Star Staffing Rating · Above-average nurse staffing levels
  • 4-Star Quality Measures · Strong clinical quality outcomes
  • Full Sprinkler Coverage · Fire safety systems throughout facility
  • No fines on record

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

The Bad

3-Star Overall Rating

Near Minnesota average (3.2)

Meets federal standards, typical of most facilities

Staff Turnover: 58%

12pts above Minnesota avg (46%)

Frequent staff changes - ask about care continuity

Federal Fines: $11,928

Below median ($33,413)

Minor penalties assessed

Chain: MONARCH HEALTHCARE MANAGEMENT

Part of a multi-facility chain

Ask about local staffing decisions and management

Staff turnover is elevated (58%)

10 points above Minnesota average of 48%

The Ugly 20 deficiencies on record

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

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

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

Investigate Abuse (Tag F0610)

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 an abuse protection plan was documented and all staff were...

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 an abuse protection plan was documented and all staff were educated on the plan for 2 of 3 residents (R1, R2) reviewed for sexual abuse. Findings include: R1's quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated [DATE] indicated severe cognitive impairment with diagnoses including convulsions and Alzheimer's disease. R1's care plan dated 10/14/24 indicated R1 was a vulnerable adult with a goal of remaining free from abuse and/or neglect. An additional goal was added 1/7/24 directing R1 would be kept safe from other residents, and not be left alone with any other residents without staff supervision. R2's quarterly MDS dated [DATE] indicated severe cognitive impairment with diagnoses including dementia. R2's care plan indicated he was at risk for alteration in mood and behavior related to dementia. On 1/3/25 at 8:30 p.m., R1's incident note indicated R1 and R2 were sitting in their wheelchairs in the common area. At 8:30 p.m., another resident alerted staff R2 was lifting up R1's foot, then attempted to grope her. R2 put his hands up R1's shirt while asking her, You like that? Staff immediately separated R1 and R2. The administrator was notified. R1 was brought back to her room. She did not show any signs of anxiety, distress, or pain. No skin alterations were noted. R1's husband was notified. 15-minute checks and emotional distress monitoring were initiated. On 1/3/25 at 8:30 p.m., R2's incident note indicated R1 and R2 were sitting in their wheelchairs in the common area. At 8:30 p.m., another resident alerted staff R2 was lifting up R1's foot, then attempted to grope her. R2 put his hands up R1's shirt while asking her, You like that? Staff immediately separated R1 and R2. R2 was agitated and verbally aggressive towards staff. When asked about his behavior, R2 stated that he was trying to feel her breasts, I know she liked it because she wasn't stopping me. R2 was brought to his room with 1 to 1 supervision until he went to bed at 9:30 p.m., then 15 minutes checks were utilized. On 1/8/25 at 1:23 p.m., R2's social worker note indicated R2's wife was concerned his behaviors were getting worse. R2's provider note dated 1/8/25 indicated R2 was experiencing behavior issues lately. R2 had an episode where he placed his hands up the shirt of another resident, had tried to hit another resident, and was agitated and restless. No physical changes were noted. A new order was placed for Seroquel (a medication used to treat agitation in people with dementia) 12.5 milligrams (mg) two times a day for dementia with agitation. NA care sheet dated 12/24/24 lacked information about keeping R1 and R2 separate. NA care sheet dated 1/9/25 included new information for R2 included keep supervised around women and cannot be left alone with R1. New information for R1 included keep R1 away from R2. On 1/8/25 at 1:45 p.m., nursing assistant (NA)-A stated she worked with the float pool and had not worked at the facility recently. She gave R1 a bath the morning of 1/3/25, then took R1 to the common area to watch television with R2. Other staff members told her R1 could not be alone with R2, so NA-A moved R1. She did not receive information in report, nor was she educated before her shift, and there was no information on the nursing assistant care sheet about keeping R1 and R2 separated. As a person who did not work at the facility frequently, she relied on the NA care sheet for information. On 1/8/25 at 2:35 p.m., NA-B stated she worked with the float pool and had worked several shifts recently. She uses the NA care sheets for information about residents, and did not know where to look in the computer to find any resident specific interventions. She had not received any education about R2. On 1/8/25 at 4:23 p.m., trained medication aide (TMA)-A stated she worked with the float pool and had worked several shifts recently. She received information through report to keep R1 and R2 separate, but did not know if it was written down anywhere. She had not received any education about R1 and R2 in the last week. On 1/8/25 at 4:38 p.m., R1's significant other (SO) stated he had not had any concerns about R2 before this incident, but now he did not want R1 to be around R2. R1 was unable to communicate verbally, and did not have any purposeful movements. If R1 had the capability, she would have punched R2 for touching her. She would not have liked any man other than himself touching her. On 1/9/25 at 1:23 p.m., the director of nursing (DON) stated psychology services were declined by R1 and R2's decision makers due to their respective cognitive status. Psychology services was consulted about the situation and recommended staff-based interventions. These included staff to keep R1 and R2 separate at all times. This intervention was communicated to staff through education and shift to shift report. It was also on the NA care sheets and in both resident's care plans. The DON confirmed the intervention to keep R1 and R2 separate was not on the current NA care sheets, and the information in R2's care plan stated to not leave him alone with another resident. On 1/9/25 at 2:38 p.m., the administrator confirmed the intervention on the new NA care sheet and in R2's care plan instructed staff to not allow R2 to be alone with another resident. It would not be safe to place R1 next to R2 even when supervised. The intervention should instruct staff to not allow R1 and R2 to be close to each other. The administrator confirmed the intervention needed to be clarified. She verbally educated NA-A and NA-B. The facility Abuse Prohibition/Vulnerable Adult Policy dated 3/24 directed the purpose of the policy is to protect residents against abuse by anyone. The policy instructed staff will take necessary steps to protect residents from possible subsequent incidents of misconduct or injury while the matter is being investigated. Further instruction included the facility will provide proper follow up communication related to the incident across all shifts.
Oct 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

Report Alleged Abuse (Tag F0609)

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 report an allegation of sexual abuse to law enforcement as requir...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview and document review, the facility failed to report an allegation of sexual abuse to law enforcement as required for 1 of 1 residents (R1) reviewed for abuse. Findings include: R1's admission Minimal Data Set (MDS) dated [DATE], indicated R1 had diagnoses which included bipolar disorder, anxiety disorder, and post traumatic stress disorder. Identified R1's cognition was intact. R1's care plan dated 10/23/24, revealed R1 required assistance of one to two staff members for activities of daily living (ADLs) such as dressing, personal hygiene, and toileting. Review of facility report number 358352 to the State Agency (SA) dated 10/21/24 at 12:40 p.m., revealed R1 reported nursing assistant (NA)-A came into her room to assist R1 with brief change and while wiping R1's bottom, R1 reported feeling NA-A place her hand in R1's vagina. R1 reported the incident shocked her and hurt her. R1's progress note dated 10/23/24 at 1:35 p.m., revealed R1 met with administrator and director of nursing (DON) and asked staff to call 911 so she can make a report about the incident brought to staff's attention on 10/21/24. 911 was called and R1 requested facility social services director attend the meeting with the police department when R1 would give a statement. 911 dispatcher confirmed someone would meet the resident in her room to complete a report. Further, handwritten on the progress note indicated police were called on 10/23/24 at 1:31 p.m. and the police arrived at the facility at 2:35 p.m. On 10/23/24 at 2:57 p.m., sheriff deputy (SD)-A entered the conference room and introduced self to SA. SD-A stated he was contacted through the dispatch at 1:44 p.m., to come to the facility and meet with R1 regarding the allegation. SD-A stated dispatch received a call from the facility at approximately 1:30 p.m. On 10/23/24 at 3:10 p.m., R1 observed sitting in a wheelchair in her room. R1 stated she had been residing in the facility for approximately three months and had received the best care until the incident on the morning of 10/20/24. R1 stated she was laying in her bed in her room and was utilizing the bed pan to have a bowel movement. R1 put on her call light for assistance with hygiene cares and NA-A entered her room, rolled R1 onto her side so she was facing the wall and NA-A had started wiping her bottom real hard and NA-A was wiping in the crevices of her butt and that was when NA-A went further into my legs and put her finger in my vagina and turned her finger so I could feel it and that hurt. Further, R1 stated she felt uncomfortable and NA-A then stormed out of R1's room and R1 laid there. On 10/25/24 at 10:11 a.m., social services director (SSD) stated R1's cognition was not impaired and R1 would report any concerns she had verbally to staff or would file a grievance, but R1 had never reported concerns related to abuse previously. SSD stated she was made aware of R1's allegation on 10/21/24, right before noon meal. SSD stated R1 had reported to her concerns regarding NA-A had inserted her hand into R1's vagina. Further, SSD stated the administrator and DON were notified. SSD stated the police were not notified at that time and SSD stated she was not aware of the facility's policy related reporting to law enforcement. In addition, SSD stated she wished she would have offered to call law enforcement then but was focused on helping R1 with her emotions. On 10/25/24 at 10:28 a.m., DON stated she was made aware of R1's allegation on 10/21/24, in the morning but was uncertain what time, by human resources. DON stated R1 had reported NA-A put their entire hand up R1's vagina. DON stated the allegation was reported to the SA on 10/21/24, within two hours and at that time R1 had also declined going to the hospital for an evaluation. Further, DON stated on 10/23/24, staff had asked R1 if she would like to file a police report which R1 had stated yes. DON stated she was not aware of the facility's police on when to report allegations to law enforcement and stated she would have to look at the policy, but on 10/21/24, when R1 reported the allegation it didn't dawn on us at that time. On 10/25/24 at 10:57 a.m., administrator stated she was made aware of R1's allegation on 10/21/24, at 11:20 a.m. DON stated the allegation was reported to the SA and staff had asked R1 if she wanted the facility to call or tell anyone else, which included the police, and R1 had said no. Administrator stated on 10/23/24, staff had asked R1 again if she would like the police to be notified and she stated yes, so that was when the facility notified law enforcement. Administrator stated she was unaware of the facility's policy for reporting to law enforcement, but in the past it has been up to the resident. In addition, administrator stated offering to notify law enforcement of an allegation of sexual abuse should be offered and if there was suspicion of any crime the facility should be reporting it to law enforcement. Review of facility policy titled Reporting Suspicion of a Crime revised on 2/2024, indicated the administrator, DON, or any other designated individual would report (within the required time frames) any reasonable suspicion of a crime against a resident to the State Agency and local law enforcement. Further, the policy revealed examples of crimes that would be reportable in any jurisdiction which included sexual abuse. The timing of reporting would be based on the events that cause suspicion would be as follows: if the event resulted in serious bodily injury which was defined as an injury involving serious physical pain, substantial risk of death, sexual abuse or aggravated sexual abuse, the suspicion would be reported immediately but not more than two hours after the individual first suspects that a crime had occurred.
Oct 2024 1 deficiency
CONCERN (F)

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

Staffing Data (Tag F0851)

Could have caused harm · This affected most or all residents

F851 Based on interview and document review, the facility failed to submit accurate and/or complete data for staffing information at least quarterly based on payroll and other verifiable and auditable...

Read full inspector narrative →
F851 Based on interview and document review, the facility failed to submit accurate and/or complete data for staffing information at least quarterly based on payroll and other verifiable and auditable data during (2024) 1 of 1 quarter reviewed (Quarter three) in Federal Fiscal Year (2024), to the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS), according to specifications established by CMS. This has the potential to affect all 33 residents residing in the facility. Findings include: Review of the Payroll Based Journal Report (PBJ) [NAME] Report 1705 D identified the following dates triggered for review: 4/6/24, 4/20/24, 4/21/24, 5/19/24 and 6/15/24 for failure to have registered nurse (RN) coverage eight hours per day. Review of staffing schedules identified the facility had RN staff identified to have worked on 4/6/24, 4/20/24, 5/19/24 and 6/15/24 for at least 8 hours therefore the data submitted in the PBJ to CMS was inaccurate. When interviewed on 10/16/24 at 11:56 a.m., the administrator identified an RN was working for at least 8 hours on 4/6/24, 4/20/24, 5/19/24 and 6/15/24 and agreed RN staff had worked the above-mentioned days, therefore data submitted through PBJ per specifications established by CMS was inaccurate. There was no policy related to PBJ entries provided by the end of the survey.
Jan 2024 12 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 F0697 (Tag F0697)

A resident was harmed · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** R14 R14's significant change Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated [DATE], indicated R14 was cognitively intact, was able to clearly comm...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** R14 R14's significant change Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated [DATE], indicated R14 was cognitively intact, was able to clearly communicate her needs and wishes and required extensive assistance with activities of daily living (ADL). R14's face sheet printed 1/4/24, noted diagnoses included idiopathic peripheral autonomic neuropathy (damage to the nerves that control automatic body functions), muscle weakness and hemiplegia (paralysis of one side of the body) following cerebral infarction affected left non-dominant side. R14's physician's orders printed 1/4/24, included the following orders: Oxycodone 5 mg as needed twice daily with a start date of 12/19/23; Gabapentin 300 mg twice daily with a start date of 12/14/23; Baclofen 10 mg three times daily with a start date of 12/13/23; and an order to monitor for pain every shift. During record review, records indicated R14 was previously on hospice services and was discharged from hospice on 12/6/23 due to R14 wanting to initiate therapy services. While R14 was on hospice, R14 utilized as needed morphine every four hours to help manage her pain. Upon discharge from hospice, as needed morphine was discontinued and new order was started for oxycodone as needed three times a day. On 12/19/23, oxycodone order was changed to as needed twice daily with the initiation of scheduled Gabapentin twice daily and scheduled Baclofen three times a day. R14's pain level results from 12/2023 thru 1/4/2024 indicated that R14 was having complaints of constant pain or discomfort which ranged from 6-10 out of 10 on the pain scale. During interview on 1/2/24 at 1:45 p.m., R14 stated she has pain in her left arm and down left leg that comes and goes but is pretty much constant. R14 stated her as needed pain medications were decreased from three times a day to two times a day and R14 was not happy about it as she stated she really needed them for her pain. R14 stated she was really worried about her pain when she started to do her physical therapy exercises more diligently as the pain was so horrible when doing the exercises to the point that R14 did not want to complete them. During interview on 1/4/24 at 9:51 a.m., R14's primary provider stated she did not recall being notified of the change in R14's increased pain levels anytime in December 2023 up until today 1/4/24. Provider stated she decreased R14's as needed oxycodone from three times daily to twice daily as she added scheduled gabapentin and baclofen to help manage R14's pain. Provider stated if she would have been notified of R14's increased pain levels, she would have seen R14 sooner to address pain. Provider stated she expected to be notified with any change in condition and relies on the facility staff to alert her on any changes or concerns so she could address or see the resident sooner. During interview on 1/4/24 at 11:41 a.m., director of nursing (DON) stated the nurse on the floor, who is obtaining vitals or performing assessment, notifies the provider of any changes. During interview on 1/4/24 at 1:47 p.m., physical therapist (PT) stated that R14 has pain but did try to participate in therapy as much as she could tolerate. PT stated he notified nursing of complaints of pain or discomfort. PT stated that R14's progress in therapy was slow as the increased pain or discomfort limited R14's participation. During interview on 1/4/24 at 1:50 p.m., nursing assistant (NA)-A stated R14 would call when R14 needed pain medication and NA-A would let nursing know of complaints of pain or discomfort. NA-A stated R14's pain has gotten worse and she noticed R14 had not gotten out of bed more due to her pain. During interview on 1/4/24 at 1:53 p.m., trained medication aide (TMA)-C stated when R14 was admitted to the facility she came on hospice services. TMA-C stated R14's complaints of pain have increased since discharging from hospice. TMA-C stated ice packs, repositioning or Tylenol were offered to help manage her pain and to help bridge the gap from the oxycodone coverage. TMA-C stated he would let the nurse or DON know of complaints of increased pain so that they could notify the provider. During interview on 1/4/24 at 4:32 p.m., DON stated he expected the provider should be notified with change in condition or anything out of the ordinary. DON stated he expected R14's increased complaints of pain or discomfort, should have been reported to the provider as it could potentially cause great harm. A facility Pain management policy was requested and was not received. Based on interview and document review, the facility failed to ensure pain management was provided consistent with professional standards of practice and the residents' goals and preferences for 2 of 2 residents (R131 and R14) reviewed for pain managment. This deficient practice caused actual harm for R131, who experienced unmanaged pain, disturbed sleep patterns and who had reports of pain. Findings include: R131's discharge Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated , 9/23/23, identified resident admitted to the facility 9/22/23 from an acute care hospital for aftercare following surgery on the nervous system and diagnoses of spondylolisthesis lumbar region (a spinal disorder in which a vertebra slips forward onto the bone below it), radiculopathy lumbar region (a pinched nerve), spinal stenosis (a narrowing of the spinal canal that can put pressure on the spinal cord and nerves within the spine), chronic pain and muscle weakness. R131 had clear speech, the ability to make herself understood and had clear comprehension. R131's hospital Discharge summary dated [DATE], identified R131 admitted [DATE] and underwent surgical procedures including lumbar hemllaminectomy with [NAME] repair (a spine surgery that involves removing one of the two laiminae on a vertebra to relieve excess pressure on the spinal nerves) and was discharging to the facility on 9/22/23 for surgical aftercare for low back pain, skilled nursing services and therapy. The same discharge summary included a pain assessment dated [DATE], indicating resident was having aching, constant pain in the right buttocks and down the right leg. The same discharge summary included orders for ibuprofen (a pain medication) 800 milligrams (mg) every eight hours as needed (prn), oxycodone-acetaminophen (a pain medication) 5-325 mg every four hours prn, last received on 9/22/23 at 8:51 a.m., and diazepam (a medication for muscle spasms) 5 mg every six hours prn last received on 9/21/23 at 2:06 a.m. The hospital discharge summary identified these orders were sent to the facility contracted pharmacy. The same discharge summary was faxed to the facility 9/22/23 at 11:59:14 a.m., as identified on the fax cover sheet. The facility admissions notification form identified R131 as a confirmed admission 9/22/23 at 12:00 p.m. R131's 48-hour care plan dated 9/22/23 at 2:52 p.m., identified a section available for pain and comfort but lacked identification of focus, goal, and interventions. When interviewed on 1/3/24 at 9:48 a.m., R131's spouse stated resident was in the hospital for three days following a back surgery in which the dura (membrane that encases the spinal cord) had been cut by accident resulting in the need for skilled nursing care and therapy. R131's spouse stated resident admitted to the facility on [DATE] at approximately 1:30 p.m. and was told resident's medications had not been delivered yet. R131's spouse stated he left the facility then returned at approximately 5:00 p.m. and was told resident's medications were still unavailable. R131's spouse went home and returned at approximately 9:30 p.m. He stated he was again told resident's medications had not been delivered. R131's spouse stated he left resident with his cell phone and returned home. He received a call from R131 at approximately 10:30 p.m. because resident had used the call light to request help from staff to close the room blinds for privacy and no staff had come. R131's spouse stated he called the facility two times and no staff answered so he returned to the facility to close the blinds, spoke with staff regarding the lack of pain medication and told them he would be taking resident home in the morning. R131's spouse stated resident had asked for her ordered oxycodone-acetaminophen pain medication twice at approximately 3:30 p.m. and again at approximately 10:00 p.m. for pain she was rating at eight to nine out of 10. R131 was told the medication was unavailable because they were not delivered from pharmacy yet. R131's spouse stated he returned to the facility the next morning on 9/23/23 at approximately 7:30 a.m. and told staff he was checking her out because she wasn't getting adequate pain control. R131's spouse stated staff brought her breakfast and oxycodone-acetaminophen pain medication at approximately 8:15 a.m. before leaving. R131's progress note dated 9/22/23 at 10:30 p.m., indicated R131 had been turning on call light multiple times throughout shift for prn pain medications. Staff informed resident multiple times her medications had not yet arrived from pharmacy. Resident's husband came up to the nurse's desk and became upset with the nurse on shift because resident does not have any medication and staff did not know the exact time the medications would be delivered. The same progress notes also indicated a call was made to the pharmacy to determine when her medications would be delivered and the hospital discharge orders were again faxed, however lacked documentation of attempts to obtain a code to access medications from the facility cubex (emergency medication machine the facility had in place for ordered medications not yet delivered). R131's progress note dated 9/23/23 at 8:47 a.m., identified the resident's husband was upset with staff when staff came in because still had not yet received any prn pain medication all night from staff. The progress note also indicated R131 and her spouse communicated no one went in to check on her and resident stated she requested hot and cold packs and no one would take them in. Resident asked for an ice pack this morning and staff took it in right away. When nurse pulled meds from the cubex and took them into R131's room, her spouse stated they were leaving and wanted to discharge. R131's medical record indicated staff had documented her pain rating at 5 at on 9/23/23 at 4:38 a.m. and 8:27 a.m. R131's facility medication administration record (MAR) dated 9/1/23-9/30/23, identified orders for diazepam 5 mg every six hours as needed for pain with a start date and time of 9/22/23 at 2:00 p.m., but lacked evidence of the medication being administered. The same MAR identified an order for oxycodone-acetaminophen 5-325 mg every four hours as needed for pain, take one tablet for pain zero to five and two tabs for pain six to ten and was documented as being given one time on 9/23/23 at 8:27 a.m. R131's order for ibuprofen was not on the MAR indicating the order was not entered. When interviewed on 1/3/24 at 10:30 a.m., the facility pharmacy consultant (Pharm D)-A stated the facility has normal scheduled medication deliveries. The facility also has an emergency supply of medications in a dispensing machine referred to as a cubex or medbank. The Pham-D-A stated in the cubex are over 200 available medications that could be utilized per order prior to normal scheduled deliveries including pain medication such as oxycodone-acetaminophen. As long as the pharmacy had the prescription for R131's oxycodone-acetaminophen, staff could call the pharmacy to request a code to access the medication from the cubex onsite per facility protocol. Pharm-D -A stated the list of available medications in the cubex was usually posted right next to the machine. The facility staff were trained on the use of the machine when they were installed. The pharmacy Cubex medication inventory list dated 1/2021, indicated several available analgesics (pain medication) including oxycodone-acetaminophen 5-325 mg. When interviewed on 1/3/24 at 12:13 p.m., The Pharm-D-B stated R131's oxycodone-acetaminophen prescription order was received at the pharmacy from the hospital on 9/22/23 at 9:22 a.m The Pharm-D-B stated facility staff could have called to get a code to access the medication whenever R131 needed it. The Pharm-D-B verified no such request had been made. The Pharm-D-B confirmed the resident's demographic information had been entered into their system on 9/22/23 at 3:00 p.m., but the faxed hospital discharge orders from the facility were not received until 8:40 p.m. which would be the reason her medications were not delivered earlier. Despite this, staff could still access medications from the cubex unit if the facility had orders. The Pharm-D-B stated the reason facilitiy had the cubex in place was so medications could be provided between regular medication deliveries. The Pharm-D-B stated because R131 was rating her pain at eight to nine out of 10, he would consider the lack of provision of her ordered and available pain medication to be a significant error by the facility. When interviewed on 1/3/24 at 4:20 p.m., registered nurse (RN)-B confirmed he had worked at the facility approximately three years and was working the overnight shift on 9/22/23 to 9/23/23. RN-B stated if a resident was in pain, he would administer pain medication if ordered. RN-B stated if the medications had not come from the pharmacy, staff had the ability to pull medication from the cubex. RN-B stated if the medication was a narcotic or controlled substance like oxycodone-acetaminophen staff could call the pharmacy and get a code to pull it from the cubex. When asked if he had received a request from R131 for pain medication or ice packs, RN-B stated he did not remember. When interviewed on 1/4/24 at 11:45 a.m., R131 stated she last received her oxycodone-acetaminophen pain medication approximately 9:00 a.m. in the hospital before admitting to the facility and did not receive another dose from the facility until the morning of 9/23/23 at approximately 8:30 a.m. She started experiencing pain in her right buttocks and right leg approximately 3:00 p.m. after admitting to the facility and described it as severe, stabbing, aching in the nerve and rated it eight to nine out of ten. Her pain made it difficult to walk, sit on the toilet, get comfortable and sleep throughout her stay. R131 stated she asked facility staff for the pain medication prescribed for her in the hospital at least two to three times and was told it was unavailable. She asked staff for ice packs, but none were provided. When she left the facility the morning of 9/23/23, her son-in-law and husband had to carry her into their home because she was in too much pain to walk. Her husband got her ordered medications through their local pharmacy approximately 12:00 p.m. after returning home. R131 stated because she went nearly 24 hours without pain medication it took two days to feel any pain relief after resuming use of her ordered oxycodone-acetaminophen. R131 stated after approximately 12 days her pain began to diminish and she was able to gradually resume walking and regular activity. She believed, had she received the requested doses of her pain medication in the facility when she had asked, it would not have taken so long to get relief and recover normal function. When interviewed on 1/4/24 at 1:17 p.m., RN-A stated she worked for the facility approximately one year and four months. RN-A stated she was the nurse on duty 9/22/23 on the facility p.m. shift the day R131 arrived. She remembered the resident being very upset about her pain, asking for pain medications, and made racist comments about staff. R131's husband was upset because her medications had not been delivered. RN-A stated normally the facility pharmacy made medication deliveries around 5:30 p.m. and then again at 10:30 p.m. RN-A stated the facility has a cubex that staff could call the pharmacy to obtain a code to retrieve narcotics out of if needed but at that time she didn't think she could do that because when she called the pharmacy regarding the time of the next delivery they requested for the hospital discharge orders to be faxed again. She did not ask for a code for the cubex to obtain R131's hydrocodone-acetaminophen because she thought she had to wait for the pharmacy to deliver R131's medications. RN-A stated she communicated this information before leaving her p.m. shift to RN-B when he arrived for the night shift. RN-A stated this was the first time admitting a new resident and learned she could have called for a code and administered the medication because the facility already had the orders, and the pharmacy had the prescription. RN-A stated she returned the next morning for a day shift and by that time the resident's medications had been delivered so she administered her oxycodone-acetaminophen at that time. When interviewed on 1/4/24 at 2:58 p.m., the director of nursing (DON) stated through the facility referral process it had been determined the facility could admit and care for R131. The DON stated the facility received R131's orders approximately 12:30 p.m. and entered them approximately 2:00 p.m. into her EMR (electronic medical record) Normally the facility process for admissions is to receive the orders and send them to the pharmacy. If the orders were sent to the pharmacy before 3:00 p.m., then medications would be delivered approximately 5:00 p.m. and if the orders were sent to the pharmacy after that, the next delivery was approximately 10:00 p.m. Even if R131's medications had not been delivered the facility staff had the ability to pull medications from the cubex by calling the pharmacy and ensuring they had the prescription. The DON stated some of the staff trained on the use of the cubex machine in May of 2023. Any staff who missed that training were individually trained by himself. The DON stated he was made aware of R131 wanting to discharge when RN-A called him on the morning of 9/23/23. RN-A informed him of R131's racist comments and assumed this was the reason she wanted to leave as the facility employs African American staff. The DON stated he had not investigated R131's concerns regarding not receiving pain medication and did not know why RN-A and RN-B did not call the pharmacy to obtain an authorization code to administer it from the cubex. The DON stated it was important to ensure R131 received pain medications related to her diagnoses, recent surgery and reported pain because the facility agreed to provide her services including pain control and she didn't get that. The facility MedBank Training staff signature form dated 5/2/23 indicating training on use of the cubex was not signed by RN-A or RN-B and the DON did not provide other documentation the training had been provided to them. The facility policy and procedure Medication Ordering and Receiving from Pharmacy dated May 2022, identified Emergency pharmacy service is available on a 24-hour basis. Emergency needs for medication are met by using the facility's approved emergency medication supply or by special order from the provider pharmacy. The provider pharmacy supplies emergency medications including emergency drugs, antibiotics, controlled substances, products for infusion in limited quantities in portable containers, automatic dispensing systems incompliance with applicable state regulations. The Facilty Assessment Tool dated 2/28/23, identified pain management including assessment of pain, pharmocologic and nonpharmocological pain management as a service provided based on resident need.
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 of observation, interview and document review, the facility failed to ensure self-administration of medication was clinica...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based of observation, interview and document review, the facility failed to ensure self-administration of medication was clinically appropriate for 1 of 1 residents (R5) reviewed. Findings include: R5's Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated [DATE], identified intact cognition and R5 had a diagnosis of asthma. R5's clinical order set dated 1/3/24, identified resident as having the following medication orders: - albuterol sulfate (an asthma medication) inhaler and to take two puffs, inhale orally every four hours as needed (prn) for wheezing and shortness of breath - fluticosone propionate (an asthma medication) inhaler to take two times a day for mild intermittent asthma - artificial tears ophthalmic ointment to instill into right eye four times per day for dryness R5's medical record lacked an order to self administer the above medications as well as an order for saline eye drops. R5's medication administration record (MAR) for December and January 2023, indicated staff were documenting use of her fluiticosone inhaler twice a day and her arificial tears eye ointment four times a day. There was no documentation resident had used her prn albuterol inhaler or the saline eye drops she kept in her room. R5's self administration of medication evaluations dated 6/16/2023 and 1/3/24 , both identified R5 was assessed and capable of self use of ophthalmic medications but not inhalation medications. R5's care plan dated 10/22/22, indicated resident had alteration in oxygen/gas exchange- respiratory status and instructed staff to monitor and document on respiratory status and communicate changes to the doctor. R5's care plan also identified resident will administer eye medications as ordered and instructed staff to assure that medications resident self administers have been done. During observation and interview on 1/2/24 at 5:35 p.m., two inhaler medications were observed on R5's bed and two other medications; one an artificial tears eye gel and one a saline eye drop, were observed on R5's night stand and were visible from the hall. R5 identified the two inhalers to be fluticosone and albuterol and the medications on her night stand to be over the counter (OTC) artificial tears eye ointment and OTC eye saline drops. R5 stated she has her son pick up the eye drops and ointment from the store, the facility assisted to re-ordering her inhalers when she ran out. R5 stated she used red inhaler in the morning and at bed time and the blue inhaler when she felt short of breath. R5 stated she used the saline eye drops approximately two-three times a day and her prn albuterol inhaler maybe one to two times a day on average. R5 stated she had never let staff know when or how often she used these medications and that they had never asked. R5 denied experiencing other residents coming in her room and was not concerned with anyone taking her medications. During observation and interview on 1/3/24 at 10:26 a.m., the fluticosone and albuterol inhalers were observed on R5's bed and the artificial tears eye gel and saline eye drops were on her night stand and visible from the hall. R5 stated she preferred for her inhalers to be on her bed and and the eye medications on her night stand so she could more easily find them and remember to use them. During observation on 1/3/24 at 2:17 p.m., the fluticosone and albuterol inhalers were observed on her bed and the OTC eye gel and drops were observed on her night stand and visible from the hall. R5 was not in her room at this time. During observation 1/4/24 at 7:44 a.m., the fluticosone and albuterol inhalers were observed on her bed and the OTC artificial tears eye gel and saline eye drops were observed on her night stand and visible from the hall. R5 was not in her room. During interview 1/4/24 at 10:07 a.m., R5 stated she used the artificial tears eye ointment and saline eye drops because she had previously had her right eye removed. These helped with the dryness with her prosthetic eye. She stated she used the artificial tears eye ointment four times a day and the saline eye drops when she needed. When asked about her inhalers, R5 stated she knew which one she needed to use regularly two times a day by their color because her eyesight was poor and couldn't read the labels. R5 stated she used the inhaler with the red chamber two times a day. R5 picked it up and verified it was the scheduled fluticosone inhaler. R5 then picked up the inhaler with the blue chamber and verified it was an albuterol inhaler which she used when needed for shortness of breath. When asked if she communicated how often she was using the prn inhaler to the staff and the eye drops R5 stated, no. She only told them when she needed another inhaler ordered. When interviewed on 1/3/24 at 5:04 p.m., trained medication aide (TMA)-A stated she didn't know if R5 had an order to self-administer her own medications and could not find one in R5's orders. TMA-A stated there was no order for the saline eye drops. TMA-A stated she never asked or documented how often she used her prn albuterol inhaler or the saline eye drops. TMA-A stated she only documented the scheduled fluticosone and artificial tears eye ointment because she knew R5 always administered that on her own. When interviewed on 1/4/24 at 8:31 a.m., TMA-B stated she never documented or asked how often R5 used her prn albuterol inhaler or the saline eye drops. When interviewed on 1/4/24 at 1:17 p.m., registered nurse (RN)-A stated R5 self-administered her fluticosone and her albuterol inhalers as well as her artificial tears eye ointment and saline eye drops. RN-A stated she was not aware how often R5 used her prn albuterol or the saline eye drops and they had never asked her or documented use. RN-A stated staff documented use of her scheduled fluiticosone inhaler and her scheduled artificial tears eye ointment but never asked if she had actually used the medications. RN-A stated she assumed R5 had been using them because she told staff when they needed to be reordered. RN-A stated she was unaware of an order for R5 to self-administer these medications. When interviewed on 1/4/24 at 1:17 p.m., the director of nursing (DON) stated the self-administration assessments were filled out incorrectly and had not accounted for the inhaler medications. There was no order in place for the saline eye drops. The DON stated there was no order in place for self -administration for any of these medications. The DON also acknowledged facility staff had not been documenting on or asking resident regarding how often she had been using the prn albuterol inhaler or the saline eye drops. The DON stated he was unaware of how the resdient stored these medications. The DON stated this is important in order to determine if the resident was using her medications safely and to ensure other resident's can't get to them. The facility policy Self-Administration of Medications dated December 2016, identified for self-administering residents, the nursing staff will determine who will be responsible (the resident or the nursing staff) for documenting that medications were taken. Self -administered medications must be stored in a safe and secure place, which is not accessible by other residents. Staff shall identify and give to the charge nurse any medications found at the bedside that are not authorized for self-administration, for return to the family or responsible party. Nursing staff will review the self-administered medication record on each nursing shift, and they will transfer pertinent information to the medication administration record appropriately noting that the doses were self-administered.
CONCERN (D)

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 notify a provider of low blood glucose readings for 1 of 1 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 a provider of low blood glucose readings for 1 of 1 residents (R7) as well as complaints of increased pain for 1 of 1 residents (R14) reviewed for changes in condition. Findings include: R7's quarterly MDS dated [DATE] indicated R7 had intact cognition, had diagnoses of type 2 diabetes mellitus, chronic kidney disease stage 3 and bipolar disorder. R7's physician's orders printed 1/4/24, included an order to check blood glucose every morning before meal and put results in vitals in the morning. The order failed to provide instructions for updating the physician. Review of R7's blood glucose results 12/2023-1/2024 were as follows: - 1/3/24 - blood glucose of 45 - 1/2/24 - blood glucose of 80 - 1/1/24 - blood glucose of 78 - 12/31/23 - blood glucose of 57 - 12/30/23 - blood glucose of 67 - 12/27/23 - blood glucose of 54 - 12/26/23 - blood glucose of 80 - 12/19/23 - blood glucose of 69 - 12/17/23 - blood glucose of 77 - 12/14/23 - blood glucose of 61 During record review, R7's progress notes for 12/2023 thru 1/4/2024 failed to note changes in R7's blood glucose or action taken as a result. R7's insulin order was previously reduced by the provider on 11/13/23 due to low blood glucose readings. R7's progress notes failed to identify follow-up after the order change. During interview on 1/4/24 at 9:46 a.m., R7's primary provider stated she did not recall being notified of the change in R7's blood glucose readings anytime in December 2023 up until today 1/4/24. Provider stated if she would have been notified of the low blood glucose readings, she would have made a dose reduction to R7's insulin. She expected to be notified with any change in condition, including blood glucose levels that are consistently under 80. During interview on 1/4/24 at 11:53 a.m., R7 stated he can feel when his blood sugar gets low, he gets shakey and confused. This has happened several times in the past couple of weeks. R7 stated after the nurse checked his blood glucose, if it is low, he or she got him some orange juice and/or a snack. R14's significant change Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated [DATE], indicated R14 was cognitively intact, was able to clearly communicate her needs and wishes and had diagnoses of idiopathic peripheral autonomic neuropathy (damage to the nerves that control automatic body functions), muscle weakness and hemiplegia (paralysis of one side of the body) following cerebral infarction affected left non-dominant side.required extensive assistance with activities of daily living (ADL). R14's physician's orders printed 1/4/24, included an order to monitor for pain. The order failed to provide instructions for updating the physician. Review of R14's pain level results 10/2023-12/2023 were as follows: - 1/4/24 - pain level rating of 6 out of 10 on pain scale. - 1/3/24 - pain level rating of 7 out of 10 on pain scale. - 1/2/24 - pain level rating of 10 out of 10 on pain scale. - 1/1/24 - pain level rating of 8 out of 10 on pain scale. - 12/31/23 - pain level rating of 8 out of 10 on pain scale. - 12/30/23 - pain level rating of 9 out of 10 on pain scale. - 12/29/23 - pain level rating of 8 out of 10 on pain scale. - 12/28/23 - pain level rating of 8 out of 10 on pain scale. - 12/27/23 - pain level rating of 7 out of 10 on pain scale. - 12/26/23 - pain level rating of 9 out of 10 on pain scale. - 12/25/23 - pain level rating of 10 out of 10 on pain scale. - 12/24/23 - pain level rating of 10 out of 10 on pain scale. During record review, R14's progress notes for 12/2023 thru 1/4/24 failed to note notification to the provider of changes in R14's increased pain levels or action taken as a result. During interview on 1/2/24 at 1:45 p.m., R14 stated she has pain in her left arm and down left leg that comes and goes but is pretty much constant. R14 stated her as needed pain medications were decreased from three times a day to two times a day and R14 was not happy about it as she stated she really needed them for her pain. R14 stated she was really worried about her pain when she started to do her physical therapy exercises more diligently as the pain was so horrible when doing the exercises to the point that R14 did not want to complete them. During interview on 1/4/24 at 9:51 a.m., R14's primary provider stated she did not recall being notified of the change in R14's increased pain levels anytime in December 2023 up until today 1/4/24. Provider stated if she would have been notified of R14's increased pain levels, she would have seen R14 sooner to address pain. Provider stated she expected to be notified with any change in condition and relied on the facility staff to alert her on any changes or concerns so she can address or see the resident sooner. During interview on 1/4/24 at 11:41 a.m., director of nursing (DON) stated the nurse on the floor, who is obtaining vitals or performing assessment, notifies the provider of any changes. During interview on 1/4/24 at 1:50 p.m., nursing assistant (NA)-A stated R14 would call when needing pain medication and NA-A would let nursing know of any complaints of pain/discomfort. During interview on 1/4/24 at 1:53 p.m., trained medication aide (TMA)-C stated if he obtains a low blood glucose reading on a resident, he will recheck it to ensure that it is a correct reading. TMA-C stated if it continues to be low, he would notify the nurse or the DON who would then notify the provider if needed. TMA-C stated he would let the nurse or DON know of any complaints of increased pain so that they could notify the provider. During interview on 1/4/24 at 4:32 p.m., DON stated he expected the provider was notified with any change in condition or anything out of the ordinary. DON stated he expected R7's low blood glucose readings and R14's increased complaints of pain or discomfort, should have been reported to the provider as it could potentially cause great harm. A facility policy titled Change in a Resident's Condition or Status undated, identified the facility will promptly notify the resident, the physician/healthcare provider, and the resident representative of changes in the resident's medical/mental condition and/or status.
CONCERN (D)

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

Investigate Abuse (Tag F0610)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interviews and document review, the facility failed to thoroughly investigate an allegation of misappropriation of prop...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interviews and document review, the facility failed to thoroughly investigate an allegation of misappropriation of property for 1 of 1 resident (R19). Findings include: R19's quarterly Minimal Data Set (MDS) dated [DATE], indicated R19 was cognitively intact, without hallucinations or delusions noted and no behaviors were identified. Review of facility report to the State Agency (SA) dated 10/17/23, identified R19 had reported missing money from his wallet on 10/16/23. Facility staff searched R19's room for the missing money with no success of locating money. Review of facility 5-day investigation submitted to the SA dated 10/19/23, the facility investigation lacked evidence of staff interviews and other residents being interviewed or assessed to ensure safety of personal property. During interview on 1/2/24 at 12:41 p.m., R19 stated that he was missing $210.00 from his wallet that was located in his nightstand. R19 stated he went out to have a cigarette and when he came back the money was missing from his wallet. R19 stated the facility looked all over his room, when reported, but has not notified him of the investigation process or determination of allegation and stated that he wants the money reimbursed. During record review, form titled Exploitation Cheat Sheet indicated a checklist of tasks to be completed for investigation. Checklist included Interview & Document all staff involved on the date that the item was reported missing, with it marked off as completed with a checkmark. Review of form Facility Investigation indicated detailed sections for each step of the investigation such as Description of the event or allegation; Resident Initial Interview; Assessment of Resident; Notifications/Describe the Immediate Resident Protection Initiate; Event/Allegation First Reported By, Name/Title the Event/Allegation was reported to; Casual and/or Contributing Factors to Event/Allegation, Summary of the Event/Allegation, Investigation and Outcome; Notifications made regarding this event/allegation; and Name of Person Completing Investigation. Bottom of last page in bold indicated See Witness Statements and Supporting Documentation Attached. No documentation was attached to Investigation. During interview on 1/4/23 at 2:46 p.m., administrator stated when there is a reported allegation of misappropriation of property, he interviews the resident to obtain information to help determine if property is missing or stolen. Administrator stated R19 consented to have his room searched for the missing money to see if money was misplaced with no success finding money. The administrator stated he interviewed the director of nursing (DON) due to DON working as a floor nurse the night that R19 stated money was missing. Administrator stated that standard procedure was to interview any staff and residents that were working or around during the time period in question. Administrator stated he interviewed the DON and R6 but confirmed that no additional interviews of staff or residents was completed. Administrator confirmed the investigation was not thorough and additional interviews would have helped with the investigation process. Administrator stated he was not aware of any follow up communication to R19. A facility policy titled Abuse Prohibition/Vulnerable Adult Policy with a date of 8/23, identified the facility's Investigation Team will review all incidents reports regarding residents including those that indicate an injury of unknown origin, abuse, neglect, misappropriation of resident property, or involuntary seclusion no later than the next working day following the incident. The investigation team will determine if further investigation is needed. The investigation team will continue the investigation. Investigation includes interviewing staff, residents, or other witnesses to the incident. Corrective action based on the investigation will be completed (e.g., change of procedure, training, discipline, or discharge of staff, etc.). All documentation will be kept in a confidential file in the facility in accordance with State Law. Social Services and other staff, as appropriate, will provide ongoing support and counseling to the resident and family as needed. The facility will provide proper follow up communication related to the incident across all shifts and to practitioners and resident representatives as applicable.
CONCERN (D)

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

Transfer Notice (Tag F0623)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview and document review, the facility failed to send notice of a hospital transfer to the office of the state lon...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview and document review, the facility failed to send notice of a hospital transfer to the office of the state long term care ombudsman for 1 of 1 residents (R15) reviewed for hospitalization. Findings include: R15's Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated [DATE], identified intact cognition. R15's progress note dated 10/17/23, indicated R15 had been sent to the emergency room for evaluation of increasing weakness and low blood pressure and was admitted to the hospital. The facility monthly ombudsman notification tracking form for October 2023, identified R15 was transfered to an acute care facility on 10/17/23 but lacked evidence the form was sent to the ombudsman. When interviewed on 1/3/24 at 4:19 p.m., the administrator stated the facility tracks all emergency acute care transfers and discharges on a monthly spreadsheet but verified they had not been sent to the ombudsman.
CONCERN (D)

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

Pharmacy Services (Tag F0755)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview and document review, the facility failed to to provide pharmaceutical services including administration of dr...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview and document review, the facility failed to to provide pharmaceutical services including administration of drugs to meet the needs of 1 of 1 (R131) residents reviewed for pain control. Findings include: R131's discharge Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated [DATE], identified R131 admitted to the facility 9/22/23 from an acute care hospital for aftercare following surgery on the nervous system and diagnoses of spondylolisthesis lumbar region (a spinal disorder in which a vertebra slips forward onto the bone below it), radiculopathy lumbar region (a pinched nerve), spinal stenosis (a narrowing of the spinal canal that can put pressure on the spinal cord and nerves within the spine), chronic pain and muscle weakness. R131 had clear speech, the ability to make herself understood and had clear comprehension. R131's hospital Discharge summary dated [DATE], identified R131 admitted [DATE] and underwent surgical procedures including lumbar hemllaminectomy with [NAME] repair (a spine surgery that involves removing one of the two laiminae on a vertebra to relieve excess pressure on the spinal nerves) and was discharging to the facility on 9/22/23 for surgical aftercare for low back pain, skilled nursing services and therapy. The same discharge summary included a pain assessment dated [DATE], indicating resident was having aching, constant pain in the right buttocks and down the right leg. The same discharge summary included orders for ibuprofen (a pain medication) 800 milligrams (mg) every eight hours as needed (prn), oxycodone-acetaminophen (a pain medication) 5-325 mg every four hours prn, last received on 9/22/23 at 8:51 a.m., and diazepam (a medication for muscle spasms) 5 mg every six hours prn last received on 9/21/23 at 2:06 a.m. The hospital discharge summary identified these orders were sent to the facility contracted pharmacy. The same discharge summary was faxed to the facility 9/22/23 at 11:59:14 a.m., as identified on the fax cover sheet. The facility admissions notification form identified R131 as a confirmed admission 9/22/23 at 12:00 p.m. R131's 48-hour care plan dated 9/22/23 at 2:52 p.m., identified a section available for pain and comfort but lacked identification of focus, goal, and interventions. When interviewed on 1/3/24 at 9:48 a.m., R131's spouse stated R131 was in the hospital for three days following a back surgery in which the dura (membrane that encases the spinal cord) had been cut by accident resulting in the need for skilled nursing care and therapy. R131's spouse stated R131 admitted to the facility on [DATE] at approximately 1:30 p.m. and was told R131's medications had not been delivered yet. R131's spouse stated he left the facility then returned at approximately 5:00 p.m. and was told R131's medications were still unavailable. R131's spouse went home and returned at approximately 9:30 p.m. He stated he was again told R131's medications had not been delivered. R131's spouse stated he left R131 with his cell phone and returned home. He received a call from R131 at approximately 10:30 p.m. because R131 had used the call light to request help from staff to close the room blinds for privacy and no staff had come. R131's spouse stated he called the facility two times and no staff answered so he returned to the facility to close the blinds, spoke with staff regarding the lack of pain medication and told them he would be taking R131 home in the morning. R131's spouse stated R131 had asked for her ordered oxycodone-acetaminophen pain medication twice at approximately 3:30 p.m. and again at approximately 10:00 p.m. for pain she rated at eight to nine out of 10. R131 was told the medication was unavailable because they were not delivered from pharmacy yet. R131's spouse stated he returned to the facility the next morning on 9/23/23 at approximately 7:30 a.m. and told staff he was checking her out because R131 wasn't getting adequate pain control. R131's spouse stated staff brought R131 breakfast and oxycodone-acetaminophen pain medication at approximately 8:15 a.m. before leaving. R131's progress note dated 9/22/23 at 10:30 p.m., indicated R131 had been turning on call light multiple times throughout shift for prn pain medications. Staff informed resident multiple times her medications had not yet arrived from pharmacy. R131's husband came up to the nurse's desk and became upset with the nurse on shift because resident does not have any medication and staff did not know the exact time the medications would be delivered. The same progress notes also indicated a call was made to the pharmacy to determine when her medications would be delivered and the hospital discharge orders were again faxed, however lacked documentation of attempts to obtain a code to access medications from the facility cubex (emergency medication machine the facility had in place for ordered medications not yet delivered). R131's progress note dated 9/23/23 at 8:47 a.m., identified the resident's spouse was upset with staff when staff came in because R131 still had not yet received any prn pain medication from staff. The progress note also indicated R131 and her spouse communicated no one went in to check on her and R131 stated she requested hot and cold packs and no one brought them in. R131 asked for an ice pack this morning and staff took it in right away. When nurse pulled meds from the cubex and took them into R131's room, her spouse stated they were leaving and wanted to discharge. R131's medical record indicated staff had documented her pain rating at 5 at on 9/23/23 at 4:38 a.m. and 8:27 a.m. R131's facility medication administration record (MAR) dated 9/1/23-9/30/23, identified orders for diazepam 5 mg every six hours as needed for pain with a start date and time of 9/22/23 at 2:00 p.m., but lacked evidence of the medication being administered. The same MAR identified an order for oxycodone-acetaminophen 5-325 mg every four hours as needed for pain, take one tablet for pain zero to five and two tabs for pain six to ten and was documented as being given one time on 9/23/23 at 8:27 a.m. R131's order for ibuprofen was not on the MAR indicating the order was not entered. When interviewed on 1/3/24 at 10:30 a.m., the facility pharmacy consultant (Pharm D)-A stated the facility has normal scheduled medication deliveries. The facility also has an emergency supply of medications in a dispensing machine referred to as a cubex or medbank. The Pham D-A stated in the cubex are over 200 available medications that could be utilized per order prior to normal scheduled deliveries including pain medication such as oxycodone-acetaminophen. As long as the pharmacy had the prescription for R131's oxycodone-acetaminophen, staff could call the pharmacy to request a code to access the medication from the cubex onsite per facility protocol. Pharm D-A stated the list of available medications in the cubex was posted next to the machine. The facility staff were trained on the use of the machine when they were installed. The pharmacy Cubex medication inventory list dated 1/2021, indicated several available analgesics (pain medication) including oxycodone-acetaminophen 5-325 mg. When interviewed on 1/3/24 at 12:13 p.m., The Pharm D-B stated R131's oxycodone-acetaminophen prescription order was received at the pharmacy from the hospital on 9/22/23 at 9:22 a.m Pharm D-B stated facility staff could have called to get a code to access the medication whenever R131 needed it. The Pharm D-B verified no such request had been made. Pharm D-B confirmed the resident's demographic information had been entered into their system on 9/22/23 at 3:00 p.m., but the faxed hospital discharge orders from the facility were not received until 8:40 p.m. which would be the reason her medications were not delivered earlier. Despite this, staff could still access medications from the cubex unit if the facility had orders. The Pharm D-B stated the reason facilitiy had the cubex in place was so medications could be provided between regular medication deliveries. The Pharm D-B stated because R131 was rating her pain at eight to nine out of 10, he would consider the lack of provision of her ordered and available pain medication to be a error by the facility. When interviewed on 1/3/24 at 4:20 p.m., registered nurse (RN)-B confirmed he had worked at the facility approximately three years and was working the overnight shift on 9/22/23 to 9/23/23. RN-B stated if a resident was in pain, he would administer pain medication if ordered. RN-B stated if the medications had not come from the pharmacy, staff had the ability to pull medication from the cubex. RN-B stated if the medication was a narcotic or controlled substance like oxycodone-acetaminophen staff could call the pharmacy and get a code to pull it from the cubex. When asked if he had received a request from R131 for pain medication or ice packs, RN-B stated he did not remember. When interviewed on 1/4/24 at 11:45 a.m., R131 stated she last received her oxycodone-acetaminophen pain medication approximately 9:00 a.m. in the hospital before admitting to the facility and did not receive another dose from the facility until the morning of 9/23/23 at approximately 8:30 a.m. She started experiencing pain in her right buttocks and right leg approximately 3:00 p.m. after admitting to the facility and described it as severe, stabbing, aching in the nerve and rated it eight to nine out of ten. Her pain made it difficult to walk, sit on the toilet, get comfortable and sleep throughout her stay. R131 stated she asked facility staff for the pain medication prescribed for her in the hospital at least two to three times and was told it was unavailable. When interviewed on 1/4/24 at 1:17 p.m., RN-A stated she worked for the facility approximately one year and four months. RN-A stated she was the nurse on duty 9/22/23 on the facility p.m. shift the day R131 arrived. She remembered the resident being very upset about her pain, asking for pain medications, and made racist comments about staff. R131's spouse was upset because her medications had not been delivered. RN-A stated the facility pharmacy made medication deliveries around 5:30 p.m. and then again at 10:30 p.m. RN-A stated the facility has a cubex that staff could call the pharmacy to obtain a code to retrieve narcotics if needed but at that time she didn't think she could do that because when she called the pharmacy regarding the time of the next delivery they requested for the hospital discharge orders to be faxed again. She did not ask for a code for the cubex to obtain R131's hydrocodone-acetaminophen because she thought she had to wait for the pharmacy to deliver R131's medications. RN-A stated she communicated this information before leaving her p.m. shift to RN-B when he arrived for the night shift. RN-A stated this was the first time admitting a new resident and learned she could have called for a code and administered the medication because the facility already had the orders, and the pharmacy had the prescription. RN-A stated she returned the next morning for a day shift and by that time the resident's medications had been delivered so she administered her oxycodone-acetaminophen at that time. When interviewed on 1/4/24 at 2:58 p.m., the director of nursing (DON) stated through the facility referral process it had been determined the facility could admit and care for R131. The DON stated the facility received R131's orders approximately 12:30 p.m. and entered them approximately 2:00 p.m. into her EMR (electronic medical record) The facility process for admissions was to receive the orders and send them to the pharmacy. If the orders were sent to the pharmacy before 3:00 p.m., then medications would be delivered approximately 5:00 p.m. and if the orders were sent to the pharmacy after that, the next delivery was approximately 10:00 p.m. Even if R131's medications had not been delivered the facility staff had the ability to pull medications from the cubex by calling the pharmacy and ensuring they had the prescription. The DON stated some of the staff trained on the use of the cubex machine in May of 2023. Any staff who missed that training were individually trained by himself. The DON stated he was made aware of R131 wanting to discharge when RN-A called him on the morning of 9/23/23. RN-A informed him of R131's racist comments and assumed this was the reason she wanted to leave as the facility employs African American staff. The DON stated he had not investigated R131's concerns regarding not receiving pain medication and did not know why RN-A and RN-B did not call the pharmacy to obtain an authorization code to administer it from the cubex. The DON stated it was expected and important to ensure R131 received pain medications related to her diagnoses, recent surgery and reported pain because the facility agreed to provide her services including pain control and she didn't get that. The facility MedBank Training staff signature form dated 5/2/23 indicating training on use of the cubex was not signed by RN-A or RN-B and the DON did not provide other documentation the training had been provided to them. The facility policy and procedure Medication Ordering and Receiving from Pharmacy dated May 2022, identified Emergency pharmacy service is available on a 24-hour basis. Emergency needs for medication are met by using the facility's approved emergency medication supply or by special order from the provider pharmacy. The provider pharmacy supplies emergency medications including emergency drugs, antibiotics, controlled substances, products for infusion in limited quantities in portable containers, automatic dispensing systems incompliance with applicable state regulations. The Facilty Assessment Tool dated 2/28/23, identified pain management including assessment of pain, pharmocologic and nonpharmocological pain management as a service provided based on resident need.
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 to routinely assess residents who received antipsychotic medications for si...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview and document review, the facility to routinely assess residents who received antipsychotic medications for signs and symptoms of tardive dyskinesia (disorder that results in involuntary repetitive body movements) for 2 of 2 residents (R1 and R7) reviewed for unecessary medications. Findings include: R1's admission Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated [DATE] indicated R1 had severe cognitive impairment, had diagnoses of anxiety, depression, and schizophrenia. R1's physician orders print date of 1/4/24, indicated R1 had an order for Clozapine 200 milligrams (mg) once daily in the morning and Clozapine 400 mg once daily in the evening. In review of R1's electronic medical record, R1 had an AIMS (Abnormal Involuntary Movement Scale) assessment initiated on 11/17/23 but was not completed. R1's care plan indicated R1 had the potential for psychotropic drug adverse reactions related to daily use of psychotropic medication and included an intervention which directed an AIMS assessment needed to be done per protocol. R7's quarterly MDS dated [DATE] indicated R7 had intact cognition, had diagnoses of type 2 diabetes mellitus, chronic kidney disease stage 3 and bipolar disorder. R7's physician orders with print date of 1/4/24, indicated R7 had an order for Aripiprazole (antipsychotic) 10 mg once daily. In review of R7's electronic medical record, no baseline AIMS assessment was completed on admission [DATE]) or semi-annually. R7's care plan indicated R7 had the potential for psychotropic drug adverse reactions related to daily use of psychotropic medication and included an intervention that stated an AIMS assessment needed to be done per protocol. On 1/4/24 at 11:41 a.m., director of nursing (DON) stated he was the person responsible for completing the AIMS assessments and they should be completed on admission and every six months if a resident is receiving an antipsychotic medication. DON confirmed R1's baseline AIMS assessment and R7's baseline and semi-annual AIMS assessments were not completed. DON stated it was important for the assessments to be completed due to being at risk for tardive dyskinesis. A facility policy titled Psychotropic Medication Use with a date of 7/8/21, identified Psychotropic medications may be considered for resident in which symptoms have been identified and the interdisciplinary team has deemed would benefit from us of these meds. Abnormal Involuntary Movement Scale (AIMS/Discus) will be performed on residents receiving antipsychotic medications to screen for tardive dyskinesia at baseline, semi-annually, and after discontinuation every month x 3.
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0883 (Tag F0883)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview and document review, the facility failed to ensure 3 of 5 residents (R5, R8 and R17) reviewed for immunizatio...

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 3 of 5 residents (R5, R8 and R17) reviewed for immunizations were offered and/or provided the pneumococcal vaccine series as recommended by the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) to help reduce the risk of associated infection(s). Findings include: A CDC Pneumococcal Vaccine Timing for Adults feature, dated 3/15/2023, identified various tables when each (or all) of the pneumococcal vaccinations should be obtained. This identified when an adult over [AGE] years old had received the complete series (i.e., PPSV23 and PCV13; see below) then the patient and provider may choose to administer Pneumococcal 20-valent Conjugate Vaccine (PCV20) for patients who had received Pneumococcal 13-valent Conjugate Vaccine (PCV13) at any age and Pneumococcal Polysaccharide Vaccine 23 (PPSV23) at or after [AGE] years old. R5's face sheet, dated 1/4/24, indicated she was [AGE] years old. The immunization record, dated 1/4/24, indicated she received a PCV13 on 12/2/2016 followed by the PPSV23 on 12/11/2017. The record lacked evidence of shared clinical decision making with the physician for PCV20 at least 5 years after the last pneumococcal dose. The record lacked evidence that R5 was offered or received PCV20. R8's face sheet, dated 1/4/24, indicated she was [AGE] years old. The immunization record, dated 1/4/24, indicated she received a PCV13 on 9/30/2016 followed by a PCV23 on 9/22/2018. The record lacked evidence of shared clinical decision making with the physician for PCV20 at least 5 years after the last pneumococcal dose. The record lacked evidence that R8 was offered or received PCV20. R17's face sheet, dated 1/4/24, indicated she was [AGE] years old. The immunization record, dated 1/4/24, indicated she received a PPSC23 on 12/20/2010 followed by a PCV13 on 6/23/2016. The record lacked evidence of shared clinical decision making with the physician for PCV20 at least 5 years after the last pneumococcal dose. The record lacked evidence that R17 was offered or received PCV20. During an interview with infection preventionist (IP), on 1/4/2024 at 4:32 p.m., IP indicated immunizations are reviewed upon admission through MIIC (Minnesota Immunization Information Connection). IP stated IP would ask residents and/or their families if they wanted the immunizations and consents are obtained if immunizations are needed. IP stated IP used the Centers of Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) pneumococcal vaccine recommendations, dated 4/2022 for eligibility of pneumococcal immunizations. IP verified R5, R8, and R17's pneumococcal immunizations as listed above. IP stated that IP was not aware of the recommendation of the PCV20. IP verified they had not been offered or provided education on PCV20. IP verified there had been no shared clinical decision making with the provider regarding pneumococcal immunizations for R5, R8 and R17. IP stated it was important to ensure residents are offered all available vaccinations to prevent the risk of developing symptoms to lead to acute illness. A facility policy titled Pneumococcal Policy with a review date of 4/6/22 was provided. Policy indicated: It is the practice of the Health Care Facility to offer all residents the pneumococcal vaccines to aid in the prevention of pneumococcal/pneumonia infections. To follow recommendations of the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP), Centers for Disease Control (CDC) and/or the state Department of Health for prevention of Pneumococcal disease by identifying those residents at risk for Pneumococcal disease and offering Pneumococcal vaccination. Prior to or upon admission not the facility (within 5 days), all residents will be assessed for current immunization status and eligibility to receive the pneumococcal vaccine. Within 30 days of admission, resident will be offered the vaccine, when indicated, unless the resident has already been vaccinated or the vaccine is medically contraindicated. If resident's immunization status is unknown, facility staff will contact resident's physician to determine record of immunization status from resident's permanent clinic record or verify using MIIC. Refer to the current CDC Recommended Adult Immunization Schedule to determine recommended vaccines i.e., Types, frequencies, intervals, and special considerations. The Infection Preventionist or designee will conduct periodic audits of resident medical records to determine compliance with the Pneumococcal-Disease Prevention Protocol.
CONCERN (F)

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

Food Safety (Tag F0812)

Could have caused harm · This affected most or all residents

Based on observation, interview and document review, the facility failed to store and distribute food in accordance with professional standards for food safety. This had the potential to affect all 32...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, interview and document review, the facility failed to store and distribute food in accordance with professional standards for food safety. This had the potential to affect all 32 resident currently residing in the facility. Findings include: During observations and interview in the facility dining room on 1/2/24 at 11:15 a.m., in the resident dining room were two refrigerators side by side. One refrigerator referred to as the nurse refrigerator by the culinary services director (CSD), had latches on the bottom refrigerator door and on the upper freezer door but was not locked. There was a thermometer inside and temperature logs were kept. Inside the freezer were mighty shake supplements the CSD stated were used by nursing for the residents. On top of the mighty shakes were ice packs, some with resident names the CSD stated nursing used for the residents. The refrigerator had spills and stains inside. The CSD stated the dietary staff stocked the mighty shakes and assumed nursing was responsible to clean it. On the door of the refrigerator was a sign reminding staff to sanitize the ice packs before putting them in. The other refrigerator was referred to as the resident refrigerator and had a thermometer in it but no log kept. There were multiple dried stains/spills throughout. In this refrigerator there was 6 tubs of unopened squash not labeled, ice packs, two opened bottles of salad dressing with no open date or resident name, an unlabled package of sushi with a manufacture expiration date of 12/16/23, a salad with no label or date. The CSD stated the dietary department had nothing to do with this refrigerator and residents, families and staff used it. The CSD stated he was not aware of any food bourne illness in the building. When interviewed on 1/3/24 at 11:06 a.m., the day cook (cook)-A stated cleaning responsibilities were based on position. Cook-A stated the cooks cleaned the prep areas and prep pots and pans. There were no sign off sheets or cleaning schedules and cook-A was not aware of who was responsible for cleaning the two refrigerators in the dining room. When interviewed on 1/3/24 at approximately 11:15 a.m., CSD stated he learned the dietary department did have responsibility for the two refrigerators in the dining room and was previously unaware. CSD stated the ice packs in the freezer with the mighty shakes supplements was probably not a good idea as there was no sign off log to verify sanitization had been completed and the potential for cross contamination was there if the ice packs came in contact with resident skin or body fluids. CSD verified food brought in by residents and families should be labeled and dated to ensure proper disposal and staff should not be storing food in that refrigerator. CSD stated this was important because the refrigerator was accessible to residents. CSD stated weekly and monthly cleaning schedules were available and should have been in place but had not been utilized. The facility policy Food Receiving and Storage dated October 2017, identified All foods stored in the refrigerator or freezer will be covered, labeled and dated (use by date. All foods belonging to residents must be labeled with the resident's name, the item and the use by date. Refrigerators must have working thermometers and be monitored for temperature according to state- specific guidelines.
CONCERN (F)

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

Staffing Data (Tag F0851)

Could have caused harm · This affected most or all residents

Based on interview and document review, the facility failed to submit accurate and/or complete data for staffing information based on payroll and other verifiable and auditable data during 1 of 1 quar...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on interview and document review, the facility failed to submit accurate and/or complete data for staffing information based on payroll and other verifiable and auditable data during 1 of 1 quarter reviewed (Quarter 4), to the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS), according to specifications established by CMS. Findings include: Payroll Based Journal (PBJ) [NAME] Report 1705 identified the following dates triggered: 7/1/23, 8/26/23, 8/27/23, 9/30/23 for failure to have licensed nurse coverage 24 hours per day and 8/5/23, 8/6/23, 8/19/23, 8/20/23, 9/2/23, 9/3/23, 9/30/23 for no registered nurse (RN) hours. Daily staff schedules on the above-mentioned dates identified licensed nursing staff including registered nurses had worked and therefore the data submitted in the PBJ to CMS was inaccurate. During interview on 1/4/23 at 3:02 p.m., administrator stated Human Resources submits the information for the PBJ reporting. Administrator stated the human resource staff who was responsible for submitting data was not available for interview on this date. Administrator confirmed that the information that was submitted for fiscal year Quarter 4 2023 was inaccurate. A facility policy titled Reporting Direct-Care Staffing Information (Payroll-Based Journal) with a date of 10/2017, identified direct-care staffing and census information will be reported electronically to CMS through the Payroll-Based Journal (PBJ) system. Direct-care staffing information includes staff directly hired by the facility, those hired through an agency, and contract employees. For auditing purposes, reported staffing information is based on payroll records, or other verifiable information. Information may be uploaded to the PBJ system manually, or through a payroll time and attendance system, or a combination of both. The PBJ system is accessed through the QIES system. Manual entries are made only by designated personnel with training on the PBJ user interface.
CONCERN (F)

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

Safe Environment (Tag F0921)

Could have caused harm · This affected most or all residents

Based on observation, interview and document review, the facility failed to provide a safe and sanitary environment. This had the potential to affect all 32 residents. During observations and intervie...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, interview and document review, the facility failed to provide a safe and sanitary environment. This had the potential to affect all 32 residents. During observations and interview in the facility kitchen on 1/2/24 at 11:15 a.m., above the kitchen stove, the vent screens were noted have two-three inch wide areas thick with grease and imbedded dust. When interviewed the culinary services director (CSD) stated he agreed the vent screens looked bad. The CSD stated normally staff should be taking two panels down at a time and running them through the dish washer. The CSD stated this appeared to not have been done and normally all panels should be washed every two weeks. The CSD stated he had no cleaning logs to show when it had been done last. When interviewed on 1/3/24 at 11:06 a.m., the day cook (cook)-A stated cleaning responsibilities were based on position. Cook-A stated the cooks cleaned the prep areas and pots and pans. Cook-A stated the vent panels were run through the dishwasher by whoever had time and they had been missed for the past couple weeks. Cook-A stated there were no sign off sheets or cleaning schedules. When interviewed on 1/3/24 at approximately 11:15 a.m., CSD stated his expectation was the vent panels should be cleaned weekly because the build up of grease and dust could pose a fire risk and had the potential cause illness from dust falling into food during preparation. CSD stated weekly and monthly cleaning schedules were available and should have been in place but had not been utilized. The facility policy Hood Filters Over Stove policy dated September 2012, identified the cleaning procedure and instructed staff to Remove screens, run screens through dishwasher cycle, remove and let air dry, wipe off hood area with degrease, wash area with hot soapy water, rinse well, wipe or spray with sanitizing solution, let air dry and replace screens per schedule of facility.
MINOR (C)

Minor Issue - procedural, no safety impact

Staffing Information (Tag F0732)

Minor procedural issue · This affected most or all residents

Based on interview and document review, the facility failed to ensure the actual hours and number of staff were posted per each shift. This had the potential to affect all residents residing in the fa...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on interview and document review, the facility failed to ensure the actual hours and number of staff were posted per each shift. This had the potential to affect all residents residing in the facility, staff and/or visitors who may wish to view the information. Findings include: The facilities daily staff postings and the actual working schedules were reviewed for the month of 12/2023. The posting Report of Nursing Staff Hours directly Responsible for Resident Care contained the following information: census, date, start of day shift, start of evening shift, start of night shift, number of registered nurses (RN) with a total hours and number of staff for each shift, number of licensed practical nurses (LPN) with a total hours and number of staff for each shift, number of trained medication aides (TMA) with a total hours and number of staff for each shift and number of nursing assistants with a total hours and number of staff for each shift, and then an accumulated total of nursing staff and nursing hours for each 24-hour day. The schedule and nurse postings were compared and identified the following: The staff postings dated 12/1/23 thru 12/31/23, contained the following information and was unchanged from one day to next: - identified a census of 31; total nursing hours for today: 61.5 hours; Total nursing staff working for today: eight staff; Start time day shift of 6:00 a.m., start time of evening shift at 2:00 p.m. and start time of night shift of 10:00 p.m. - The number of RN's identified for the day shift were eight hours with one staff, evening shift eight hours with one staff and night shift of eight hours with one staff. - The number of LPN's identified for the day shift were 0 hours with 0 staff, evening shift 0 hours with 0 staff and night shift with 0 hours and 0 staff. - The number of TMA's identified for the day shift were eight hours with one staff, evening shift eight hours with one staff and night shift of 0 hours with 0 staff. - The numbers of assistants identified for the day shift were 23 hours with three staff, evening shift 23 hours with three staff and night shift seven and a half hours with one staff. During interview on 1/4/24, at 3:02 p.m. the administrator confirmed that the daily staff postings from the month of December does not reflect the working schedule and therefore is inaccurate. A facility policy titled Posting Direct Care Daily Staffing Numbers dated 7/2016, identified facility will post, on a daily basis for each shift, the number of nursing personnel responsible for providing direct care to residents.
Nov 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

Report Alleged Abuse (Tag F0609)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on interview and document review, the facility failed to ensure allegations of abuse were reported immediately, within two hours, to the State Agency (SA) for 1 of 1 residents (R1) reviewed for ...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on interview and document review, the facility failed to ensure allegations of abuse were reported immediately, within two hours, to the State Agency (SA) for 1 of 1 residents (R1) reviewed for allegations of abuse. Finding include: A Facility Reported Incident (FRI) submitted to the SA on 11/22/23 at 5:10 p.m. indicated R1 reported physical abuse by a facility employee. R1's Diagnosis List included diagnoses of nontraumatic intracerebral hemorrhage (stroke), hemiplegia and hemiparesis (paralysis on one side of the body) left non-dominant side. R1's admission Minimum Data Set (MDS) indicated R1 had moderate cognitive impairment. On 11/29/23, at 10:38 a.m. R1 stated she woke up on the floor. R1 stated the only thing that made sense was one of the nursing assistants (NA) or nurses must have pulled her out of bed. R1 stated she wasn't getting along with NA-A prior to ending up on the floor. R1 stated NA-A broke her arm and it hurt bad. On 11/29/23, at 11:42 a.m. NA-A stated she assisted R1 to boost up in her bed on 11/21/23, around 10:00 p.m. NA-A stated there was no fall that she was aware of. NA-A stated at the time she boosted R1 up in bed, R1 did complain of arm pain. On 11/29/23, at 2:06 p.m. the director of nursing (DON) stated R1 told LPN-A she was abused by NA-A on 11/22/23 around 3:00 a.m., with the alleged abuse occurring on 11/21/23 around 10:00 p.m. The DON stated he was notified of the alleged abuse on 11/22/23 at 9:00 a.m. The DON stated he should have been notified of the alleged abuse right away. On 11/29/23, at 2:57 p.m. the administrator stated he became aware of the alleged abuse on 11/22/23 around 10:00 a.m., when he reviewed his emails. The administrator stated he should have been notified of the alleged abuse within two hours. The administrator stated he filed the report with the SA at 3:36 p.m. on 11/22/23. The facility's Abuse Prohibition/Vulnerable Adult Policy revised 8/23 directed facility staff to promptly report, document and investigate all incidents of alleged or suspected abuse/neglect. The abuse policy indicated a supervisor will be notified immediately and will assess the situation to determine if any emergency treatment or action is required. The abuse policy indicated notification to the facility administrator will occur immediately for any incidents of resident abuse, alleged or suspected abuse, injury of unknown origin, neglect, financial exploitation, or involuntary seclusion. The abuse policy indicated suspected abuse shall be reported to OHFC (Office for Health Facility Complaints) only reporting not later than two hours of forming the suspicion of abuse.
Feb 2023 4 deficiencies
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 develop and implement a care plan for 1 of 2 residen...

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 develop and implement a care plan for 1 of 2 residents (R19) reviewed for participation in activities. Findings include: R19's admission Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated [DATE], indicated R19 was alert and oriented, however, also experienced symptoms of moderate depression. R19 was noted to require extensive to full assistance for activities of daily living (ADLS's) which includes mobility, dressing, and grooming. R19's medical diagnoses listed within the MDS included cerebral vascular accident (CVA-stroke), aphasia (difficulty speaking) following stroke, and adjustment disorder with anxiety and depression. R19's activity assessment was completed with family/significant and identified books, newspapers, magazines, and participating in group activities were important to her, however, identified the response as, can't do or no choice. Additionally, the assessment identified being around animals and pets and doing her favorite activities were somewhat important to her. R19's activities Care Area Assessment (CAA) was completed by social services (SS)-B on 1/6/23, and indicated activities were a potential problem and identified this was to be addressed in the care plan. R19's care plan, initiated on 12/28/22, and most recently updated on 2/6/23, indicated R19 was at risk for alteration in cognition, mood and behavior, psychosocial well-being, and at risk for decreased cognitive and physical abilities related to diagnosis including adjustment disorder with mixed anxiety and depressed mood, stroke, dysphagia, recent PEG tube (a tube placed to provide nutrition) and vision loss. The care plan directed staff to monitor for signs of distress or mood and behavior changes. The care plan directed staff to provide cares in, gentle, unrushed, and thorough manner. Although R19 was identified as having aphasia, and being dependent on staff for physical needs and all aspects of mobility, R19's care plan lacked any information about activity goals, participation in activities, or interventions implemented to meet R19's activity needs. On 2/6/23, at 11:44 a.m. R19 was observed to be laying on her left side facing the wall. R19 was noted to have two documents on the wall, one of which was guidelines from Speech Therapy to speak to her in a singing tone as resident would often respond in kind. R19 was resting with eyes open, and attempts were made to communicate with R19 in a singing tone without response. R19's room lacked any stimulation of television, audible books, or music in the background. The wall which R19 faced had no pictures or other decorations on the wall. On 2/6/23, at 2:42 p.m. R19 was observed in her room, on her bed, with eyes closed. Although the overbed lights were on there was no background noise in the room. On 2/7/23, at 12:07 p.m. licensed practical nurse (LPN)-A accompanied surveyor in to room to review R19's level of responsiveness. LPN-A approached resident at her level while she was resting in bed and approached resident in a slow, unhurried manner. R19 was resting wither her eyes open, LPN-A spoke slowly, making eye contact, and R19 did respond yeah to a question asked, however, did not respond to any other interactions. R19 did grasp LPN-A's arm in response to interaction. LPN-A did provide R19 with a small stuffed animal which was at bedside to hold in her hand. When asked LPN-A if the approach recommended by Speech Therapy was of benefit, and LPN-A stated she was unaware of the recommendations, even though it was posted on the wall next to R19. On 2/8/23, at 7:53 a.m. R19 was observed sitting up in her wheelchair in her room with her feet flat on the floor. R19 was sitting facing the doorway. R19's eyes were open, but had not verbal expression in response to interaction. At 9:50 a.m. R19 was again observed seated in chair with no staff interaction, or activities of any kind. Attempts were made to interview the Activity Director, however, surveyor was informed she was not in the facility on 2/6/23, but would be returning on 2/7/23. On 2/7/23, surveyor was informed the Activity Director was not returning 2/7/23, however, would return on 2/8/23. On 2/8/23, surveyor was informed the Activity Director was not in facility at that time, but would be returning on 2/9/23. On 2/8/23, did observe social services (SS)-A completing Bingocize. Following the activity, a request was made for activity attendance sheets from SS-A for December, January, and February. Upon review of the facility documents, titled Bingocize CMP Project Attendance documents provided for December and January, it was noted R19 was not listed. There were no additional activity attendance sheets provided for this time frame. During interview on 2/8/23, at 2:05 p.m. , SS-A stated there was no additional activities tracking sheets to review. SS-A stated she was unaware of what R19's care plan outlined for activities, however, stated she would have to guess music and things as a go to for care plans. Upon accessing the electronic care plan for R19, SS-A identified there were no care planned problems or interventions for R19 related to her identified concerns. SS-A stated she was aware R19 liked stuffed animals, but otherwise was unable to state what other activities R19 liked. During interview on 2/8/23, at 2:17 p.m. with nursing assistant (NA)-A stated he provided assistance to R19 and proceeded to describe performance of personal cares, such as changing of incontinence briefs, transferring into and out of the bed, and assisting to reposition. When asked what type of activities R19 enjoyed, NA-A stated he was unaware of what she enjoyed doing, however stated he would turn the television, and set it to the channel on the television based on the response of the resident. At this time, R19 was observed in bed, with eyes open. R19's roommate's television was on across the room. R19's television was placed next to bed, but was not on. During interview on 2/8/23, at 2:20 p.m. NA-B stated she offered stuffed animals to R19, which R19 would clasp in her hands. NA-B stated R19 had a fidget mat that she could use and this was observed to be by resident on the bed. NA-B stated staff shared information regarding resident's needs when reporting off to the oncoming shifts. NA-B did identify the television and digital device for music which was at bedside, however, neither item was in use at that time. During interview on 2/8/23, at 4:24 p.m. the director of nursing (DON) stated R19 did have music playing in her room last week, and he had observed her singing along with the music. The DON was unaware this was not addressed in the care plan and identified this information should be identified and implemented by staff. On 2/8/23, at 5:16 p.m. the administrator identified the role of the person previously identified as the Activity Director was technically Therapeutic Recreational Aide. The person responsible for the activity department was the regional activities consultant who works remotely and comes to the facility. On 2/8/23, at 6:10 p.m. a call was received in follow up of message receipt from the Regional Consultant (RC)-A. RC-A stated she had completed extensive training with the current therapeutic recreational aide to complete the assessments and develop care plans. RC-A indicated the care plan should have been developed based on the both the MDS and the CAA. However, had not been completed for R19. The facility document, titled Activity Programs, revised 6/2018, identified the Activities Program is to support the well-being of residents and to encourage both independence and community interaction. The policy also identified the activities are designed to encourage maximum individual participation and are geared towards the resident's individual needs.
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 assess and monitor a medical condition (orthostatic hypotension) ...

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 and monitor a medical condition (orthostatic hypotension) according to professional standards of practice for 1 of 3 residents (R27) reviewed for appropriate assessment and care. Findings include: R27's hospital referral information dated 12/19/22, indicated a principal diagnosis of orthostatic hypotension (a drop in blood pressure with position change) and an active problem of syncope (fainting or sudden loss of consciousness) with a history of, passing out. R27's hospital Discharge summary dated [DATE], indicated discharge diagnoses including, severe orthostatic hypotension, suspect secondary to autonomic dysfunction and syncope. R27's hospital discharge orders dated 12/22/22, indicated an active problem and diagnosis of orthostatic hypotension. R27's admission record dated 2/8/23, indicated she admitted to the facility on [DATE] with a primary diagnosis and reason for facility admission of orthostatic hypotension. R27's facility primary visit summary dated 12/28/22, indicated an assessment and plan to monitor for worsening of her orthostatic hypotension. R27's facility order summary report dated 1/3/23, indicated a diagnosis of, and reason for skilled care documentation, as orthostatic hypotension. R27's progress notes indicated daily documentation: Why does the resident require daily skilled care: Orthostatic hypotension. However, the skilled notes were reviewed from 12/23/22 through 1/6/23, and addressed was receiving therapy and assistance with activities of daily living. However, none of the daily notes actually addressed the skilled need of orthostatic hypotension for any signs/symptoms, treatment or actual blood pressures. R27's care plan focus dated 12/23/22, indicated R27 was at risk for falls related to orthostatic hypotension but lacked an intervention to monitor orthostatic blood pressures. R27's treatment administration record (TAR) and medication administration record (MAR) for December of 2022 and January of 2023 lacked instruction to obtain orthostatic blood pressures. R27's blood pressure summary report showed no documentation of orthostatic blood pressures from admission on [DATE] through discharge on [DATE]. When interviewed on 2/8/2023, at 3:11 PM the director of nursing (DON) stated R27 was admitted to the facility for skilled nursing care related to her diagnosis of orthostatic hypotension. The DON also stated his expectation would be orthostatic blood pressures should have been monitored but were not for R27.
CONCERN (D)

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

Pressure Ulcer Prevention (Tag F0686)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview, and document review, the facility failed to comprehensively assess facility acquired pressure u...

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 facility acquired pressure ulcers and provide consistent monitoring for 1 of 1 residents (R2) reviewed for pressure ulcers. Findings include: R2's quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated [DATE], indicated R2 had moderate cognitive impairment and required extensive assistance with activities of daily living (ADLs). Further, R29 was at risk to develop pressure ulcers. R2's pressure ulcer Care Area Assessments (CAA) dated 10/17/22, identified R2 was at risk for impaired skin related to pressure ulcers related to need for extensive to total assist with movement. Currently skin was intact. Braden scale (scale to determine risk factors) score was 10 with poor oral intake. Potential friction or shearing with movement. She was completely immobile-cannot make even a slight change in body position. Bedfast most of time. Skin was moist very frequently related to incontinence and perspiration. Staff to follow current plan of care to aide in preventing impaired skin which included monitoring skin for red/open areas during cares and report to nurse. R2's skin integrity care plan revised 2/7/23, identified R2 was at risk for an alteration in skin integrity. Interventions included: monitor skin integrity daily during cares; weekly skin inspection by nurse; pressure redistribution mattress to bed, pressure redistribution cushion to wheelchair/chair, dietary interventions, including encourage supplement as ordered; monitor for skin breakdown for signs/symptoms of infection, report signs/symptoms to doctor; document on skin condition and keep doctor informed of changes. R2's weekly skin inspection dated 1/17/22, indicated R2's skin was clean, dry, intact with no skin complaints. A progress note dated 1/29/23, identified R2 had multiple sores on her buttocks and coccyx. Calmoseptine and foam bandage applied. A weekly skin inspection dated 1/31/23, indicated R2's skin was clean, dry, intact with no skin complaints. A weekly skin inspection dated 2/7/23, indicated R2's skin was clean, dry, intact with no skin complaints. The medical record lacked any evidence of further documentation including measurements or initiation of weekly skin alteration evaluation. Further R2's medical record lacked evidence R2's provider or resident representative had been informed of R2 developing pressure sores. A review of R2's hospice chart did not identify R2 had pressure sores to her coccyx and buttocks. During interview on 2/8/23, at 12:31 p.m. nursing assistant (NA)-B stated R2 had blisters on her coccyx about 2 weeks ago and had put calmoseptine and a bandage on them. When interviewed on 2/8/23, at 12:42 p.m. director of nursing (DON) stated any nurse can measure wounds which should be completed when wounds are identified. When interviewed on 2/8/23, at 1:19 p.m. registered nurse (RN)-A stated R2 had one nickel size area and one dime sized area that looked to be pressure sores. RN-A further stated that she would not measure them, that RN-B or DON would measure the sores. When observed with RN-B R2's coccyx/buttocks were dark red in color with skin peeling area measured 8 centimeters (cm) x 7 cm with no drainage seen. Facility Skin Assessment and Wound Management policy dated 7/2018, indicated when skin alteration is noted the following actions would be taken: notify doctor, receive treatment order, notify resident representative, initiate weekly evaluation and update care plan.
CONCERN (E)

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

Medication Errors (Tag F0758)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** R4's quarterly MDS dated [DATE], identified daily use of antipsychotic, antidepressant and antanxiety medications. R4's psychotr...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** R4's quarterly MDS dated [DATE], identified daily use of antipsychotic, antidepressant and antanxiety medications. R4's psychotropic drug use CAA dated 10/19/22, indicated she was, At risk for negative side effects of meds to manage her anxiety and depression. R4's care plan dated 7/24/22, indicated a potential for psychotropic drug adverse drug reactions related to daily use of psychotropic medication and to monitor monthly orthostatic blood pressure. R4's careplan dated 7/24/22 indicated she was able to ambulate with assist of one staff and rolling walker. R4's order summary report dated 2/8/23, indicated the following medications: Alprazolam two times daily for anxiety with a start date of 7/22/22, Aripiprazole (an atypical antipsychotic, approved for schizophrenia and bipolar disorder and as an add-0n treatment for major depressive disorder) one time daily for major depressive disorder with a start date of 7/22/22, Duloxetine one time daily for pain and moods related to major depressive disorder with a start date of 7/22/22, Hydroxyzine hydrochloride as needed for anxiety/insomnia with a start date of 1/31/23, melatonin for insomnia every 24 hours with a start date of 1/26/23 and Mirtazapine at bedtime for major depressive disorder with a start date of 7/21/22. R4's order summary also included direction to complete orthostatic blood pressure checks due to antipsychotic med use on evening shift on the first of every month with a start date of 9/1/22. R4's Consultant Pharmacist's Medication Regimen Review (MRR) dated 7/27/22 indicated her as taking the psychotropic medications Alprazolam, Abilify (Aripiprazol), Duloxetine, Mirtazapine, Melatonin and prn (as needed) Hydroxyzine and to monitor orthostatic blood pressure unless she was unable to stand. R4's MMR dated 9/22/22, indicated she was taking the psychotropic medications Alprazolam, Abilify, Duloxetine, Mirtazipine and Melatonin and to monitor orthostatic blood pressure unless she was unable to stand. R4's blood pressure summary report lacked documentation of orthostatic blood pressure values on 9/1/22, 10/1/2022, 11/1/22, 12/1/23, or 2/1/23. R4's vital signs record failed to identify any orthostatic blood pressures on any dates. When interviewed on 2/8/23, at 1:04 p.m. registered nurse (RN)-A stated, blood pressures including orthostatic would be documented under the vitals tab of the resident chart if required. RN-A stated, R4 didn't require orthostatic blood pressures. When interviewed on 2/8/23, at 2:54 p.m. the director of nursing (DON) stated ordered orthostatic blood pressure checks would be scheduled on the resident treatment administration record (TAR) for staff to complete and the blood pressure values would be documented in the vitals tab of the resident chart. The DON acknowledged orthostatic blood pressure values were missing for R4. Based on observation, interview, and document review, the facility failed to monitor orthostatic blood pressures with the use of an antipsychotic medication for 4 of 5 residents (R15, R21, R22, and R4) reviewed for unnecessary meds. Findings include: R15's admission Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated [DATE], indicated R15 had severe cognitive impairment and received extensive assistance with activities of daily living (ADLs).The MDS also indicated R15 took and antipsychotic medication. R15's care plan revised 1/16/23, indicated R15 was at risk for psychotropic drug adverse drug reaction (ADR's) related to daily use of psychotropic medications, and included an intervention to monitor monthly orthostatic blood pressure (measuring difference in blood pressures from lying, sitting, standing). R15's physician orders included orders for Risperdal (antipsychotic) 1 milligram (MG) by mouth two times daily for vascular dementia with psychotic disturbance. R15's treatment administration record (TAR) from December 2322 through February 8, 2023, directed nursing staff to Monitor orthostatic blood pressures monthly on the fifth: Resident Lying for 2 minutes, sitting for 2 minutes, Standing for 2 minutes. Although no orthstatic blood pressures were documented. R15's medical record was reviewed and lacked any evidence orthostatic blood pressures had ever been obtained for R15. During observation on 2/8/23, at 7:23 a.m. R15 was sitting in his wheelchair watching television. R21's admission MDS dated [DATE], indicated R21 was cognitively intact and required extensive assistance with ADLs, R21 was independent with ambulation with a walker. R21's care plan dated 1/10/23, indicated R21 had a potential for psychotropic drug adverse drug reaction (ADR's) related to daily use of psychotropic medications, and included an intervention to monitor monthly orthostatic blood pressure. R21's medical record was reviewed and lacked any evidence orthostatic blood pressures had ever been obtained for R21. R21's TAR was reviewed from January 2023 through February 2023, TAR did not contain an order to obtain orthostatic blood pressures. During observation on 2/7/23, at 4:04 p.m. R21 was ambulating with walker from back patio to her room with no difficulty. R22's quarterly MDS dated [DATE], indicated R22 was cognitively intact and required extensive assistance with ADL's R22's care plan revised 1/24/23, indicated R22 had a potential for psychotropic drug adverse drug reaction (ADR's) related to daily use of psychotropic medications, and included an intervention to monitor monthly orthostatic blood pressure. A Consultant Pharmacist's Medication Regimen Review dated 9/22/22 indicated R22 was on the following psychotropic medications: duloxetine, melatonin and quetiapine, with recommendation to monitor orthostatic blood pressure. R22's medical record was reviewed and lacked any evidence orthostatic blood pressures had ever been obtained for R22. R22's TAR was reviewed from September 2022 through February 2023, TAR did not contain an order to obtain orthostatic blood pressures. During observation on 2/7/23, at 3:49 p.m R22 was in therapy department participating in physical therapy. When interviewed on 2/8/23, at 12:42 p.m. director of nursing (DON) stated orthostatic blood pressures were monitored routinely on residents admitted with syncope (fainting or passing out), orthostatic hypotension ( form of low blood pressure that happens when standing after sitting or lying) and for residents on any medication that requires orthostatic blood pressures. DON reviewed records for R15, R21 and R22 stated they do not have orthostatic blood pressures in their medical records. A facility Psychotropic Medication use policy undated indicated residents who do not require use of a mechanical hoyer lift will have an orthostatic blood pressure performed on a monthly basis.
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

  • "Why is there high staff turnover? How do you retain staff?"
  • "Can I speak with families of current residents?"
  • "What's your RN coverage like on weekends and overnight?"

Our Honest Assessment

Strengths
  • • Licensed and certified facility. Meets minimum state requirements.
Concerns
  • • 20 deficiencies on record, including 1 serious (caused harm) violation. Ask about corrective actions taken.
  • • $11,928 in fines. Above average for Minnesota. Some compliance problems on record.
  • • Grade C (53/100). Below average facility with significant concerns.
  • • 58% turnover. Above average. Higher turnover means staff may not know residents' routines.
Bottom line: Mixed indicators with Trust Score of 53/100. Visit in person and ask pointed questions.

About This Facility

What is The Estates At Delano Llc's CMS Rating?

CMS assigns The Estates at Delano LLC an overall rating of 3 out of 5 stars, which is considered average nationally. Within Minnesota, this rating places the facility higher than 0% of the state's 100 nursing homes. This mid-range rating indicates the facility meets federal standards but may have areas for improvement.

How is The Estates At Delano Llc Staffed?

CMS rates The Estates at Delano LLC's staffing level at 4 out of 5 stars, which is above average compared to other nursing homes. Staff turnover is 58%, which is 12 percentage points above the Minnesota average of 46%. High turnover can affect care consistency as new staff learn residents' individual needs.

What Have Inspectors Found at The Estates At Delano Llc?

State health inspectors documented 20 deficiencies at The Estates at Delano LLC during 2023 to 2025. These included: 1 that caused actual resident harm, 18 with potential for harm, and 1 minor or isolated issues. Deficiencies causing actual harm indicate documented cases where residents experienced negative health consequences.

Who Owns and Operates The Estates At Delano Llc?

The Estates at Delano LLC is owned by a for-profit company. For-profit facilities operate as businesses with obligations to shareholders or private owners. The facility is operated by MONARCH HEALTHCARE MANAGEMENT, a chain that manages multiple nursing homes. With 39 certified beds and approximately 32 residents (about 82% occupancy), it is a smaller facility located in DELANO, Minnesota.

How Does The Estates At Delano Llc Compare to Other Minnesota Nursing Homes?

Compared to the 100 nursing homes in Minnesota, The Estates at Delano LLC's overall rating (3 stars) is below the state average of 3.2, staff turnover (58%) is significantly higher than the state average of 46%, and health inspection rating (3 stars) is at the national benchmark.

What Should Families Ask When Visiting The Estates At Delano Llc?

Based on this facility's data, families visiting should ask: "How do you ensure continuity of care given staff turnover, and what is your staff retention strategy?" "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 high staff turnover rate.

Is The Estates At Delano Llc Safe?

Based on CMS inspection data, The Estates at Delano LLC 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 3-star overall rating and ranks #100 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 The Estates At Delano Llc Stick Around?

Staff turnover at The Estates at Delano LLC is high. At 58%, the facility is 12 percentage points above the Minnesota average of 46%. High turnover means new staff may not know residents' individual needs, medications, or preferences. It can also be disorienting for residents, especially those with dementia who rely on familiar faces. Families should ask: What is causing the turnover? What retention programs are in place? How do you ensure care continuity during staff transitions?

Was The Estates At Delano Llc Ever Fined?

The Estates at Delano LLC has been fined $11,928 across 1 penalty action. This is below the Minnesota average of $33,198. 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 The Estates At Delano Llc on Any Federal Watch List?

The Estates at Delano LLC 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.