GUARDIAN ANGELS CARE CENTER

400 EVANS AVENUE, ELK RIVER, MN 55330 (763) 635-5475
Non profit - Corporation 120 Beds Independent Data: November 2025 4 Immediate Jeopardy citations
Trust Grade
0/100
#295 of 337 in MN
Last Inspection: January 2025

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

Overview

Guardian Angels Care Center in Elk River, Minnesota has a Trust Grade of F, indicating significant concerns about the quality of care provided. It ranks #295 out of 337 facilities in Minnesota, placing it in the bottom half, and #2 out of 2 in Sherburne County, meaning there is only one local option that is better. The facility is worsening, with issues increasing from 8 in 2024 to 9 in 2025, which is troubling. Staffing is a relative strength with a 4/5 star rating, although the turnover rate is average at 50%. However, the facility has concerning fines totaling $131,203, which is higher than 92% of Minnesota facilities, suggesting ongoing compliance problems. There are also critical incidents that raise alarms about resident safety, such as failing to provide proper supervision for a resident, leading to a serious fall and femur fracture. Additionally, a resident with known food allergies was served an inappropriate meal, which resulted in hospitalization due to an allergic reaction. While there is good RN coverage, these incidents highlight serious areas needing improvement.

Trust Score
F
0/100
In Minnesota
#295/337
Bottom 13%
Safety Record
High Risk
Review needed
Inspections
Getting Worse
8 → 9 violations
Staff Stability
⚠ Watch
50% turnover. Above average. Higher turnover means staff may not know residents' routines.
Penalties
✓ Good
$131,203 in fines. Lower than most Minnesota facilities. Relatively clean record.
Skilled Nurses
✓ Good
Each resident gets 90 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
21 deficiencies on record. Higher than average. Multiple issues found across inspections.
★☆☆☆☆
1.0
Overall Rating
★★★★☆
4.0
Staff Levels
★★★☆☆
3.0
Care Quality
★☆☆☆☆
1.0
Inspection Score
Stable
2024: 8 issues
2025: 9 issues

The Good

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

Facility shows strength in staffing levels, fire safety.

The Bad

1-Star Overall Rating

Below Minnesota average (3.2)

Significant quality concerns identified by CMS

Staff Turnover: 50%

Near Minnesota avg (46%)

Higher turnover may affect care consistency

Federal Fines: $131,203

Well above median ($33,413)

Significant penalties indicating serious issues

The Ugly 21 deficiencies on record

4 life-threatening
Sept 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

Resident Rights (Tag F0550)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview, and record review the facility failed to provide a dignified living existence for 3 of 3 reside...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview, and record review the facility failed to provide a dignified living existence for 3 of 3 residents (R1, R2, and R3) reviewed for call lights. Staff responded timely to the residents when the residents pressed their all lights for assistance; however, the staff would turn off the call light not providing services. This practice resulted in R1 and R2 soiling themselves and R3, a non-weight bearing resident attempted to transfer herself to the bathroom.Findings include: R1's admission Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated [DATE] indicated R1 had a Brief Inventory of Mental Status (BIMS) of 15 indicating she was cognitively intact. R1 required substantial assistance with toileting hygiene, lower body dressing, personal hygiene, rolling from side to side in bed, transferring from a sitting to lying position and transferring from bed to chair. R1 was frequently incontinent of urine and stool and was not on a toileting program. R1's diagnoses included Type 2 Diabetes, cellulitis (a bacterial infection that enters the skin) of the right lower limb, morbid obesity, and lymphedema (swelling most often in the arm or leg caused by a lymphatic system blockage). R1's care plan report dated 7/10/25 indicated to make sure R1's call light was within reach and encourage her to use it for assistance as needed. R1 required prompt response to all requests for assistance. R1 used incontinent briefs, and staff was to change as needed and clean peri-area with each incontinent episode. R1's toileting need was one hand assistance from staff with a raised toilet set to assist with a safe transfer to the toilet. R1's call light detailed activity reported dated 9/8/25 at 3:30 a.m. indicated R1 pressed her call light. The call light response time was six minutes and fifty-nine seconds. R1's call light was again pressed on 9/8/25 at 6:05 a.m. and the response time was six minutes and sixteen seconds. Upon observation and interview on 9/8/25 at 11:55 a.m. R1 stated she pressed her call light around 4:00 a.m. and requested to use the bathroom. The light was answered and turned off. R1 soiled herself of urine in her brief waiting for the staff member to return. She fell asleep for a few hours and woke-up around 5:30 a.m. She waited for the morning shift to be on duty and pressed her light again at 6:05 a.m. stating she knew the a.m. staff would assist her. R1 was diabetic, her skin was a big concern. A few weeks ago, R1 developed a rash on her left thigh region just below her buttocks that was bleeding from sitting in soiled incontinent briefs. R1 was able to notify the staff when she needed to use the bathroom. She wore incontinent briefs for dribbling of urine and for when staff did assist her, and she soiled herself. She stated she was [AGE] years old, and she felt like she was [AGE] years old when she wet herself because of staff not assisting her timely. R1's skin was observed and revealed the inside of her left thigh under her buttocks was a macerated area (skin breakdown due to prolonged exposure to moisture). The area was approximately 12 centimeters in length x 4 centimeters in height. The area was covered with a barrier cream. There were no open areas and no bleeding was observed. R1's incontinent brief was dry. Upon interview on 9/8/25 at 12:15 p.m. nursing assistant (NA)-A stated R1 did turn her light on right away at the beginning of the shift and mentioned to her that in the night she requested to use the bathroom, and no staff member returned. R1's brief was soaked with urine. R1 was able to press her call light and request the use of the bathroom. NA-A stated she often found other residents soiled in the morning. NA-A stated her practice was to turn off a residents light when she answered it and would return when able to keep the call lights appear under 10 minutes. She hoped she never forgot about a resident with that practice. R2's MDS report dated 9/4/25 was in process at the time of the survey. R2's Care Plan Report dated 9/4/25 indicated R2 transferred with the assistance of two staff members. R2 did not walk. Staff was to ensure R2's call light was within reach and encourage R2 to use it for assistance. The resident required prompt responses to all requests for assistance. R2's face sheet dated 9/4/25 indicted R2's pertinent diagnoses were fracture of the left femur (hip), Type 2 Diabetes, and coronary artery disease. R2's BIMs score assessment dated [DATE] indicated R2 had a score of 15 indicating she was cognitively intact. R2's Functional Status Tracking dated 9/7/25 indicated R2 required maximum assistance with lower body dressing, rolling from side to side in bed, transferring from bed to chair and toileting hygiene. Upon observation and interview on 9/8/25 at 1:06 p.m. R2 was wheeling herself in a wheelchair to the bathroom. R2 had a boot cast on her left foot. R2 stated she was not supposed to transfer herself, but she was able to. She was aware she was not to bear weight on her left foot. R2 stated she transferred herself to the toilet because in only the few days she had been at the facility staff members would answer call light and not return for a long time. She had not soiled herself and would be horrified if she did. She stated she will have to transfer herself when she returned home, so may as well start in the facility. Upon interview on 9/9/25 at 11:21 a.m. physical therapy assistant (PT)-A stated R2 was ordered to have assistance of two staff members for transfers. She was not to self-transfer due to a non-weight bearing status. He had educated residents the importance of following the restrictions advised by physical therapy and to wait for staff for their own safety. He was not aware that R2 had been transferring herself. R3's MDS dated [DATE] was in process at the time of the survey. R3's face sheet dated 9/3/25 indicated her pertinent diagnoses were malignant neoplasm of the Pancreas, weakness, chronic lymphocytic leukemia, R3's Bladder/Bowel Incontinence assessment dated [DATE] indicated R3 did not have any incontinent symptoms. She was incontinent, the type of incontinent was overflow incontinence, however the previous questions indicated overflow incontinence was not suspected. R3 required assistance of one or two staff members for ambulation. R3 was oriented to time, person, and place. R3's BIMS assessment dated [DATE] indicated R3 had a score of 13 indicating she was cognitively intact. Upon observation and interview on 9/8/25 at 1:45 p.m. R3 stated she has been at the facility at the beginning of summer and felt staff was very attentive. Currently on this admission she felt staff were less attentive, R3 stated she had soiled herself waiting for staff to return after requesting assistance to the bathroom It has gotten all over my clothing, even though the pad. R3 stated she felt like baby when she sat in a wet incontinent brief. R3 was not certain if she had any skin breakdown but complained of anal pain. At 2:15 p.m. her skin was observed, between the folds of her buttocks was redness, no open areas. She was found to have a bulging hemorrhoid. Staff was notified of the finding. Upon interview on 9/8/25 at 2:12 p.m. R3's family member FM-A stated R3 had been at the facility in early May of 2025 for a rehabilitation stay. R3 had no complaints at that time. Currently she complained to FM-A about how long it took for her to receive assistance. She was not certain if the staff were turning off the light and not returning or just not answering the light in a timely manner. R3 was able to use the bathroom at home without becoming incontinent of urine or stool. She stated she had not reported her concern to the facility because R3 would soon be going home on hospice, and she did not want to cause a stir. Upon interview on 9/9/25 at 11:10 a.m. registered nurse (RN)-A the nurse manager stated she was not aware of any complaints that staff were turning off the resident call lights. She stated the facility process for answering call lights was any staff member could answer a call light. She stated it was unacceptable for staff to not return to a residents room for long periods of time or not at all. All staff carrier walkie talkies so if they needed an extra staff member, they should be using that to call for assistance. Upon interview on 9/9/25 at 12:25 p.m. the director of nursing, (DON) stated the process for answering call lights was to not turn off the light until the residents need are met. A facility policy titled Dignity dated 2/2025 indicated each resident shall be care for in a manner that promotes and enhances their sense of well-being, level of satisfaction with lift, and feelings of self-worth and-self-esteem.
Apr 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

Respiratory Care (Tag F0695)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to follow physician orders and ensure provider was notified of residen...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to follow physician orders and ensure provider was notified of resident refusals for continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) orders for 1 of 1 residents (R2) reviewed respiratory care. Findings include: R2's admission Minimal Data Set (MDS) dated [DATE], indicated R2 had diagnoses of pulmonary fibrosis (condition where the lungs become scarred and thickened, making it difficult to breathe), acute and chronic respiratory failure, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, and obstructive sleep apnea (sleep disorder where breathing repeatedly pauses or slows down during sleep due to a blockage of the upper airway). Further, MDS revealed R2 had exhibited behavior related to rejection of care. R2's medication administration record (MAR) and treatment administration record (TAR) dated April 2025, revealed R2 had physician order's directing staff to record hours R2 kept his CPAP (a machine that uses mild alit pressure to keep breathing airways open while you sleep) on, chart when refuses every night shift dated 3/31/25. R2's MAR/TAR revealed on two occasions R2 had refused, and 10 occasions was documented as 0 hours worn. R2 also had an order to remove R2's CPAP at 8:00 a.m. which was documented as completed from 4/4/25 through 4/7/25. R1's care plan revised 4/21/25, identified R2 had a behavior problem as evidenced by increased agitation, restlessness, fidgeting, pulling off clothes, pulling at drainage tube, and self-transferring. R2's care plan directed staff when refusing cares or tasks to ensure safety, attempt to re-approach, offer alternate caregiver, offer choices, and notify charge nurse. Further, R2's care plan revealed R2 had an altered respiratory status and difficulty breathing. R2's respiratory interventions included CPAP use and R2 had the right to refuse but staff were to encourage use while in bed. On 4/23/25 at 11:14 a.m., licensed practical nurse (LPN)-A stated family member (FM)-A arrived at the facility on 4/7/25, and was upset R2 did not have his CPAP on and/or in his room. LPN-A stated this was her first time working with R2 and was not aware he required a CPAP, but LPN-A stated she would go look in R2's old room for it. LPN-A stated she found the CPAP and brought it to R2's current room. LPN-A confirmed she had observed R2 on the morning of 4/7/25, in bed without a CPAP on. Further, LPN-A stated she was informed R2 had a history of refusing the CPAP, but with R2's respiratory diagnoses he should have still been offered to wear it. On 4/23/25 at 12:05 p.m., FM-A stated R2 had end stage lung disease and tested positive for COVID-19 on 4/4/35, which R2 then had to move to the isolation unit into a private room. FM-A stated she arrived at the facility in the morning of 4/7/25, and noted R2 did not have his CPAP machine. FM-A stated R2's CPAP was not new for him, and he had an order to wear the CPAP at night while sleeping due to his sleep apnea, however when R2 moved rooms on 4/4/25, staff did not bring his CPAP to his new room. Further, FM-A stated R2 would often decline to wear the CPAP or remove it himself, but he should still be offered to wear it. On 4/23/25 at 1:54 p.m. nurse practitioner (NP) stated R2 had an order to wear his CPAP at night because he had a diagnosis of sleep apnea. NP stated she was not aware of R2 refusing to wear the CPAP. On 4/23/25 at 2:50 p.m., registered nurse (RN)-A stated R2 had an order to wear his CPAP at night, however R2 had a history of refusing to wear the CPAP or removing the CPAP himself during the night. RN-A stated staff would still be expected to offer R2 his CPAP and document all refusals in R2's MAR/TAR, and RN-A confirmed staff would be expected to notify the provider of consistent refusals. On 4/23/25 at 4:35 p.m., combined interview with director of nursing (DON) and administrator revealed R2 was moved from the 100 unit on the evening of 4/3/25, to the 500 unit. DON and administrator stated during the transition to the other unit, R2's CPAP was not transferred to the new room and was not available for R2. Further, DON and administrator stated there were reports from the 100-unit staff R2 would often refuse to wear his CPAP, however DON and administrator confirmed R2's provider had not been updated regarding R2's consistent refusals as expected. In addition, DON and administrator confirmed staff had documented in R2's MAR/TAR for CPAP completion 4/4/25 through 4/7/25, however R2 did not have his CPAP in his room at the time. DON and administrator stated staff had not been re-educated regarding following physician orders and updating provider related to consistent refusals. On 4/24/25 at approximately 12:50 p.m., requested facility policy related to refusal of physician orders and notifying physician from administrator and DON, however facility failed to provide a copy.
Jan 2025 7 deficiencies 1 IJ (1 facility-wide)
CRITICAL (L)

Immediate Jeopardy (IJ) - the most serious Medicare violation

Infection Control (Tag F0880)

Someone could have died · This affected most or all residents

⚠️ Facility-wide issue

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Kitchen On 1/21/25, at 9:32 a.m., during a brief initial tour with the interim culinary director (CD)-A and the certified dietar...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Kitchen On 1/21/25, at 9:32 a.m., during a brief initial tour with the interim culinary director (CD)-A and the certified dietary manager (CDM), an observation was made of completion of the dishwashing process. At that time, the temperatures for the morning cycle temperature check had not been logged. Dietary aide (DA)-B stated the wash temp was 150 degrees Fahrenheit, and the rinse temp was one hundred and eighty five-ish. DA-B stated the temperatures were to be 160 for wash, and 180 for the rinse cycle. Although able to state the desired temperatures for the wash and rinse cycle, DA-B stated she was unaware the temperatures were to be up to the desired temperatures before starting the dishwashing process and was unaware there were further interventions indicated if the machines did not reach the desired temperatures. CDM, who was present during the observation and interview, stated it appeared that staff were unaware of the need to run two or more racks through to bring the temperatures up to the desired temperatures prior to starting the dishwashing cycle, and instructed DA-B on this process. CDM stated if the dishwashing machine was not up to the required temperature when checked, the dishwasher would have to be run until the temp was up to the desired temp. If the temperature still did not get to the desired temp, the facility would have to reach out to the company and request a service call. CD stated if this could not be corrected, the facility would use the three section sink for cleaning of pots and pans, and implement use of Styrofoam plates. On 1/22/25, at 1:52 p.m. during a follow up observation, DA-C was observed as they completed the dishwashing process. A review of the recorded temperatures indicated the temp check for the wash temperature was 175, while the rinse cycle was at 178 degrees Fahrenheit. DA-C stated they were unaware of the need to run the racks through until the temperature met the desired temperatures of 160 for the wash cycle and 180 for the rinse cycle. CD-A was present and provided instruction to DA-C. A review of the dishwasher temps was completed for the period of 12/12/24 to 1/21/25. The facility documentation lacked logged results for the period of 1/1/25 through 1/7/25 (42 opportunities for documentation were missed during this time period). The wash temperature was below the desired range on 36 occasions during the period of 12/12/24 to 1/21/25. The facility also lacked documentation for wash temperature checks on 27 opportunities during this period. This total, including the missing documentation for 1/1/25-1/7/25, would be 48 incidents when wash temperatures were not recorded. The rinse temperature was below the desired range of 180 degrees Fahrenheit on 10 occasions during the period of 12/12/24 to 1/14/25. The facility also lacked documentation for rinse temperature checks on 28 opportunities during this period. This total, including the missing documentation for 1/1/25-1/7/25, was 49 occasions where rinse temperatures were not recorded. On 1/23/25, at 8:50 a.m. the service representative (SR) for the dishwasher was present for a service call. At this time, the wash and rinse temps were checked three times. SR stated the required temp for washing of dishes was 160 degrees. SR went on to state The final rinse temperature can be no lower than one hundred and eighty degrees. SR stated it was recommended to run the dishwashing racks through a couple of times to get the temperature up to the appropriate temperature. SR stated the water has to be that hot (180 degree rinse temperature) to kill the bacteria, and stated If not sanitized properly, technically you're not washing. SR stated the potential implication of not having the correct temperatures at 180 degrees Fahrenheit was: People can get sick. That's the whole point of sanitizing. On 1/23/25, at 9:04 a.m. a review of the current logs was completed with CDM. CDM stated it appeared staff were not aware to run the dishwasher racks through the machine two or more times to get up to temperature. CDM stated the purpose of monitoring temperatures was to ensure the dishwasher was operating correctly, to ensure that the dishes were cleaned and sanitized. CDM went on to state: If the dishes were not sanitized, and if the dishes were not clean, there was a risk, potential risk, for illness. CDM stated currently in the facility, she was aware of the presence of COVID and influenza, however, was unaware of any residents with Norovirus. CDM stated there were residents with Norovirus prior to January of 2025. CDM stated she was unaware of the length of time Norovirus could remain on dishes if not cleaned properly. On 1/23/25, at 9:54 a.m., CD stated he was not aware of any residents who required special precautions at this time. CD stated dietary is notified by the infection preventionist of any new illnesses, and if they need to use paper products to eliminate cross contamination. On 1/23/25, at 2:43 p.m., an email, dated 12/27/24 at 8:39 a.m., sent by the CD, was provided by the IP and administrator. The email stated In the event of instances like Norovirus that we have/had in the TCU, we would be using disposable items for meals wherever applicable. The email went on to state This reduces the amount of contact with items amongst the teams. As this surveyor had been told earlier by the CDM and CD there were no current cases which required disposable items, this was clarified with IP and administrator. The IP stated there was one case of Norovirus in the facility. IP stated use of disposable products was implemented when Norovirus was suspected. IP went on to state there were four total rooms where disposable dishes were being used. IP stated this was implemented upon suspicion of Norovirus. IP went on to state she was in contact with the CDM and CD and they were aware of people using paper products. Although paper products were implemented for those four residents as outlined by IP, the paper products were delivered on plastic trays, which were washed through the communal dishwasher. On 1/24/25, at 10:13 a.m., surveyor stopped at the receptionist desk for directions. At that time, surveyor observed a credit card scanner on the counter top, and asked it's function. The receptionist stated it was for employees to pay for their meals when they eat the facility food. Policies The facility Standing Orders for Skilled Nursing Facilities, revised 2023, identified facility to complete COVID-19 PCR, NAAT, Influenza/RSV/COVID-19 PCR, and/or antigen testing as indicated for outbreak and/or routine testing per facility policy. If a resident is symptomatic: completed rapid COVID-19/Flu A&B, COVID-19 PCR, NAAT, Influenza/RSV/COVID-19 PCR, and/or antigen testing. The facility Principles for Screening Staff Illness, undated, identified staff having active symptoms (fever, significant coughing, uncontrolled sneezing, runny nose, diarrhea, and vomiting) should not work. Types of Illness: Respiratory illnesses - including cough, congestion, fever, chills, fatigue, muscle or body aches, headache, new loss of taste or smell, sore throat, and runny nose. (Diarrhea, nausea or vomiting can also present with COVID-19 infections.) Staff should not work until return-to-work screening criteria have been met. If staff has respiratory symptoms and does not comply with testing, they may return to work on day 11 after onset of symptoms. GI Illnesses -vomiting and/or diarrhea symptoms should not work with active symptoms. Sore throat - sore throat that does not resolve in 48 hours and COVID and influenza have been reasonably ruled out, strep testing is recommended. Return to work protocol: - Staff with improving or mild respiratory symptoms and no fever for 24-hours without fever reducing medications can return to work after two negative rapid antigen tests 48-hours apart or return to work or stay at work with one negative NAAT. Since influenza symptoms are similar to COVID, if influenza is suspected either from known exposure or a negative COVID test but significant symptoms exist, conduct rapid influenza/COVID-19 test. If negative, employee may return to work when symptoms improve. - Influenza Positive: Seven (7) after onset of infection, no fever for 24 hours without fever reducing medications, and improving symptoms. - GI Illness: Forty-eight (48) hours after no active symptoms (vomiting and diarrhea) * and no fever for 24 hours without fever modification medication. Norovirus outbreak, Nursing is 72-hours. In general, dietary staff 72 hours after GI symptoms end before returning to work. - Sore throat: Improvement of symptoms. If sore throat does not improve within 48-hours suggest negative strep test, if positive strep test 24-hours on antibiotics. (MDH is 24-hours and CDC is 12-hours). - In general, infectious bacterial infections being treated with antibiotics- staff can return after 24 hours of starting antibiotics. Some serious infections may require longer antibiotic treatment before being deemed noncontagious. - GACC adheres to CDC and MDH guidelines for return-to-work protocol. The facility Standard and Transmission-Based Precautions policy, date 1/25, identified standard and transmission precautions will be used for residents in standard care and who are documented or suspected to have an infection or communicable diseases that may be transmitted to others. The organization is compliant with standard transmission-based precautions as recommended by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. - Purpose is to decrease the risk of cross-contamination to other residents, staff, volunteers and visitors. - Standard Precautions are practices to reduce healthcare associated infections are used with all patients, regardless of diagnosis or isolation status, and apply to interacting with blood, body fluids, secretions, and excretions except sweat, regardless of whether they contain visible blood, non-intact skin and mucous membranes. The required elements include: Adequate hand hygiene at all appropriate times. - Disinfecting surfaces and equipment between patient uses. - Appropriate use of Personal Protective Equipment (PPE) (e.g., gowns, gloves, mask, eye protection) for reasonably anticipated contact with body substances or contaminated equipment. Standard Precautions take into consideration the task being performed, e.g. gloves and mask with face shield for emptying drainage bags. - Safe injection practices. - Respiratory Hygiene/Cough Etiquette. Transmission-based precautions are used for residents who are documented to have or suspected to have an infection or communicable disease where transmission cannot be controlled using standard precautions alone. Transmission-based precautions are used in addition to standard precautions. The type and duration of precautions is determined by referencing the CDC's Type and Duration of Precautions Recommended for Selected Infections and Conditions, or other CDC recommendations for diseases and conditions not listed in the recommendations section. The six types of transmission-based isolation include: - Contact Precautions: gloves and gowns when entering resident room. Use of mask, eye protection/face shield as needed. - Enteric Contact Precautions: gloves and gown when entering resident room. Wash hands with soap and water and use bleach (or disinfectant specific for enteric virus) for cleaning surfaces. - Droplet Precautions: gloves and gowns when entering resident room. Use of mask, eye protection/face shield as needed. - Special Contact and Droplet Precautions: gloves. gowns, fit-tested, NISOSH approved N95 or higher-level respirator and eye protection. - Enhanced Barrier - gown and gloves during high-contact resident cares due to indwelling devices, wounds, and/or MDROs status - Airborne Precautions gloves, gowns, fit-tested, NI [NAME] approved N95 or higher-level respirator (or PAPR) and eye protection - these residents require immediate transport to a level of care that can appropriately care for airborne infectious disease (ex. TB). Isolation: - Post a notice on the door of the resident's door of isolation. - Post appropriate precautions sign. - Provide isolation cart with necessary PPE outside resident room. Visitors should be discouraged from visiting when the visitor has an infectious condition. All staff that has contact with the resident(s) will be in serviced on appropriate Precautions. Gloves and Handwashing - In addition to wearing gloves as outlined under Universal/Standard Precautions, wear gloves (clean, nonsterile) when entering the room. - During the course of caring for a resident, change gloves after having contact with infectious material that may contain high concentrations of microorganisms (i.e. fecal material and wound drainage). - Gloves should be used for handling of all laundry of infected resident. - Remove gloves before leaving the room and cleanse hands immediately in accordance with the hand hygiene policy and procedure. - After glove removal and hand hygiene, ensure that hands do not touch potentially contaminated environmental surfaces or items in the resident's room. Gown - In addition to wearing a gown as outlined in Universal/Standard Precautions, wear a gown (clean, nonsterile) when entering the room if it is anticipated that clothing will have substantial contact with the resident, environmental surfaces, or items in the resident's room, or if the resident is incontinent, has diarrhea, an ileostomy, a colostomy, or wound drainage not contained by a dressing. - Remove the gown before leaving the residents' room. - After gown removal, ensure that clothing does not contact potentially contaminated surfaces. The Director of Nursing, Infection Preventionist, and Administer are responsible for monitoring cross-contamination, need for prophylactic treatment (e.g. Tamiflu). and reporting requirements for MDH. The facility Infection Control policy, dated 1/25, identified signs and symptoms of infections will be promptly recognized by staff, documented, and communicated to the medical provider teams. Employees will follow accepted standards to decrease risk of organism transmission/cross-contamination including use of personal protection equipment (PPE), universal/standard precautions and isolation precautions. All nursing staff will be made aware of antibiotic stewardship to avoid Multidrug Resistant Organisms (MDROs). Treatment/reporting procedures will be consistent with regulatory requirements per Federal and State guidelines. Purpose is to ensure all staff are aware of/familiar with infection control protocol at GACC. Recognize Infection: - Staff will use available resources will identify infections and initiate steps to treat. - Monitor vital signs, assess physical and mental changes in condition. Use disease specific assessment skills, i.e., respiratory assessment must include TPR, B/P, oxygen saturation, use of accessory muscles of respiration, lung sounds, resident's color, presence/absence of sputum - sputum color. Document findings Communicate assessment of findings to physician for determination of treatment. Surveillance: - Provide procedures with ongoing review for accepted standards to reduce transmission of infections. - Monitor antibiotic use to meet guidelines established. - Monthly review of patterns and trends by unit. - Residents will not be admitted with active infection, i.e. influenza, Tuberculosis, Ebola, SARS. No availability of negative pressure isolation room. - Resident placement to minimize exposure - considerations: private room, cohabitation, double room with limited ability to cross contaminate (c diff, MRSA). - Posting of signs in facility to remind staff and visitors of infection standards. Initiate as needed restrictions to facility or nursing wings. Sample sign STOP! Help Protect Our Residents - Environmental cleaning and disinfection of equipment/supplies by departments procedures. - Proper use and provision of personal protection equipment. Isolation Precautions - Designated cart with supplies is located in the employee education room. - Hazardous waste removal to designated location-300 wing north hall and 500 wing. TRAINING OF STAFF I EMPLOYEE HEALTH - Staff training provided at orientation, annually, and ad hoc. - Annual offering of influenza and COVID-19 vaccines to staff. - Annual questionnaire for Tuberculosis screening. - Refer to /Cross reference with facility's Exposure Control Plan. REPORTING - Staff will complete infection control report when infection identified. - ICC nurse will submit monthly compilation report to DON, along with any identified trends. - Infection statistics and trends will be documented on QA reports with presentation at scheduled meetings. - Employee health infections/trends are tracked. Any transmission to residents will be communicated - Infection control reports per clinical software, review for unnecessary use of antibiotics. - Determine as needed reportability to Minnesota Department of Health The facility Surveillance for Infections policy, dated 1/25, identified the infection preventionist will conduct ongoing surveillance for healthcare-associated infections (HAIs) and other epidemiologically significant infections that have substantial impact on potential resident outcome and that may require transmission-based precautions and other preventative interventions. The purpose of the surveillance of infections is to identify both individual cases and trends of epidemiologically significant organisms and healthcare-associated infections, to guide appropriate interventions, and to prevent future infections. The criteria for such infections are based on the current standard definitions of infections. Infections that will be included in routine surveillance include those with: - evidence of transmissibility in a healthcare environment. - available processes and procedures that prevent or reduce the spread of infection. - clinically significant morbidity or mortality associated with infection (e.g., pneumonia, UTl's, C. difficile); and - pathogens associated with serious outbreaks. (e.g., invasive Streptococcus Group A, acute viral hepatitis, norovirus, scabies, influenza, COVID-19). Infections that may be considered in surveillance include those with limited transmissibility in a healthcare environment; and/or limited prevention strategies. Nursing staff will monitor residents for signs and symptoms that may suggest infection, according to current criteria and definitions of infections, and will document and report suspected infections to the charge nurse as soon as possible. If a communicable disease outbreak is suspected, this information will be communicated to Nurse Manager and infection preventionist immediately. When infection or colonization with epidemiologically important organisms is suspected, cultures may be sent, if appropriate, to a contracted laboratory for identification or confirmation. Cultures will be further screened for sensitivity to antimicrobial medications to help determine treatment measures. Staff nurse will notify the attending physician and the infection preventionist of suspected infections. - The infection preventionist and the attending physician will determine if laboratory tests are indicated, and whether special precautions are warranted. - The infection preventionist will determine if the infection is reportable. - The attending physician and interdisciplinary team will determine the treatment plan for the resident. If transmission-based precautions or other preventative measures are implemented to slow or stop the spread of infection, the infection preventionist will collect data to help determine the effectiveness of such measures. When transmission of healthcare-associated infections continues despite documented efforts to implement infection control and prevention measures, the appropriate state agency and/or a specialist in infection control and epidemiology will be consulted for further recommendations. A facility policy, Dishwasher Temperature, undated, indicated the purpose of monitoring the dishwasher temperature was to ensure that proper infection control, cleaning and sanitizing of all dishware is achieved while using the automatic dish machine. The policy statement identified: The automatic dish machine will reach the appropriate temperature prior to washing and sanitizing to meet the guidelines. The procedure outlined prior to washing the dishes, the dish machine will be turned on and run through the cycles to identify wash and rinse temperatures. The procedure identified the wash cycle will reach and minimum temperature of 160 degrees and rinse cycle will reach and maintain a minimum temperature of 180 degrees. The procedure identified the dish machine will be monitored at each meal period to ensure proper wash and rinse temperatures are reached. If the temperature was below the specified temperatures for the wash and rinse cycle, the Engineering department will be notified immediately. The procedure went on to state dishes will not be washed until the dish machine reaches the appropriate temperature. The procedure further goes on to identify If needed, disposable dishes will be used until the proper repairs can be made, and the three-compartment sink method will be used for pots and pans. The policy lacked direction to staff to run multiple racks prior to starting the process to bring the cycles up to the desired rinse cycles prior to starting the dishwashing process. Additionally, the policy lacked instruction to the staff to record the temperatures obtained on the dishwasher temperature logs upon obtaining the temperatures. The manufacturer manual from American Dish Service for Model ADC-44 High Temp Conveyor Dishmachines [sic], last revised 4/28/21, was received from the facility. The manual indicated the requirement at the dishmachine is 180 F (degrees Fahrenheit). The manual identified for high temp sanitizing, the measurement is taken at the manifold for a minimum of 180 F, not in or at the sprays. The manual indicated the temperature for hot water sanitizing in the wash cycle should be 160 F and 180 F for the rinse cycle for the hot water sanitizing. The IJ that began on 1/21/25 was removed on 1/24/25 when it was verified through observation, interview and docuement review, the facility implemented the following: 1. 108 out of 108 residents were audited for respiratory and GI symptoms. Any residents that were identified as suspected illness were placed on the appropriate precautions based on symptoms per CBC/MDH guidelines. 2. Revised and educated staff on the infection control policy to include updated signs and symptoms, HER order sets, timing of residents being placed on isolation precautions, staff attesting to absence of respiratory and GI symptoms, partnership with culinary and IP. Infection control policy included implementation of isolation by clinical staff upon identification of onset of respiratory and/or GI symptoms. 3. Revised the dish machine temperature log and dish machine temperature log and operations expectations policy. Per the current policy and procedure identified on the dish machine log, indicated instructions are outlines if temperatures are not reached on who to contact until the machine can properly function. Disposable dishes will be used until repairs are made. Culinary staff are trained on expectations and policy. 4. Implementation of episodic monitoring of residents during outbreak periods will be initiated every shift utilizing an outbreak monitoring order set. Order set will be completed by nursing in the EMAR. Order set for outbreak monitoring will include supplementary documentation for respiratory or GI illness dependent on the outbreak. 5. New notification process for dietary of GI illness. A new form was developed and trained upon to ensure communication between clinical and dietary staff related to any GI illness updates to ensure appropriate meal delivery takes place. Dietary will receive the new form from clinical and process the request. New meal delivery process will be initiated for the resident identified by clinical. Tray cards will be updated with the new information. This will not be discontinued until IP or designee communicates removal with dietary department. IP will upload a note in PCC. 6. Updated process for monitoring employee illness and return to work status. Per the new employee illness policy and procedure, staff are unable to return to work until they are cleared by Infection Preventionist, HR, or designee based on CDC guidelines. 7. Based on updated communication posters that are posted on resident rooms by clinicians as needed, and following updated education for all staff, staff are being instructed to read and follow the guidelines displayed on the posters. Administrator or designee will continue to notify all staff on outbreaks within the facility. 8. Continue to track on MDH surveillance log while ensuring no gaps and continued auditing of surveillance log by Infection Preventionist or designee. Auditing will be conducted by DON or designee. 9. All staff within the community, regardless of roles and departments, will be educated on precautions, appropriate PPE, and regular hand hygiene. Routine audits will be conducted to ensure compliance and addressed at quarterly QAPI. 10. Staff education on infection control practices, policies and procedures that related to Norovirus and Influenza A outbreaks, improper dishwasher sanitation, and appropriate PPE usage had been implemented. Based on observation, interview and document review the facility failed to implement infection control strategies for respiratory protection to mitigate the risk and spread of Influenza A and norovirus. In addition, the facility failed to ensure infection control measures were implemented to reduce the spread of Norovirus when the dishwasher temperature did not rise high enough to sanitize the dishes during the norovirus outbreak. As a result, the facility developed an influenza outbreak which included three residents (R26, R29, and R71) who tested positive for Influenza A, and two residents who were suspected to have Influenza A (R54, and R216) as well as 10 residents (R87, R207, R346, R54, R84, R85, R23, R205, R216 and R209) who showed signs and symptoms and/or were confirmed to have norovirus. The facility failed to ensure 12 of 12 employees, (registered nurse (RN)-E, cook (C)-A, dietary aide (DA)-D, laundry aide (LA)-B, nursing assistant (NA)-D, housekeeping aide (HA)-C, DA-E, NA-E, RN-F, NA-F, NA-G, and NA-H) who displayed signs and symptoms of potential Norovirus were restricted from and returned to work per the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) criteria. This resulted in a system wide failure in infection control procedures to prevent the spread of illness within the facility to vulnerable residents and the staff of the facility resulting in an immediate jeopardy (IJ) which placed all 108 residents at a high likelihood to for serious illness and/or death by contracting a communicable disease, including but not limited to Norovirus and/or Influenza. The IJ began on 1/21/25 when R26 was observed to have influenza-like symptoms, and the facility failed to implement appropriate transmission-based precautions to prevent spread of infection and failed to implement infection control surveillance to identify trends or patterns of potential infectious outbreaks. In addition, after the facility placed residents in isolation, staff were observed to not use the appropriate PPE and/or perform appropriate hand hygiene practices. Norovirus outbreak started in December and continued to spread in facility at the time of the recertification survey. The IJ was identified on 1/23/25, and the administrator, director of nursing (DON), director of quality improvement (DQI), infection preventionist (IP) and executive business director were notified of the IJ on 1/23/25 at 5:45 p.m. The IJ was removed on 1/24/25, at 1:45 p.m., when the facility implemented actions to reduce/prevent the spread of illness, including Norovirus and Influenza A. However, noncompliance remained at the lower scope and severity, F, widespread, which indicated no actual harm with potential for more than minimal harm that was not IJ. Findings include: The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) identified Influenza is a contagious respiratory illness caused by influenza viruses that infect the nose, throat, and lungs. The Interim Guidance for Influenza Outbreak Management in Long-Term Care and Post-Acute Care Facilities, dated 9/17/24, identified when there is influenza activity in the local community, active daily surveillance for influenza illness should be conducted among all new and current residents, healthcare personnel, and visitors of long-term care facilities, and should be continued until the end of influenza season. Healthcare personnel, and visitors who are identified with any illness symptoms should be excluded from the facility until their illness has resolved. Older adults and other long-term care residents, including those who are medically fragile and those with neurological or neurocognitive conditions, may manifest atypical signs and symptoms of influenza virus infection, and may not have fever. Ill residents should be placed on droplet precautions with room restriction and be excluded from participating in group activities. Influenza testing should occur when any resident has signs and symptoms of acute respiratory illness or influenza-like illness. Implement standard and droplet precautions for all residents with suspected or confirmed influenza. Standard precautions are intended to be applied to the care of all patients in all healthcare settings, regardless of the suspected or confirmed presence of an infectious agent. Implementation of Standard precautions constitute the primary strategy for the prevention of healthcare-associated transmission of infectious agents among patients and healthcare personnel. Standard precautions consist of performing hand hygiene, using personal protective equipment (PPE) whenever there is an expectation of possible exposure to an infection material, follow respiratory hygiene/cough etiquette principles and properly handle, clean and disinfect patient care equipment and instruments/devices. Clean and disinfect the environment appropriately. The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) identified Norovirus as a very contagious virus that causes vomiting and diarrhea, that sometimes is called the stomach flu or the stomach bug; however, norovirus illness is not related to the flu. The flu is caused by the influenza virus. Norovirus causes acute gastroenteritis (inflammation of the stomach or intestines). Most people with norovirus illness get better within one to three days; but they can still spread the virus for a few days after. A person usually develops symptoms 12 to 48 hours after being exposed to norovirus. Most common symptoms: diarrhea, vomiting, nausea, stomach pain with other symptoms that may include fever, headache. The virus can be introduced into healthcare facilities by infected patients, staff, visitors, or contaminated foods. Compared with healthy people, norovirus illnesses can be more severe and occasionally even deadly in patients in hospitals or long-term care facilities. Anyone can get infected and sick with norovirus and people of all ages get infected during norovirus outbreaks. Older adults and people with weakened immune s[TRUNCATED]
CONCERN (D)

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

Resident Rights (Tag F0550)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on observation, interview, and document review the facility failed to provide assist with personal grooming for 1 of 1 residents, (R2), reviewed for personal appearance. Findings include: R2's...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, interview, and document review the facility failed to provide assist with personal grooming for 1 of 1 residents, (R2), reviewed for personal appearance. Findings include: R2's quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment of 11/16/24, identified R2 had brief interview for mental status (BIMS) score of 12. Although classified as moderate cognitive impairment, a score of 13 indicates intact cognition. A listing of R2's medical diagnoses included progressive neurological conditions, cerebral palsy (a group of conditions that affect movement and posture), dementia, and multiple sclerosis (MS-a disease that causes breakdown of the protective covering of nerves which can cause numbness, weakness, trouble walking, vision changes and other symptoms). The MDS indicated R2 had functional limitation of both upper extremities and was fully dependent of staff for all aspects of personal hygiene, including combing her hair, shaving, washing and drying face and hands. A review of R2's care plan, most recently revised on 6/3/24, indicated R2 had an ADL (activities of daily living-tasks of dressing, grooming, bathing, and mobility) self-care performance deficit r/t (related to) cerebral palsy. The care plan directed the staff to provide assist of one to complete personal hygiene. The care plan lacked description of what personal hygiene consisted of for R2. The care plan further identified R2 had a communication problem r/t aphasia (an impairment of person's ability to comprehend or formulate language because of damage to specific brain regions), slow speech, and no teeth. The care plan indicated R2 could be difficult to understand due to this. During observation and interview on 1/21/25, at 10:47 a.m. R2 was observed seated in her wheelchair in her room, watching television. R2's hair was observed to be neatly pulled back and she was neatly dressed. R2 was observed to have a patch of white whiskers under her chin which was approximately one inch in length, 1/4th inch in width, and 1/4th inch length of whiskers. R2 lacked dentures, and her speech pattern was difficult to understand due to difficulty with projection (ability to speak loudly/clearly) and when asked if she was bothered by her whiskers, R2 nodded her head yes. R2 stated staff offered to assist her with shaving her whiskers once in a while. R2 nodded her head yes when asked if she wanted to have her whiskers shaved by staff. On 1/23/25, at 12:32 p.m. R2 was observed in her room at this time as she was receiving assistance with her noon meal from nursing assistant (NA)-A. R2 was noted to have whiskers present, without shaving completed. NA-A stated she had provided R2 with assist to complete morning cares. NA-A stated personal grooming was completed by staff, and shaving was generally completed in the morning. NA-A stated she had not completed personal shaving, although acknowledged the whiskers were present and were long. R2 affirmed to NA-A she wished to have her whiskers shaved, and directed NA-A to the lower drawer in her dresser where her razor was stored. On 1/23/25, at 4:37 p.m. was observed to be up in her chair, watching television. R2 had her hair pulled up on top of her head. Her facial hair had been shaved and R2 appeared neat and well groomed. When asked if it felt good to have shaving completed, R2 responded yeah. On 1/23/25, at 4:54 p.m. clinical manager (CM)-A stated she was unaware R2 had facial whiskers present, and indicated this should have been addressed with routine morning/evening cares provided by nursing assistants. CM-A stated at times R2 has refused assistance from certain staff, however, stated if that occurred, she would expect staff to request the assistance of another staff member to complete the task. CM-A stated it was important to assist with removal of facial hair for the dignity of the resident. CM-A stated although some residents may not wish to have this completed, R2 would want to have facial hair removed. The facility policy, Dignity, dated February 2024, identified that each resident shall be cared for in a manner that promotes and enhances his/her sense of well-being, level of satisfaction with life, and feeling of self worth and self esteem. The policy indicated when assisted with care, residents are supported in exercising their rights, and are groomed as they wished to be groomed (hair styles, nails, facial hair, etc.).
CONCERN (D)

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

Assessment Accuracy (Tag F0641)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview and document review, the facility failed to ensure the completed quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) was accurat...

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 the completed quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) was accurately coded to reflect hospice services for 1 of 1 resident (R15) reviewed for MDS' accuracy. Findings include: The CMS Long-Term Care Facility Resident Assessment Instrument (RAI) 3.0 User's Manual, dated 10/2023, identified each section of the MDS along with various instructions how to code and/or complete them. The section labeled, Section O: Special Treatments, Procedures, and Programs, listed directions to record any special treatments or programs the resident received during the specified time period (i.e., assessment reference date; ARD). This included, . Hospice Care, and outlined, Code residents identified as being in a hospice program . where any array of services is provided for the palliation and management of terminal illness . R15's quarterly MDS dated [DATE], identified diagnoses included progressive neurological conditions, neurogenic bladder, dementia, Parkinson's disease, depression, and manic disorder. At the time of survey, MDS failed to identify R15 received hospice care in section O- Special Treatments and Programs. R15's census report, printed 1/24/25, identified R15 was admitted to hospice services on 3/22/24. During interview on 1/23/25 at 4:36 p.m., director of reimbursement and MDS coordinator verified they had reviewed R15's MDS (dated 12/25/24) and stated hospice care should have been coded adding, That was a coding error. During interview on 1/24/25 at 2:40 p.m. the director of nursing (DON) stated MDS assessment accuracy was important because it needs to reflect the resident care needs and should be always submitted accurately. During interview on 1/24/25 at 11:08 a.m., regional clinical director stated facility did not have a policy on MDS and that they follow chapter two of the RAI manual.
CONCERN (D)

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

Quality of Care (Tag F0684)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview and document review, the facility failed to ensure medications were administered per physician's order for 1 ...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview and document review, the facility failed to ensure medications were administered per physician's order for 1 of 1 resident (R21) reviewed for bowel management. Findings include: R21's quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated [DATE], identified R21 had intact cognition and required assistance with all activities of daily living (ADL)'s except upper body dressing, eating and oral hygiene. R21's diagnoses included neuromyelitis optica, hypertension, multi-drug-resistant organism (MDRO), paraplegia, malnutrition, cutaneous abscess of buttock and osteomyelitis. During review of R21's electronic medication record (EMR), R21 had an order for senna-docusate sodium oral tablet 8.6-50 mg (milligram) one tablet twice daily to prevent constipation, oxycodone 5 mg one tablet by mouth every four hours as needed for pain, and senna-docusate sodium oral tablet 8.6-50 mg one table by mouth as needed for constipation twice daily - take one or two tablets. R21's bowel record indicated R21's last bowel movement was on 1/16/25, indicating R21 had not had a bowel movement in six days. The facilities house standing orders indicated: Bowel: constipation (perform steps sequentially) 1. Consider rectal check to determine if impaction is present. 2. Encourage 2,000 ml (milliliter) daily fluid intake unless contraindicated. 3. Consult nutrition services for dietary recommendations. 4. Sennoside 8.6 mg, two tablets PO (my mouth) at HS (bedtime) prn x three days. If no bowel movement in three days - if not results, perform rectal check to determine if impaction is present - If no results within 24 hours, Bisacodyl suppository 10 mg PR (per rectum) daily PRN. 5. Administer MOM (milk of magnesia) 30 cc (cubic centimeters) (do not use magnesium-based products in patients with renal failure) PM day four if no results reattempt Sennoside 8.6 mg or Bisacodyl if no results after 24 hours and notify provider. 6. Monitor and record results from treatment. During review of R21's electronic health record (EHR), EHR lacked evidence of bowel management program being followed for R21. During interview on 1/21/25 at 1:22 p.m., R21 stated she was constipated due to the pain medication that she had been receiving. R21 stated she received scheduled Senna, but it was not working very well. R21 stated she had not had a bowel movement in several days. During interview on 1/22/25 at 2:37 p.m., registered nurse (RN)-B stated the night nurse runs a bowel movement report every night which indicated which residents did not have a bowel movement in a couple of days. RN-B stated if a resident is going on day three with no bowel movement, the facilities standing orders would be initiated which consisted of either as needed (PRN) Senna or MiraLAX. RN-B stated if a resident is going on day four with no bowel movement, the facilities standing orders would be initiated which consisted of PRN Dulcolax suppositories. RN-B stated R21 had scheduled senna and also had an order for one or two additional tablets PRN for constipation. RN-B confirmed R21's last bowel movement was on 1/16/24 at 7:43 p.m. RN-B stated R21 had not received any PRN medications since 1/16/24. During interview on 1/22/25 at 2:56 p.m., nurse manager (NM) stated if a resident did not have a bowel movement in three days, an PRN medication would be offered. NM stated if the resident did not have an order for a PRN medication the provider would be contacted. NM stated if resident had not had a bowel movement in several days, she would expect nursing to listen to bowel sounds and to perform a rectal check if resident would allow. NM reviewed R21's record and confirmed R21's last bowel movement was on 1/16/25 and last PRN medication was administered on 1/16/25. NM stated the night nurse reviews the bowel information and gives that information to the day nurse to administer medications. NM stated R21 should have been offered PRN Senna and other PRN medications per the standing orders as she is at a higher risk for constipation due to R21 receiving pain medication. NM stated it was important to monitor and administer PRN medications, so the resident does not get bloated, does not get a new diagnosis and especially for the resident's comfort. During interview on 1/24/25 at 2:35 p.m., director of nursing (DON) stated the aides chart resident's bowel movement in the point of care charting which relays that information to the nurses if it has been three days with no bowel movement. DON stated the nurse managers also oversees this. DON stated she would expect nursing to follow the protocol and offer PRN medications from the standing house orders which consisted of senna, MiraLAX, suppositories and/or edema. DON stated it was important so a resident does not get constipated and/or worse case scenario is they could end up with a small bowel obstruction. The facility Bowel Management policy, dated 11/24, indicated the facility will ensure that residents experience adequate bowel elimination. Bowel records will be reviewed by nursing. Residents will be monitored for lack of sufficient bowel movement. Upon identification of constipation, the nurse will conduct a GI assessment, implement PRN medication and/or implement house standing orders, and monitor for effectiveness.
CONCERN (E)

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

ADL Care (Tag F0677)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

Based on observation, interview, and document review, the facility failed to provide activities of daily living (ADL's-dressing, grooming, bathing, eating, and grooming) for 4 of 4 residents, ( R57, R...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, interview, and document review, the facility failed to provide activities of daily living (ADL's-dressing, grooming, bathing, eating, and grooming) for 4 of 4 residents, ( R57, R46, R16, R14) who were observed for assistance with eating. Findings include: R57: R57's significant change Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment of 12/15/24 identified that R57 was rarely/never understood and had severe cognitive impairment. R57's medical diagnoses included Alzheimer's Disease/Dementia, anxiety disorder, metabolic encephalopathy (change in how your brain works due to an underlying condition), seizure disorder (a sudden change in behavior, movement or consciousness due to abnormal electrical activity in the brain)/epilepsy (a group of non-communicable neurological disorders characterized by recurrent seizures), malnutrition (imbalance between the nutrients your body needs to function and the nutrients it gets), dehydration (a lack of total body water that disrupts metabolic processes ( set of life-sustaining chemical reactions in organisms), hyperosmolality ( a condition of high osmolarity in the body, often caused by increased sodium or glucose levels), hypernatremia (a high level of sodium in the blood), fatigue, dysphagia (difficulty swallowing), contracture of the muscle of the upper arm, and failure to thrive. The MDS identified R57 is noted to have impaired functional movement of both arms and was totally dependent on staff for assistance with eating. R57's care plan, revised on 12/27/24, indicated R57 was unable to communicate her needs. Additionally, the care plan indicated R57 had a communication problem r/t (related to) dementia and indicated R57 was nonverbal and was unable to communicate needs. The care plan directed staff to anticipate R57's needs. The care plan also indicated R57 had an ADL self-care performance deficit r/t impaired cognition from early onset Alzheimer's. The care plan directed staff to assist R57 to have clothing protector at meals, and directed staff to provide assistance with eating. R46 R46's significant change MDS assessment of 11/12/24, identified R46 had severely impaired cognition. The MDS indicated R46 had the following medical diagnoses: non-traumatic brain dysfunction (brain damage caused by factors other than external trauma), arthritis, Alzheimer's disease/Dementia, malnutrition, age related macular degeneration (a condition that affects the middle part of your vision, and weight loss. The MDS indicated there were no limitations in range of motion. The MDS identified R46 required partial/moderate assistance with eating-which is identified as the helper does less than half the effort. R46's care plan, revised on 12/3/24, indicated R46 had a deficit with ADL performance related to rheumatoid arthritis (a type of arthritis where your immune system attacks the tissue lining the joints on both sides of your body. It may affect other parts of the body.), memory loss and dementia. Staff were directed to provide physical assistance to eat. The care plan also indicated R46 had a potential for communication problem related to dementia, memory loss, and trouble word finding. Staff were directed to allow adequate time to respond, repeat as necessary, and not rush client. R16 R16's significant change MDS of 11/18/24 indicated moderate cognitive impairment. Her medical diagnoses included other neurological conditions, gastroesophageal reflux disease ( a condition in which stomach acid repeatedly flows back up into the tube connecting the mouth and stomach, called the esophagus), thyroid disorder (a problem when your thyroid is either too active, or not active enough, which affects your metabolism), dementia, Parkinson's disease (a movement disorder of the nervous system that worsens over time), malnutrition, metabolic encephalopathy, and a vitamin deficiency. R16 was noted to have bilateral (both sides) impairment in her upper extremities. The MDS indicated R16 required substantial/maximal assistance with eating, requiring assistance with more than half of the effort. R16's care plan, revised on 8/12/24, identified R16 had a deficit in ADL performance related to weakness and impaired mobility from Parkinson's disease and directed staff to provide assist of one with eating, while staff encouraged resident to do what she was able to with eating. The care plan identified R16 had a communication problem r/t Parkinson's, slow processing verbal information and response, anxiety/behaviors, jerking movements at times and shaking of extremities. The care plan directed staff to allow adequate time to respond, repeat information as necessary, and instructed staff not to rush R16 as she attempted to communicate her needs and wishes. R14 R14's quarterly MDS assessment of 11/12/24 indicated R14 had severe cognitive impairment. R14's medical diagnoses included: Alzheimer's Disease (neurological disorder which involves irreversible worsening changes in the ability to think and remember. It is the most common cause of dementia), dementia (the loss of the ability to reason, learn new skills, and plan and prioritize to the point which it interferes with a person's daily life and activities), malnutrition (imbalance between the nutrients your body needs to function and the nutrients it gets), chronic pain, dysphagia (difficulty with swallowing). MDS indicated there was no functional impairment with range of motion and required supervision or touching assistance, providing verbal cues or touch steadying assistance as resident completes activity. R14's care plan, revised 9/16/24, identified R14 had an ADL self-care performance deficit r/t multiple medical diagnoses which included osteoarthritis (a degenerative joint disease that can affect the many tissues of the joint), impaired cognition, glaucoma (an eye condition that damages the optic nerve which can lead to vision loss or blindness), The care plan directed staff R14 required assist of one staff members assistance staff to eat and was noted to eat slowly. The care plan identified R14 was able to communicate her needs and was able to hear with hearing aids. On 1/22/25, at 8:11 a.m. R57 and R57's tablemate's (R14, R16, and R46) were observed to have received their morning breakfast. R57 was served breakfast tray at this time. All residents (R57, R46, R14, and R16 were observed seated at the same table. There were no staff available at the table to assist with meals which were just served. Additionally, there were only two staff members observed in the dining room at the neighboring table assisting other residents. R16 was observed to pick up the sausage patty as a whole piece and took a bite. R16 then placed the sausage on the plate, and did not continue eating. While under constant observation, it was noted the staff had not arrived to provide any assistance to residents to eat. On 1/22/25, at 8:23 a.m. the residents continue to be seated in the dining room, with the food placed in front of them. There were no requests made by R57, R56, R14, and R16 for assistance with eating. The meals observed in front of the residents included cooked cereal, pureed eggs, pureed French toast sticks, solid French toast sticks, and one resident was served a solid sausage patty. On 1/22/25, at 8:27 a.m., 16 minutes after food was observed to be served, residents continued to sit at the table without assistance present. The food remained in front of the residents, uncovered. On 1/22/25, 8:28 a.m., it was observed room trays were set up for delivery, however, there were no additional staff available in the dining room to feed residents seated at the table. On 1/22/25, 8:31 a.m., registered nurses (RN)-C and RN-D arrived to aid residents R57, R56, R14, and R16 with their meals. This was 20 minutes after the initial service of the trays to these residents. RN's C & D proceeded to set up and begin to assist residents with meal without intervention due to length of time the food had been sitting out. A request was made by surveyor for trays to be temped due to the length of time food had been served, compared to the current time. The food was temped by the food production manager (FPM). Refer to citation 804 for further details. On 1/22/25, at 8:36 a.m. after fresh trays were served to the residents by FPM, RN's C and D proceeded to assist two residents. Upon interview after serving the fresh trays, FPM stated it was important to have staff able to assist residents prior to food being served as this was a quality concern and could impact the quality of life. FPM stated being served cold food starts off the day bad. FPM stated it was the expectation staff would be available to assist residents prior to the food being served. On 1/22/25, at 8:57 a.m. RN-C stated staff should be present to assist residents prior to service of the meals. RN-C stated residents should not be seated in front of their food without staff assistance. On 1/22/25, at 10:47 a.m. RN-D stated it is important to have staff available to aid with feeding residents prior to service of meal. RN-D stated if there was a delay with assistance of meal after it was dished, it would not be hot, and this would not be flavorful. If the staff were not here, the food should not have been served. On 1/22/25, at 12:04 p.m., Prep [NAME] (PC)-A stated the dietary staff are to serve the trays when the residents are seated at the table. PC-A stated she generally set up the residents who require assistance first. PC-A stated she served the residents requiring assistance, however, had not observed there were no staff available to assist the resident. On 1/22/25, at 1:55 p.m. the Certified Dietary Manager (CDM) stated it was her expectation that staff serve everyone at the table at the same time. If there were staff not available to assist the resident, the dietary staff should hold the plate until someone was able to assist them. On 1/22/25, at 3:18 p.m. the director of quality improvement (DQI), identified there were concerns with the residents sitting at the table, with food in front of them, where they can smell, and not be able to eat. DQI stated while the residents waited, and the food had been served, and was sitting uncovered, the food was getting cold. DQI stated it was necessary to determine a better prioritization of services provided at that time which delayed service of breakfast. On 1/22/25, at 3:24 p.m. clinical manager (CM)-A stated generally there were other staff members available to provide the residents assistance with the meal process. CM-A stated it did not go well this morning. CM-A expected dietary staff to wait until there were staff present before serving the meal. CM-A stated residents should not be served until staff are available to assist. On 1/24/25, at 4:00 p.m., the director of nursing (DON) stated she expected meals would not be placed in front of residents until there were staff available to provide assistance. A review of the facility policy, Assistance with Meals, dated February 2024, directed that facility staff will serve residents and will help residents who require assistance with eating. The policy further identified residents should receive the assistance with meals in a manner that meets the individual needs of each resident. The policy directed staff that residents who cannot feed themselves and need verbal cuing, or feeding assistance will be placed with staff for assistance, attention to safety, comfort, and dignity.
CONCERN (E)

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

Deficiency F0804 (Tag F0804)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

Based on observation, interview, and document review, the facility failed to ensure food was held at a steady temperature of greater than 140 degrees Fahrenheit for palatability, for 4 of 4 residents,...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, interview, and document review, the facility failed to ensure food was held at a steady temperature of greater than 140 degrees Fahrenheit for palatability, for 4 of 4 residents, ( R57, R46, R16, R14) observed during the dining process. Findings include: R57: R57's significant change Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment of 12/15/24 identified that R57 was rarely/never understood and had severe cognitive impairment. R57's medical diagnoses included Alzheimer's Disease/Dementia, anxiety disorder, metabolic encephalopathy (change in how your brain works due to an underlying condition), seizure disorder (a sudden change in behavior, movement or consciousness due to abnormal electrical activity in the brain)/epilepsy (a group of non-communicable neurological disorders characterized by recurrent seizures), malnutrition (imbalance between the nutrients your body needs to function and the nutrients it gets), dehydration (a lack of total body water that disrupts metabolic processes ( set of life-sustaining chemical reactions in organisms), hyperosmolality ( a condition of high osmolarity in the body, often caused by increased sodium or glucose levels), hypernatremia (a high level of sodium in the blood), fatigue, dysphagia (difficulty swallowing), contracture of the muscle of the upper arm, and failure to thrive. The MDS identified R57 is noted to have impaired functional movement of both arms and was totally dependent on staff for assistance with eating. R57's care plan, revised on 12/10/24, indicated R57 was unable to communicate her needs. R57's care plan directed staff to assist with eating. R57's care plan indicated R57 had potential nutritional problem r/t (related to) the diagnosis Alzheimer's, low BMI (Body Mass Index), and a Mini Nutritional Assessment (MNA) indicating malnutrition. R57 continued to meet GLIM (Global Leadership Initiative on Malnutrition Statement-a framework to guide malnutrition diagnosis) criteria for severe protein-calorie malnutrition r/t moderate fat loss and muscle loss, a BMI below 18.5, unintended weight loss, and low meal intakes. Staff were directed to provide/serve the diet as ordered and, provide and serve supplements as ordered. R46 R46's significant change MDS assessment of 11/12/24, identified R46 had severely impaired cognition. The MDS indicated R46 had the following medical diagnoses: non-traumatic brain dysfunction (brain damage caused by factors other than external trauma), arthritis, Alzheimer's disease/Dementia, malnutrition, age related macular degeneration (a condition that affects the middle part of your vision, and weight loss. The MDS indicated there were no limitations in range of motion. R46 was noted to require partial/moderate assistance-which is identified as the helper does less than half the effort. R46's care plan, revised on 12/3/24, indicated R46 had a deficit with ADL performance related to rheumatoid arthritis (a type of arthritis where your immune system attacks the tissue lining the joints on both sides of your body. It may affect other parts of the body.), memory loss and dementia. Staff were directed to provide with one assist to eat. The care plan also indicated R46 had a potential for communication problem related to dementia, memory loss, and trouble word finding. Staff were directed to allow adequate time to respond, repeat as necessary, and not rush client. R46's care plan directed staff to provide diet as ordered. Staff were directed to consult with dietitian to seek a change in diet/textures if there were chewing/swallowing problems identified. In addition, the care plan, revised on 11/11/24, indicated the resident had the potential for altered nutritional status related to variable intake, dementia, with the MNA (mini nutritional screening-a screening to help identify elderly people who are malnourished) indicating malnourished status. The care plan identified R46 continued to meet GLIM criteria (Global Leadership Initiative on Malnuutrition-a screening for malnutrition based on clnical findings and cause) for moderate protein calorie malnutrition related to BMI below 22 for age over 70 and muscle loss in dorsal hand and clavicle regions. The care plan indicated a supplement appeared necessary as evidenced by decreased appetite. The care plan directed the Registered Dietitian (RD) to evaluate and make change recommendations as needed. Staff were directed to provide and serve supplements as ordered. R16 R16's significant change MDS of 11/18/24 indicated moderate cognitive impairment. Her medical diagnoses included other neurological conditions, gastroesophageal reflux disease ( a condition in which stomach acid repeatedly flows back up into the tube connecting the mouth and stomach, called the esophagus), thyroid disorder (a problem when your thyroid is either too active, or not active enough, which affects your metabolism), dementia, Parkinson's disease (a movement disorder of the nervous system that worsens over time), malnutrition, metabolic encephalopathy, and a vitamin deficiency. R16 was noted to have bilateral (both sides) impairment in her upper extremities. The MDS indicated R16 required substantial/maximal assistance with eating, assistance with more than half of the effort. R16's care plan, revised on 8/12/24, identified R16 had a deficit in ADL performance related to weakness and impaired mobility from Parkinson's disease and directed staff to provide assist of one with eating, while staff encouraged resident to do what she was able to with eating. The care plan identified R16 had a communication problem r/t Parkinson's, slow processing verbal information and response, anxiety/behaviors, jerking movements at times and shaking of extremities. The care plan directed staff to allow adequate time to respond, repeat information as necessary, and instructed staff not to rush R16 as she attempted to communicate her needs and wishes. R16's care plan also identified the resident had GERD. The care plan went on to identify resident had potential nutritional problems r/t inadequate energy and protein intake r/t acute illness AEB (as evidenced by) significant weight loss, history of mechanically altered diet, and needed assist to eat. The care plan identified the MNA indicating malnourished status, although indicated R16 did not meet GLIM criteria for protein-calorie malnutrition. R14 R14's quarterly MDS assessment of 11/12/24 indicated R14 had severe cognitive impairment. R14s medical diagnoses included: Alzheimer's Disease (neurological disorder which involves irreversible worsening changes in the ability to think and remember. It is the most common cause of dementia), dementia (the loss of the ability to reason, learn new skills, and plan and prioritize to the point which it interferes with a person's daily life and activities), malnutrition (imbalance between the nutrients your body needs to function and the nutrients it gets), chronic pain, dysphagia (difficulty with swallowing). MDS indicated there was no functional impairment with range of motion and required supervision or touching assistance, providing verbal cues or touching steadying assistance as resident completes activity. R14's care plan, revised 9/16/24, identified R14 had an ADL self-care performance deficit r/t multiple medical diagnoses which included osteoarthritis (a degenerative joint disease that can affect the many tissues of the joint), impaired cognition, glaucoma (an eye condition that damages the optic nerve which can lead to vision loss or blindness), The care plan directed staff to R14 required assist of one staff members assistance staff to eat and was noted to eat slowly. The care plan identified R14 was able to communicate her needs and was able to hear with hearing aids. The care plan went on further to identify R14 had a potential nutritional problem d/t altered cognition/mood, diagnosis including CHF (congestive heart failure-potential for weight fluctuations), dysphagia with R14 need for assist/cueing needed at meals, Alzheimer's, advanced age. On 1/22/25, at 8:11 a.m. R57 and R57's tablemate's (R14, R16, and R46) were observed to have received their morning breakfast. R57 was served breakfast tray at this time. All residents (R57, R46, R14, and R16 were observed seated at the same table. At this time, there were no staff available at the table to assist with meals which were served. Additionally, there were only two staff members observed in the dining room at the neighboring table assisting other residents. R16 was observed to pick up the sausage patty as a whole piece and took a bite. R16 then placed the sausage on the plate, and did not continue eating. While under constant observation, it was noted the staff had not arrived to provide any assistance to residents to eat. On 1/22/25, at 8:23 a.m. the residents continue to be seated in the dining room, with the food placed in front of them. There were no requests made by R57, R56, R14, and R16 for assistance with eating. The meals observed in front of the residents included cooked cereal, pureed eggs, pureed French toast sticks, solid French toast sticks, and sausage patty. On 1/22/25, at 8:27 a.m., 16 minutes after food was observed to be served, residents continue to sit at the table without assistance present. The food remains placed in front of the residents, uncovered. On 1/22/25, 8:28 a.m., it was observed room trays were set up for delivery, however, there were no additional staff available in the dining room to assist residents seated at the table. On 1/22/25, 8:31 a.m., registered nurses (RN)-C and D arrived to aid residents with their meals. This was 20 minutes after the initial service of the trays. Once the staff were seated and prepared to begin meal service assistance, a request was made of food production manager, (FPM) , to perform a temperature check on the food items present at the table. The following temperatures were obtained at 8:33 a.m. (22 minutes after meals were observed to be served): Cooked cereal: 123 degrees Fahrenheit Pureed eggs: 103 degrees Fahrenheit Scrambled eggs: 100 degrees Fahrenheit French toast sticks (pureed): 107 degrees Fahrenheit Oatmeal: 112 degrees Fahrenheit Solid French Toast sticks: 76 degrees Fahrenheit Ground sausage: 96 degrees Fahrenheit Per FPM, the required temperature food is to be served at is 140 degrees Fahrenheit. The temperatures obtained, although not long enough to place a risk for food borne illness, would definitely affect the palatability of the food. The concern would be as to the quality of the food received. This would impact the quality of life. FPM went on to state cold food starts the day off bad. FPM stated it was the expectation that staff would be ready to assist residents before the food was served. On 1/22/25, at 8:36 a.m. after fresh trays were served to the residents by FPM, RNs C & D proceeded to provide assistance to residents. On 1/22/25, at 8:57 a.m. RN-C stated staff should be present to assist residents prior to service of the meals. RN-C stated if the food was sitting in front of the residents when the staff were not present to assist the food could be cold, and would need to be sent back to the kitchen. On 1/22/25, at 10:47 a.m. RN-D stated it is important to have staff available to aid with feeding residents prior to service of meal. RN-D stated if there is a delay in service of meal after it is dished, it is not hot, and this was not flavorful. If the staff were not here, the food should not have been served. On 1/22/25, at 12:04 p.m., Prep [NAME] (PC)-A stated the dietary staff are to serve the trays when the residents are seated at the table. PC-A stated she generally sets up the residents who require assistance first. PC-A stated she served the residents requiring assistance, however, had not observed there were no staff available to assist the resident. On 1/22/25, at 1:55 p.m. the Certified Dietary Manager (CDM) stated it was her expectation that staff serve everyone at the table at the same time. If there were staff not available to assist the resident, the dietary staff should hold the plate until someone was able to assist them. On 1/22/25, at 3:18 p.m. the director of quality improvement (DQI), identified there were concerns with the residents sitting at the table, with food in front of them in, where they can smell,and not be able to eat. DQI stated the while the residents waited, and the food had been served, and was sitting uncovered, the food was getting cold. DQI stated it was necessary to determine a better prioritization of services provided at that time which delayed service of breakfast. On 1/22/25, at 3:24 p.m. clinical manager (CM)-A stated it did not go well this morning. CM-A stated residents should not be served until staff are available to assist. CM-A stated the food sitting out may have been cold. CM-A stated it may not be that great. On 1/24/25, at 4:00 p.m., the director of nursing (DON) stated it was her expectation that meals would not be placed in front of residents until there were staff available to provide assistance. Additionally, it would be her expectation that the food served would be provided for assistance at the required temperature. A facility policy, Temperature and Time Requirements for Food, revised February 2024, identified: Guardian Angels Care Center utilizes the Minnesota Department of Health Food and Safety guidelines to ensure the proper and consistent monitoring, and temperature control of food. The document indicated Hot holding food was to be maintained at 135 degrees Fahrnheit or above.
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 consistently track and monitor dishwasher temperatures for both the wash and rinse cycles, and take timely action to correct...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, interview and document review, the facility failed to consistently track and monitor dishwasher temperatures for both the wash and rinse cycles, and take timely action to correct the temperatures, for 1 of 1 dishwashers observed. This had the potential to affect all 108 current residents, as well as staff, who ate food served from dishes and tableware that were cleaned in the dishwasher. Findings include: On 1/21/25, at 9:32 a.m., during a brief initial tour with the interim culinary director (CD)-A and the certified dietary manager (CDM) an observation was made of completion of the dishwashing process. At that time, the temperatures for the morning cycle temperature check had not been logged. Dietary aide (DA)-B stated the wash temp was 150 degrees Fahrenheit, and the rinse temp was one hundred and eighty five-ish. DA-B stated the temperatures were to be 160 for wash, and 180 for the rinse cycle. Although able to state the desired temperatures for the wash and rinse cycle, DA-B stated she was unaware the temperatures were to be up to the desired temperatures before starting the dishwashing process and was unaware there were further interventions indicated if the machines did not reach the desired temperatures. CDM, who was present during the observation and interview, stated it appeared that staff were unaware of the need to run two or more racks through to bring the temperatures up to the desired temperatures prior to starting the dishwashing cycle, and instructed DA-B on this process. CDM stated if the dishwashing machine was not up to the required temperature when checked, the dishwasher would have to be run until the temp was up to the desired temp. If the temperature still did not get to the desired temp, the facility would have to reach out to the company and request a service call. CD stated if this could not be corrected, the facility would use the three section sink for cleaning of pots and pans, and implement use of Styrofoam plates. On 1/22/25, at 1:52 p.m. during a follow up observation, DA-C was observed as they completed the dishwashing process. A review of the recorded temperatures indicated the temp check for the wash temperature was 175, while the rinse cycle was at 178 degrees Fahrenheit. DA-C stated they were unaware of the need to run the racks through until the temperature met the desired temperatures of 160 for the wash cycle and 180 for the rinse cycle. CD-A was present and provided instruction to DA-C. A review of the dishwasher temps was completed for the period of 12/12/24 to 1/21/25. The facility documentation lacked logged results for the period of 1/1/25 through 1/7/25 (42 opportunities for documentation were missed). A review of the wash temps were completed and noted the temp was less than 160 on the following dates: 12/12/24: AM: 148 12/13/24: AM: 150, Supper: 155 12/14/24: AM: 152, Supper: 151 12/15/24: Lunch: 150 12/17/24: AM: 150 12/18/24: AM: 152 12/19/24: Supper: 152 12/20/24: Lunch: 148, Supper: 149 12/21/24: AM: 150 12/23/24: AM: 148, Lunch: 151, Supper: 162 12/24/24: AM: 150, Lunch: 147 12/25/24: Lunch: 150 12/26/24: AM: 152, Lunch: 150, Supper: 153 12/27/24: AM:150, Supper: 159 12/29/24: AM: 150, Lunch:151 12/31/24: AM: 150, Supper: 153 1/9/26: Supper: 100 1/11/25: Supper: 100 1/12/25: Supper: 150 1/13/25: Supper: 140 1/14/25: Supper: 148 1/16/25: Supper:148 1/17/25: Supper:148 1/18/25: Supper: 148 1/19/25: Supper: 148 The wash temperature was below the desired range on 36 occassions during the period of 12/12/24 to 1/21/25. The facility also lacked documentation for wash temperature checks on 27 opportunities during this period. This total, including the missing documentation for 1/1/25-1/7/25, would be 48 incidents when wash temperatures were not recorded. A review of the rinse documentation was noted to be less than 180 on the following dates: 12/13/24: Supper: 160 12/18/24: Supper: 169 1/8/25: Supper: 170 1/9/25: Supper: 170 1/10/25: Supper:170 1/12/25: Supper: 160 1/16/25: Supper: 150 1/17/25: Supper: 150 1/18/25: Supper: 154 1/19/25: Supper: 152 The rinse temperature was below the desired range of 180 degrees Fahrenheit on 10 occasions during the period of 12/12/24 to 1/14/25. The facility also lacked documentation for rinse temperature checks on 28 opportunities during this period. This total, including the missing documentation for 1/1/25-1/7/25, was 49 occasions where rinse temperatures were not recorded. On 1/23/25, at 8:50 a.m. the service representative (SR) for the dishwasher was present for a service call. At this time, the wash and rinse temps were checked three times. SR stated the required temp for washing of dishes was 160 degrees. SR went on to state The final rinse temperature can be no lower than one hundred and eighty degrees. SR stated it was recommended to run the dishwashing racks through a couple of times to get the temperature up to the appropriate temperature. SR stated the water has to be that hot to kill the bacteria, and stated If not sanitized properly, technically you're not washing. SR stated the potential implication of not having the correct temperatures was if temperatures are not at the 180 degrees People can get sick. That's the whole point of sanitizing. On 1/23/25, at 9:04 a.m. a review of the current logs was completed with CDM. CDM stated it appeared staff were not aware to run the dishwasher racks through the machine two or more times to get up to temperature. CDM stated the purpose of monitoring temperatures was to ensure the dishwasher was operating correctly to ensure that the dishes were cleaned and sanitized. CDM went on to state: If the dishes were not sanitized, and if the dishes were not clean, there was a risk, potential risk, for illness. CDM stated currently in the facility, she was aware of the presence of Covid and influenza, however, was unaware of any residents with Norovirus. CDM stated there were residents with Norovirus prior to January of 2025. CDM stated she was unaware of the length of time Norovirus could remain on dishes if not cleaned properly. On 1/23/25, at 9:54 a.m., CD stated he was not aware of any residents who require special precautions at this time. CD stated dietary is notified by infection preventionist of any new illnesses and if they need to use paper products to eliminate cross contamination. On 1/23/25, at 2:43 p.m., an email, dated 12/27/24 at 8:39 a.m., sent by the CD, was provided by the IP and administrator. The email stated In the event of instances like Norovirus that we have/had in the TCU, we would be using disposable items for meals wherever applicable. The email went on to state The [sic] reduces the amount of contact with items amongst the teams. As this surveyor had been told earlier by the CDM and CD there were no current cases which required disposable items, this was clarified with IP and administrator. The IP stated there was one case of Norovirus in the facility. IP stated use of disposable products was implemented when Norovirus was suspected. IP went on to state there were four total rooms where disposable dishes were being used. IP stated this was implemented upon suspicion of Norovirus. IP went on to state she was in contact with the CDM and CD and they were aware of people using paper products. Although paper products were used for those four residents as outlined by IP, the paper products were delivered on plastic trays which were washed through the communal dishwasher. On 1/24/25, at 10:13 a.m., surveyor stopped at the receptionist desk for directions. At that time, surveyor observed a credit card scanner on the counter top, and asked it's function. The receptionist stated it was for employees to pay for their meals when they eat the facility food. A facility policy, Dishwasher Temperature, undated, indicated the purpose of monitoring the dishwasher temperature was to ensure that proper infection control, cleaning and sanitizing of all dishware is achieved while using the automatic dish machine. The policy statement identified: The automatic dish machine will reach the appropriate temperature prior to washing and sanitizing to meet the guidelines. The procedure outlined prior to washing the dishes, the dish machine will be turned on and run through the cycles to identify wash and rinse temperatures. The procedure identified the wash cycle will reach and minimum temperature of 160 degrees and rinse cycle will reach and maintain a minimum temperature of 180 degrees. The procedure identified the dish machine will be monitored at each meal period to ensure proper wash and rinse temperatures are reached. If the temperature was below the specified temperatures for the wash and rinse cycle, the Engineering department will be notified immediately. The procedure went on to state dishes will not be washed until the dish machine reaches the appropriate temperature. The procedure further goes on to identify If needed, disposable dishes will be used until the proper repairs can be made, and the three-compartment sink method will be used for pots and pans. The policy lacked direction to staff to run multiple racks prior to starting the process to bring the cycles up to the desired rinse cycles prior to starting the dishwashing process. Additionally, the policy lacked instruction to the staff to record the temperatures obtained on the dishwasher temperature logs upon obtaining the temperatures. The manufacturer manual from American Dish Service for Model ADC-44 High Temp Conveyor Dishmachines [sic], last revised 4/28/21, was received from the facility. The manual indicated the requirement at the dishmachine is 180 F (degrees Fahrenheit). The manual identified for high temp sanitizing, the measurement is taken at the manifold for a minimum of 180 F, not in or at the sprays. The manual indicated the temperature for hot water sanitizing in the wash cycle should be 160 F and 180 F for the rinse cycle for the hot water sanitizing.
Sept 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

Deficiency F0558 (Tag F0558)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview, and document review, the facility failed to ensure the call light was accessible for 1 of 4 res...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview, and document review, the facility failed to ensure the call light was accessible for 1 of 4 residents (R4) reviewed for accommodation of needs. Findings include: R4's quarterly Minimal Data Set (MDS) dated [DATE], had diagnoses of anxiety, depression, and was cognitively intact. R4 was noted to have lower extremity impairment on both sides. R4's care plan dated 8/10/23, indicated R4 had a mobility deficit due to adult failure to thrive, was non-ambulatory, and was dependent on staff for wheelchair mobility. On 9/11/24 at 4:11 p.m., upon entering R4's room, R4 stated I don't have my call light. R4 was observed sitting in her standard wheelchair next to her bed, facing the window and her back was to the door. R4's call light was observed on the bottom right-hand corner of her bed next to the wall. R4's bedside table was to the right of her in between her and the bed. R4 stated she was unable to self-propel in her wheelchair and depended on staff to assist with mobility. R4 stated this happens all the time, I would have to wait until staff comes into the room again. On 9/11/24 at 4:21 p.m., nursing assistant (NA)-A knocked and entered R4's room and R4 requested to be assisted out into the commons area by the nurses' station. NA-A confirmed R4 did not have access to her call light and was unable to reach it. NA-A stated she was unsure why the call light was out of reach and which staff assisted R4. On 9/12/24 at 9:33 a.m., licensed practical nurse (LPN)-A stated R4 required total assistance from staff with mobility in her wheelchair. Further, LPN-A stated R4 was alert and able to make needs known by using her call light. On 9/12/24 at 12:12 p.m., NA-B stated R4 was completely dependent on staff for all activities of daily livings and was unable to self-propel herself in her wheelchair. Further, NA-B stated R4 would utilize her call light if she needed anything. On 9/12/24 at 1:46 p.m., registered nurse (RN)-A stated R4 was dependent on staff for mobility and would utilize her call light for any needs. RN-A stated if R4 did not have her call light, R4 would ask her roommate to call for assistance. On 9/12/24 at 2:19 p.m., director of nursing stated staff were expected to ensure each resident had access to their call light before exiting the room. Review of facility policy titled Call Light Policy dated 09/23, staff were directed to position the call light conveniently for the resident to use and tell the resident where the call light was.
Jul 2024 1 deficiency 1 IJ
CRITICAL (J) 📢 Someone Reported This

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

Immediate Jeopardy (IJ) - the most serious Medicare violation

Deficiency F0806 (Tag F0806)

Someone could have died · This affected 1 resident

Based on interview and document review, the facility failed to ensure residents with food allergies received the appropriate meal tray for 1 of 3 residents (R1) reviewed for food allergies. This resul...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on interview and document review, the facility failed to ensure residents with food allergies received the appropriate meal tray for 1 of 3 residents (R1) reviewed for food allergies. This resulted in an Immediate Jeopardy (IJ) when R1 ingested an allergen, and was hospitalized in an intensive care unit (ICU). The provider had already implemented corrective action prior to the investigation, so the deficiency is issued as past non-compliance. The IJ began on 7/10/24, at 5:04 p.m., when R1 was served and consumed food she was known to be allergic to. The administrator and director of nursing (DON) were informed of the IJ on 7/17/24 at 4:05 p.m. The facility implemented corrective action on 7/11/24, prior to the start of the survey and was therefore Past Non-compliance. Findings include: R1's Face Sheet indicated she was admitted to the facility at 2:00 p.m. on 7/10/24. R1's care plan dated 7/10/24 indicated she had an allergy to shellfish. R1's meal tray ticket dated 7/10/24 indicated she had an allergy to shellfish. On 7/10/24, at 5:04 p.m., R1 was served a dinner tray by nursing assistant (NA)-A which included shrimp pasta salad. On 7/10/24, a progress note indicated at approximately 6:20 p.m., after eating the shrimp pasta salad, R1 began feeling diaphoretic and nauseous. R1 reported stomach pain and was unable to take a deep breath. Licensed practical nurse (LPN)-A determined R1 had consumed shrimp pasta for dinner. LPN-A administered epinephrine (medication used to treat serious allergic reactions), administered oxygen, and called 911. On 7/16/24, at 12:31 p.m., R1 was interviewed and stated she arrived at the facility earlier on 7/10/24. Her supper tray was delivered to her on 7/10/24 with her name on it. It was a cold pasta salad, which she thought had chicken in it. After she finished eating her supper, she began feeling very hot. She rang her call light, and the aide came in. The aide called for the nurse, who quickly realized R1 had consumed shrimp and had a shellfish allergy. The nurse administered her epinephrine shot, and called 911 right away. The ambulance arrived quickly and she was transported to the hospital where she spent a few days in the ICU. 07/16/24, at 2:05 p.m., dietary aide (DA)-A stated she plated R1's food in the kitchen, and she did not put the pasta salad on her tray. The cook pointed out R1's allergy, and directed her to give R1 a sandwich, not the pasta. On 7/16/24, at 2:51 p.m., nursing assistant (NA)-stated she served R1 her tray, which included shrimp pasta. She looked at the meal ticket, and it did not indicate R1 had any allergies. Later, she went to check on R1 and found her to be sweating profusely. R1 told her she didn't feel well and felt like she might throw up. She got LPN-A to come assess R1 at that time. On 7/16/24, at 3:22 p.m., the director of dining (DOD) stated DA-A prepared the trays for R1's unit on 7/10/24 for supper. He directed DA-A to provide R1 with a sandwich due to her shell fish allergy. All trays are provided with a meal ticket, and R1's meal ticket on 7/1024 indicated her shellfish allergy. On 7/16/24, at 3:48 p.m., registered nurse (RN)-A stated he conducted interviews with the nursing staff immediately following the medical emergency due to R1 ingesting the shrimp pasta on 7/10/24. He spoke with NA-A who stated she delivered the supper tray, but did not remember seeing a meal ticket on the tray. LPN-A provided R1 with appropriate medical interventions. RN-A stated immediate education was provided to all staff working at that time. On 7/16/24, at 4:08 p.m., RN-B stated he was notified of the event immediately after it happened. He notified the physician, the medical director, the director of nursing (DON), the administrator, the state agency (SA), and family. The facility began auditing process of trays, and education for nursing and dietary department on 7/11/24. On 7/17/24, at 7:52 a.m., the administrator stated the facility finished their investigation and were unable to determine what happened. It was inconclusive. Dietary staff said they prepped the tray correctly. NA-A stated she didn't remember if there was a meal ticket on the tray or not. On 7/17/24, at 10:42 a.m., LPN-A stated NA-A informed her R1 was dripping with sweat and didn't feel well around 6:20 p.m. R1's color did not look good. LPN-A stated she had received R1's medications from the pharmacy approximately 15 minutes earlier. She recalled an epinephrine pen indicated for a shell fish allergy. That's when she asked if R1 ate the shrimp pasta salad for supper. She administered the resident's albuterol inhaler, epinephrine, and applied oxygen, while another nurse called 911. R1 was sent to the hospital via ambulance. On 7/17/24, at 10:58 a.m., the DON stated the internal investigation was inconclusive. The facility had been auditing of meal trays and education has been in process since 7/11/24. EpiPens were available in the emergency kits, and the nurses were knowledgeable on how and when to use them. A facility document Dinner Menu dated 7/10/24, indicated main dinner meal was shrimp pasta salad on lettuce leaf, cucumber slices, dinner roll, diced peaches. The alternative dinner for 7/10/24 was BBQ pulled pork sandwich, coleslaw, chef salad. A facility document Resident/Patient Safety Policy dated 7/16/24, directed all disciplines participate in risk reduction. Including: 1. Dietary a. Serving correct diet and texture, including fluid consistency The facility implemented corrective action to prevent recurrence by 7/11/24, when the facility implemented a systemic plan that included the following actions: On 7/11/24 immediate education was done for nursing and dietary staff on tray tickets, food allergies, and double-checking the correct meal/diet to the resident. On 7/11/24 meal tray audits were implemented for all four care units to be conducted by nursing for each meal time. This audit consisted of ensuring the right resident received the right meal, consistent with the consistency and meal type ordered by their physician, allergens, and likes and dislikes were honored. The audits did not result in further discrepancies. This was verified through observation, interview and document review.
May 2024 1 deficiency 1 IJ
CRITICAL (J) 📢 Someone Reported This

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

Immediate Jeopardy (IJ) - the most serious Medicare violation

Accident Prevention (Tag F0689)

Someone could have died · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview and document review, the facility failed to provide care planned supervision to prevent falls fo...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview and document review, the facility failed to provide care planned supervision to prevent falls for 1 of 3 residents (R1) reviewed for accidents. This resulted in an immediate jeopardy (IJ) situation for R1 when she sustained a right femur (leg) fracture during a fall that required surgical intervention while attempting to self-transfer unsupervised in the bathroom. The immediate jeopardy began on 5/6/24, when nurse aid (NA) assisted R1 to the bathroom, left her on the toilet, and exited the bathroom. While R1 was in the bathroom alone, she stood up and fell to her right side which resulted in a two-inch laceration to left forearm, two skin tears, two centimeters (cm), on right knee, and two skin tears above right knee. R1 rated right hip/leg pain at 8/10 (0-to-10 Pain Scale, this scale uses numbers from 0 to 10. A score of 0 means no pain, while 10 represents the worst pain a person has ever experienced) and unable to move right leg. R1 was transferred to the hospital and was diagnosed with an intertrochanteric (area located between the hip joint and the upper portion of the femur) fracture which required surgical intervention. The director of nursing (DON) and administrator were notified of the IJ on 5/15/24, at 6:40 p.m. The IJ was removed on 5/16/24, at 3:45 p.m. following verification of an acceptable removal plan however, noncompliance remained at the lower scope and severity level D, which indicated no actual harm with potential for more than minimal harm that is not immediate jeopardy. Findings include: R1's admission Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated [DATE], identified intact cognition and no behaviors. R1 required substantial to maximal assistance for toileting hygiene and was dependent on staff to safely stand from a sitting position, and all transfers. R1 was frequently incontinent of bowel and bladder. R1's medical diagnoses included hypertension (HTN), atrial fibrillation (AFIB) (abnormal rapid heart rhythm), fracture with multiple trauma, renal failure, obstructive uropathy (flow of urine is blocked), arthritis, depression, past history of falls, and recent surgery for fracture repair. R1 received diuretics (increases urine output), anticoagulant (thins the blood), and insulin. R1's Care Area Assessment (CAA) dated 4/27/24, identified R1 had hearing and vision impairment, confusion, disorientation, forgetfulness, complications of immobility such as contractures and incontinence. R1 had functional limitation in range of motion, increased risk for falls, shortness of breath upon exertion, and history of pain. R1's St. Louis University Mental Status (SLUMS) (detects mild cognition impairment and dementia) dated 4/23/24, identified a score of 19/30 and indicated dementia. R1's Fall Risk assessment dated [DATE], identified a fall with fracture occurred within six months prior to admission, weakness, gait impairment, and impairment of one side of lower extremity. R1's Fall Risk assessment dated [DATE], identified lack of safety and awareness due to new environment, impairment of both lower sides of extremities, wore a walking boot, weakness, and gait impairment. R1 had pre-admission fall which resulted in left foot fracture and recent fall at the facility which resulted in right hip fracture. R1 required manual stand assist (MSA) with assist of one per therapy. Staff were not to leave R1 alone unattended in bathroom. R1's care plan last updated 4/24/24, identified R1 had mobility and activities of daily living deficits due to previous left lower leg fracture, did not walk, required assist of one to stand, and transferred with walking boot on. Staff were directed to anticipate needs. R1 had a history of repeated falls. Staff were instructed to not leave R1 alone in the bathroom, fall risk. Review of R1's care plan dated 4/24/24, lacked evidence R1 preferred female care givers or was modest in the bathroom. R1's [NAME] undated, identified transfer with assist of one, manual stand with walking boot. Need To Know section included: DO NOT LEAVE ALONE in Bathroom, Fall Risk!!! Resident does not walk. R1's progress note dated 5/6/2024, at 11:55 p.m. identified at 10:00 p.m. nursing assistant (NA) reported to nurse R1 had fallen on right side while she was being assisted in bathroom. R1 reported she stood up off toilet by herself and then suddenly she was on her right side. R1 sustained a two-inch laceration to left forearm actively bleeding, two skin tears two centimeters (cm) circular shape on right knee, and two circular shape skin tears above right knee. R1 rated right hip/leg pain at 8/10 and was unable to move right leg. No bruising or bleeding noted. On call triage provider notified with new orders to be sent to emergency department. R1 was hesitant to go, refused at first, but then decided was best to be seen right away. Emergency medical system (EMS) transferred R1 at approximately 11:00 p.m. to local hospital. R1's x-ray of pelvis dated 5/7/24, identified intertrochanteric (hip) fracture. R1's hospital discharge date d 5/11/24, identified principal diagnosis closed intertrochanteric (IT) fracture of the right femur with routine healing. R1 had a recent ankle fracture on 4/2/24. Per report, R1 had a witnessed fall at her nursing home facility while transferring to the toilet. R1 was on Coumadin, imagining revealed a right IT fracture, right psoas (deep within the body near the pelvis and spine) muscle and iliacus (triangle shaped muscle located in pelvic bone) muscle hematoma (an abnormal pooling of blood under the skin that resulted from broken or ruptured blood vessels). T6 and T7 and sacral fractures. R1 demonstrated profound anemia, hgb 5.2. at admission due to trauma and received three units of blood (packed red blood cells) transfusions. R1 had a right hip intramedullary (IM) (a rod placed into the hollow center of the femur/bone) surgical procedure on 5/8/24. R1's facility incident/fall risk management report dated 5/6/24, identified R1 had been assisted to the bathroom and then fell in bathroom onto her right side. R1 sustained a right trochanter fracture, laceration of left forearm and right forearm, and skin tear of right knee. R1's hemoglobin (measures amount of oxygen carried in the red blood cells to the body's organs) 5.2 grams per deciliter (gm/dl) (normal range for woman 11.6 to 15 gm/dl) was extremely low. Contributing factor identified as NA having left R1 unattended in the bathroom, impulsivity, and history of repeated falls. Review of State Agency report dated 5/7/24, indicated on 5/6/24, at approximately 11:00 p.m. NA-A reported to licensed practical nurse (LPN)-A that R1, while being assisted in bathroom, stood up off the toilet by herself and then suddenly was on her right side. R1 had right hip/leg pain of 8/10 and unable to move leg. R1 was transferred to local hospital via EMS. Per R1's care plan and [NAME] was not to be left unattended in the bathroom. Upon initial incident interview, LPN-A's perspective was R1 was not left unattended in the bathroom. On 5/7/24, at 5:00 p.m. NA-A was interviewed again by director of nursing (DON) and indicated R1 asked him to step out of the bathroom because she felt embarrassed. NA-A stepped outside the door, did not see what happened, and heard R1 fall, and quickly entered the bathroom. NA-A presumed she stood up by the sink to brush her teeth and then fell. NA-A failed to follow R1's care plan and was suspended from work until investigation was completed. NA-A stated he understood R1 was care planned to have staff stay in the bathroom with R1 as a fall intervention and it was listed on the [NAME]. Review of facility investigation five-day report dated 5/13/24, identified R1's care plan was correct, up to date, and indicated staff were instructed to not leave R1 unattended in bathroom alone. NA-A admitted he left the bathroom, felt R1 was embarrassed, did not supervise through the open door. Later when NA-A was interviewed, he corrected his story indicating he brought R1 to bathroom, was asked to step out by the resident, he exited bathroom, closed door, stood outside of door and heard R1 fall onto the floor. NA-A confirmed during interview he was aware R1 was not to be left alone in bathroom. Report identified facility wide nursing education would be given. Review of a handwritten document provided by nurse manager (RN)-A on 5/15/24, identified nine staff had documented they worked directly with R1 under the cares section in PCC from 5/11/24, through 5/14/24. -5/11/24 NA-F -5/12/24 NA-G, NA-H, NA-I -5/13/24 NA-J, NA-K, NA-L -5/14/24 NA-E and NA-M Review of facility On the Spot Education on 5/15/24, revealed seven out of nine staff provided direct care for R1 and had not received the required re-education related to supervision after R1 had fallen in bathroom and fractured her right hip on 5/6/24, and prior to her return to facility on 5/11/24. During an interview on 5/14/24, at 9:00 a.m., R1 stated she fell at home, had surgery to repair left lower leg and shattered parts of left foot, adding, a walking boot was worn to protect the foot. R1 stated she had a fall at the facility in the bathroom not too long ago. R1 indicated she required assistance in the bathroom and was aware she was not to be left in there alone. R1 also stated she had fallen many times in bathroom prior to admission to nursing home and felt comfortable having a male in there with her. R1 indicated she did not ask NA-A to leave the bathroom the night that she fell, and she was unsure if the door was closed or open. R1 stated she informed NA-A she planned on using the toilet since she was already in the bathroom. R1 verified she stood up from toilet, in front of her wheelchair, pivoted to sit down, and then fell to the floor. R1 shared that the feeling was awful to be in the bathroom alone after the fall but once NA-A found her, he hollered for help. R1 indicated when her right leg was moved, she yelled out a lot and they took her to the hospital. During an observation on 5/14/24, at 11:05 a.m. R1 sat in wheelchair in her room. NA-D and NA-E entered R1's room and assisted her to the bathroom using the mechanical stand lift machine. NA-D and NA-E were observed to lower R1 onto the toilet and then proceeded to exit the bathroom and closed the door. NA-D and NA-E stood in the bedroom and conversed with R1's daughter for approximately seven minutes. After approximately four minutes NA-E asked R1 while door was still closed if she needed help. R1 responded no. Seven minutes had passed and then NA-E and NA-D opened the door and R1 remained sitting on toilet. Once R1 was finished using the bathroom, NA-D and NA-E assisted R1 back to her bedroom using the mechanical stand lift. During observation facility staff failed to follow care planned intervention to stay in the bathroom with R1 for safety. During interview on 5/14/24, at 2:00 p.m. NA-E stated R1's short term memory was not the best. NA-E stated R1 needed assistance of at least one in bathroom to get on and off toilet. NA-E stated prior to working with residents today she had reviewed [NAME] but was unaware R1 was not to be left alone in the bathroom. NA-E stated she did not stay with R1 in the bathroom earlier today when she was in the bathroom, closed the door, and waited in the bedroom. NA-E stated had seen R1 become impulsive, get up on her own when with her. NA-E indicated would have been important to remain in the bathroom for safety to avoid falls. NA-E stated had not received education since her fall or prior to assisting her to the bathroom today. Follow up interview on 5/14/24, at 2:40 p.m. NA-E stated later today she was approached by management and read a training document, and signed to acknowledge she received the education regarding R1 who should not be left alone in bathroom. During an interview on 5/14/24, at 2:43 p.m. NA-D stated R1 required assist of one to two and a manual stand lift to transfer, depending on her strength that day. NA-D verified she had looked at R1's [NAME] and transfer sheet prior to the start of the shift. NA-D stated R1 could be in the bathroom alone, with door closed but was not sure and wished the [NAME] was posted in the room so that staff would know for sure. NA-D indicated she felt uncomfortable when they left R1 in the bathroom alone earlier, was not aware at that time she was not to be left alone and probably should have opened the bathroom door but chose not to and relied on the other NA. NA-D verified she had received and signed a document of On the Spot Training today, but was not sure if it was before or after R1 was transferred to and from the bathroom. During an interview on 5/14/24, at 3:39 p.m. nurse manager (RN)-A stated nursing staff were expected to help and answer resident call lights in other rooms besides those assigned to them. RN-A stated prior to each shift worked, staff were expected to read and review the resident [NAME] to verify their care and how they transferred, because changes occurred frequently on the transitional care unit (TCU). RN-A stated the [NAME] was considered the road map on how to care for residents and was important to know to ensure accommodation of needs and safety. During a follow up interview on 5/15/24, at 12:06 p.m. RN-A stated R1 was impulsive and a high risk for falls. RN-A verified R1 never indicated she was uncomfortable with male caregivers and, if that were the case, NA-A could have called another staff on the walkie to assist R1. RN-A indicated NA-A left R1 alone in the bathroom, she fell, and sustained a fractured right hip. RN-A verified all staff were expected to work together to verify the education was received, no date was determined to assure all staff were educated on this incident, expectation would have been prior to their next shift worked. RN-A stated it had been more than a week, a questionnaire regarding this incident was placed on a clip board at the nurse's station and staff filled them, placed them face down, and were collected periodically. RN-A verified NA-D and NA-E were educated early this morning, unsure as to what time. During an interview on 5/15/24, at 8:30 a.m. family member (FM) stated R1 was ok with having all (including male) staff in the bathroom with her because she was afraid of falling. FM also stated R1 had fallen many times and required assistance while in the bathroom. FM indicated R1 most likely would not ask staff to step out of bathroom. FM verified without a doubt R1 was very determined to go home and knew she would try to get up by herself once she could bear weight. During an interview on 5/15/24, at 8:45 a.m. physical therapist (PT) stated R1 had some cognitive deficits especially with memory. PT stated R1 was reassessed on 5/13/24, after she returned from hospital and was manual assist of one but required max assistance of two, unable to pivot. PT recommended the manual stand with one be used to assist R1. PT stated staff were expected to stay in the bathroom with R1 since she had fallen once. PT indicated R1 was not cognitively intact had already demonstrated that self-transferring leads to a fall, and now required one to two staff and the manual stand lift, to stand up. During an interview on 5/15/24, at 9:17 a.m. occupational therapist (OT) stated R1 was forgetful, distractible, impaired cognition with poor decision making and does not always stop to think about what the consequences are, and therefore was a high risk for falls. OT stated R1 required assistance with peri cares and dressing. OT stated R1 required assistance of two but always a possibility to get up by herself out of the chair especially if she had to go to the bathroom. OT stated since R1 had fallen in bathroom the expectation for staff would be stay with her in the bathroom to help minimize fall risk. OT verified R1 required transfers with the manual stand lift and assistance of one, difficult to stand up by self without assistance, but would be possible. During an interview on 5/15/24, at 10:36 a.m. director of nursing (DON) stated R1 was a high risk for falls, had at least three falls at home, admitted to nursing home with a lower leg/ankle fracture and walking boot. DON stated R1 used a wheelchair and wanted to be more independent. DON verified staff were expected to review each resident's transfers on transfer sheet, care plan, and [NAME] prior to assisting them. DON also verified R1 had decreased mobility and had an intervention to not leave alone in bathroom. DON stated NA-A admitted he was aware of this intervention, R1 felt embarrassed to have him in the bathroom with her. DON stated had been identified R1 has had many falls, a fall risk, and the bathroom had hard surfaces, tile, toilet, and sink that are all very hard to fall onto and should have not been left alone in the bathroom. DON stated daily reminders were given to staff to ensure care plan interventions were being implemented and staff were expected to follow the plan of care for each resident. DON stated the floor nursing managers were responsible for education and the education for this incident needed more attention. DON indicated house wide education should have been done and was not completed in entirety and was resumed yesterday 5/14/24. DON stated all nursing staff should have received the education prior to the next day worked. During a telephone interview on 5/16/24, at 11:20 a.m. NA-A stated on 5/6/24, he answered R1's call light, she requested assistance to get ready for bed. NA-A verified he handed her a gown (night clothes) while she was in the bathroom, and asked him to step out while she changed clothes. NA-A exited the bathroom, left the door ajar (cracked open), and waited in the bedroom. NA-A indicated R1 did not want him to see her body, he encouraged independence, and once she was ready planned on assisting to bed. NA-A also stated R1 was not on the toilet rather positioned in the wheelchair in front of the bathroom sink for approximately three minutes and then shouted out for help. NA-A stated it happened all so quickly, R1 sat on the floor next to the wheelchair faced the sink and held onto the wheelchair arm with her one hand. NA-A indicated R1 had bruises on her knee and hand and notified the staff nurse right away. NA-A stated he had taken R1 to the bathroom many times such as three to four times a shift prior to this incident, cracked the door so he could hear her, and left her alone in the bathroom to provide privacy. NA-A verified was aware of R1's care plan and intervention do not leave alone in bathroom. NA-A stated R1 had tried to self-transfer in the past but privacy was important. NA-A indicated if he had been in the bathroom with her, tried to stand up he could have intervened, offered to help, and possibly prevented a fall. Facility policy titled Fall Management Protocol dated April 2024, identified all residents who were assessed as being at high risk for falls will be identified and individualized fall precautions will be developed for that resident. Preventive measures shall have been taken to decrease the number of falls whenever possible. Potential and actual risks for falls will be placed on the resident care plan along with identified individualized interventions. Facility policy titled Care Plans - Comprehensive/Baseline/discharge date d 9/2023, identified care plans shall incorporate goals and objectives that lead to the resident's highest obtainable level of independence. Facility policy titled Care Plan/[NAME] Development/Use, dated 5/16/24, identified a plan of care will be developed and individualized based on comprehensive and subsequent assessments performed for each resident aimed at directing resident care/needs by all members of the interdisciplinary team. The [NAME] is developed directly as a subset of the resident plan of care including specific information for the NA providing direct care to the resident. The [NAME] will be reviewed daily by nursing staff prior to providing care for the resident. The IJ which began on 5/6/24, was removed on 5/16/24, when the facility successfully implemented a removal plan which included: All nursing staff on duty will be trained on the current [NAME]/Care Plan and interventions for R1 by 12:00 p.m. on 5/16/2024. All nursing staff not on duty will be trained at the start of their next shift, prior to beginning duties on unit. All nursing staff on duty on 5/16/2024 will be trained by 12:00 p.m. on the procedures for [NAME]/care plans with emphasis placed on the need to regularly and comprehensively review these documents to ensure that appropriate care is provided. Nursing staff not on duty will be trained on the same at the start of their next shift, prior to beginning duties on the unit. The policy and procedure for resident care plans has been reviewed/revised. On 5/16/24, between 9:30 a.m. and 3:30 p.m. interviews with DON, nursing staff and management verified training procedure for [NAME]/care plans and need to regularly review those documents to ensure appropriate care was provided to help prevent falls. The facility had a plan in place and check off system to assure all staff would be educated prior to working their next shift.
Apr 2024 4 deficiencies 1 IJ
CRITICAL (J)

Immediate Jeopardy (IJ) - the most serious Medicare violation

Deficiency F0578 (Tag F0578)

Someone could have died · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview and document review, the facility failed to ensure advanced directives were accurately documented on the resi...

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 advanced directives were accurately documented on the resident's electronic health record (EHR) banner, physician orders and Physician's Orders for Life Saving Treatment (POLST) which affected 2 of 32 residents (R24 and R79) reviewed for advance directives. This resulted in an immediate jeopardy (IJ) for R24 who would have been denied cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) contrary to their wishes, in the absence of a pulse or respirations and for R79 who would have received CPR contrary to their wishes in the absence of a pulse or respirations. The administrator was notified of the IJ on [DATE] at 2:33 p.m. The IJ was removed on [DATE] at 8:00 p.m., when the facility implemented their removal plan, but non-compliance remained at the lower scope and severity level of D, isolated with no actual harm but potential to cause more than minimal harm. Findings include: R24's quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated [DATE], identified severe cognitive impairment with diagnoses of dementia and stroke. R24's EHR banner reviewed on [DATE] at 7:20 p.m., identified R24 was full code. R24's Order Summary report dated [DATE], indicated full code status. R24's most current Physician's Orders For Life Sustaining Treatment (POLST) located in the scanned EHR, signed by R24's family member (FM)-A and medical doctor (MD)-A on [DATE] identified R24's wishes were do not resuscitate (DNR). R79's quarterly MDS dated [DATE], identified severe cognitive impairment and a diagnosis of Alzheimer's Disease. R79's EHR banner reviewed on [DATE] at 7:38 p.m., identified R79 was DNR. R79's most current POLST located in the scanned EHR, signed by R79's family member (FM)-B and certified nurse practitioner (CNP)-A on [DATE] identified R79's wishes were DNR. R79's Order Summary report dated [DATE], indicated DNR status. R79's POLST located in hard chart dated [DATE], indicated full code status. On [DATE] at 8:22 a.m., FM-B stated R79's wishes were to be DNR and should not have cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR). On [DATE] at 7:14 p.m., licensed practical nurse (LPN)-A stated he would check the hard chart for the POLST and/or code status on the banner in EHR, whichever was fastest or closest and would instruct staff on how they could assist. In this case, if the banner in EHR was closer, R24 would have received CPR and R79 would not have received CPR. If the hard chart was closer, R24 would not have received CPR and R79 would have received CPR. On [DATE] at 7:18 p.m., RN-B stated she would check the hard chart for the POLST and/or code status on the banner in the EHR, whichever was fastest or closest. In this case, if the banner in EHR was closer, R24 would have received CPR and R79 would not have received CPR. If the hard chart was closer, R24 would not have received CPR and R79 would have received CPR. On [DATE] at 7:37 p.m., RN-E stated she would first look at the banner in the EHR for the code status, but it was also located in the hard chart. According to the banner in EHR, R24 would have received CPR and R79 would not have received CPR. On [DATE] at 7:40 p.m., RN-F stated she would look at the banner in the computer for resident's code status. According to the banner in EHR, R24 would have received CPR and R79 would not have received CPR. On [DATE] at 8:40 a.m., RN-G stated she would look at the POLST in the hard chart. RN-G stated code status is generally located in the banner in the EHR but in the hard chart it is up front and if it didn't match, they would follow the POLST as that is the signed order. According to the POLST in R24's chart, R24 would not have received CPR. According to the POLST in R79's chart, R79 would have received CPR. On [DATE] at 8:42 a.m., RN-H stated he would look at the front of the hard chart as that is what is signed. RN-H stated we try to have it on the banner too, but it seems like the banner isn't always right. RN-H stated when a resident goes to the hospital, the hospital will change it to whatever they had at their last admission, so then our order gets changed but they are not correct. According to the POLST in R24's chart, R24 would not have received CPR. According to the POLST in R79's chart, R79 would have received CPR. On [DATE] at 8:48 a.m., RN-C stated she would look at the hard chart for resident's code status on the signed POLST. According to the POLST in R24's chart, R24 would not have received CPR. According to the POLST in R79's chart, R79 would have received CPR. On [DATE] at 8:55 a.m., clinical manager (CM)-B stated she would look either on the banner in the EHR or in the front of the hard chart for a copy of the POLST. CM-B stated if orders are different, then they should always follow the paper POLST as that is what is signed by the provider. CM-B stated if code status changed, the old POLST would be removed from the hard chart and sent to medical records with the new POLST placed in hard chart. On [DATE] at 9:00 a.m., RN-D she would look in the hard chart for resident's code status on signed POLST by the provider. According to the POLST in R24's chart, R24 would not have received CPR. According to the POLST in R79's chart, R79 would have received CPR. On [DATE] at 9:03 a.m., LPN-B stated she would look at the banner in the EHR and have it verified with the POLST in the hard chart. On [DATE] at 8:50 a.m., registered nurse (RN)-A stated we would check the hard chart or the banner in EHR, whichever one is closest. RN-A verified that R24's EHR indicated Full Code and R79's EHR indicated DNR. RN-A then went to hard chart and verified that the POLST identified R24 was DNR and was dated [DATE] and R79 was full code and was dated [DATE]. RN-A verified the discrepancy and attempted to located what the actual order should be for both residents. RN-A stated she would have followed the signed POLST that was located in the hard chart. According to the POLST in R24's chart, R24 would not have received CPR. According to the POLST in R79's chart, R79 would have received CPR. On [DATE] at 9:14 a.m., CM-A stated upon admission or readmission from the hospital we would determine what the code status order is and would confirm with the resident and/or representative what their wishes are. CM-A stated her expectation would be for staff to refer to the hard chart for the signed POLST form. If code status changed, a new POLST is completed and placed in hard chart with the old POLST being removed. On [DATE] at 9:40 a.m., medical records (MR)-A stated upon admission or readmission if there is a discrepancy she would highlight it on an internal clarification of admission orders checklist and will give to the floor nurse to clarify with resident, representative and provider. MR-A stated she would leave the code status order blank in EHR, until clarified by nursing. On [DATE] at 9:54 a.m., director of nursing (DON) stated his expectations would be to look at the hard chart at the actual signed POLST for code status. If code status orders do not match, there would be a high risk of initiating the wrong life-saving treatments. The DON stated that referring the hard chart for code status is the fastest. According to the POLST in R24's chart, R24 would not have received CPR. According to the POLST in R79's chart, R79 would have received CPR. On [DATE] at 8:48 a.m., the facility medical director (MD)-G stated best practice was to have a resident's code status in one location of the residents' EHR and acknowledged the potential for mistakes to be made in an emergency situation. The MD-G stated if a resident did have conflicting code status orders, his is expectation was for nursing staff to clarify wishes with the resident or resident representative and obtain new orders from the resident providers if necessary. The facility policy Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation (CPR) dated [DATE], identified at the time of admission the resident and/or resident representative will be asked about the resident preference for CPR or do not resuscitate (DNR). The resident and/or resident representatives' response will be compared to physician orders issued at the time of admission. Where necessary, orders will be obtained to be consistent with the resident's wishes. The facility policy Advanced Directives POLST dated [DATE], identified all staff members and medical team will refer to the POLST form indicating the patient/resident's wished prior to initiation or discontinuation of any treatment and all treatments must be in keeping with the resident's wishes. The IJ was removed on [DATE] at 8:00 p.m., when the facility developed and implemented a systematic removal plan which was verified by interview and document review. On [DATE] at 6:35 p.m., the facility completed an audit of all residents' code status, reviewed the policy regarding code status and updated the policy, which outlined where the staff would locate the code status. On [DATE] at 8:00 p.m., oncoming licensed staff were educated regarding the updated POLST procedure and where to find a residents' code status. and continued for staff prior to their next shift.
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0554 (Tag F0554)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on observation, interview and document review, the facility failed to assess residents for the ability to self administer nebulizer treatments after nurse set up for 1 of 1 residents (R270) obse...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, interview and document review, the facility failed to assess residents for the ability to self administer nebulizer treatments after nurse set up for 1 of 1 residents (R270) observed self administrating a nebulizer treatment. Findings include: R270's admission Minimum Data Set (MDS) date 4/9/24, indicated R270 was cognitively intact. R270's self-administration of medication evaluation dated 4/8/24, indicated R270 did not self-administer medications which included nebulizer medications after nurse set up. R270's order summary report dated 4/11/24, directed staff to administer albuterol sulfate (medication to open airways, and treat air flow blockage) nebulization solution 2.5 milligrams(mg)/3 milliliters (ML) 1 vial via nebulizer four times daily. However R270's orders failed to include a provider order to self-administer albuterol sulfate. When interviewed 4/8/24 at 1:55 p.m. R270 stated staff did not observe him while Albuterol nebulizer was administered. On 4/11/24, at 9:35 a.m. observed R270 sitting in chair in room self-administering nebulizer, resident stated nurse put the medication in the reservoir of the mask and left. Door was closed with no staff in room. When interviewed on 4/11/24, at 10:29 a.m. licensed practical nurse (LPN)-A stated residents could self-administer medications if they had an order and were assessed. LPN-A checked R270's chart, was not able to locate an assessment with ok to self-administer medications, LPN-A was not able to locate order in medical record to self-administer nebulizer. When interviewed on 4/11/24, at 11:11 a.m. director of nursing (DON) stated there should be an assessment for self-administer form completed by the nurse with the ok to self-administer added to the medication order. DON was not able to locate an assessment or provider order that identified R270 was able to safely self-administer nebulizer medications. Self-administration of medications policy was requested, however was not provided.
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0688 (Tag F0688)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to implement and maintain recommended restorative program...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to implement and maintain recommended restorative programming for 1 of 1 residents (R71) who were reviewed for treatment and services to prevent further decrease in range of motion (ROM). Findings include: R71's Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated [DATE], identified moderately impaired cognition with a diagnoses of hemiplegia (paralysis of one side of the body) following cerebral infarction (stroke) affecting left non-dominant side and contracture (a shortening and hardening of muscles and rigidity in joints) of the left hand. R71's cognition was moderately impaired. R71's occupational therapy (OT) Discharge summary dated [DATE], identified a prognosis to maintain current level of function as excellent with consistent staff support and the recommendation of a range of motion program to decrease risk of increased tightness. R71's Change in Functional Status/Nursing Rehabilitation Program form dated 11/11/22, identified the therapy recommendation to nursing to complete passive range of motion (PROM) exercises (the movement of a joint through the range of motion with assist) to the left upper extremity (LUE), up to 10 repetitions (reps) and up to seven days a week. R71's care plan dated 3/7/22, identified limited physical mobility related to hemiplegia affecting left non-dominant side and instructed staff to complete PROM per occupational therapy (OT). R71's order dated 11/6/23, identified per OT: left resting hand splint, nurse to perform PROM to LUE, 10 reps prior to donning left resting hand splint, leave the left hand splint on for up to an hour and after removing observe for any signs of redness as needed for weak hand. R71's January, February, March and April 2024 treatment administration record (TAR) identified OT's order dated 11/6/23 had been entered as per requested need (prn) with no scheduled frequency instruction for nursing staff and lacked documented evidence of completion or resident refusals to complete. R71's OT Discharge summary dated [DATE], identified R71 requested the left hand splint be discontinued and recommended nursing continued with daily PROM to LUE to decrease risk of increased tightness. During observation and interview on 4/8/24 at 1:43 p.m., R71 was sitting in his room in his wheelchair with his left hand resting fist closed on his lap. R71 couldn't remember if staff were supposed to assist with PROM. R71 stated he could not recall the last time staff offered to assist him with PROM. During observation and interview on 4/9/24 at 3:06 p.m., R71 was sitting in his room with his hand resting closed fisted on his lap. R71 stated the nursing staff assisted with skin care but did not offer to assist with PROM to the LUE. When interviewed on 4/10/24 at 2:57 p.m., clinical manager (CM)-A stated PROM programs would be given to nursing after completion of treatment by the therapy department, the program would then be entered into the orders and trigger for the nursing staff to document completion. CM-A confirmed R71's therapy recommendation had been entered into the orders as prn and lacked documentation of completion or refusals on the TARs. When interviewed on 4/10/24 at 3:07 p.m., licensed practical nurse (LPN)-D stated R71's order for PROM was prn so he should ask for assistance with it. LPN-A stated she could not recall the last time staff offered to assist him with PROM but if they had he would most likely refuse it. LPN-A confirmed R71's electronic health record (EHR) lacked documentation of refusals. When interviewed on 4/10/24 at 3:15 p.m., registered nurse (RN)- J stated R71 should be offered PROM but sometimes refuses. RN-J stated refusals of care should be documented in the EHR. RN-J confirmed R71's EHR lacked documentation of refusals. When interviewed on 4/11/24 at 10:04 a.m., the occupational therapist (OT)-A and Rehab Director confirmed R71's PROM was recommended and ordered back in November of 2022 and had not changed after his most recent episode of therapy in February of 2024. The rehab director stated restorative programs including PROM were always recommended and ordered at a specific frequency and would never be recommended or ordered as prn. The rehab director stated the importance of regular PROM for R71 was to prevent increased contracture. OT-A confirmed R71's degree of contractures had not changed from first measurement on 11/10/22 to most recent measurement on 2/21/24. When interviewed on 4/11/24 at 11:39 a.m., the director of nursing (DON) stated therapy restorative program recommendations were documented on a Functional Change form and given to the nursing clinical managers who are in charge of updating resident care plans and entering the recommendation into the EHR to populate as a task that required staff documentation of completion or refusals. The DON could not confirm R71's PROM was being completed or attempted and refused as it was not documented in R71's TAR. The DON stated the importance of R71's PROM was to prevent increased contracture. The facility policy Therapy Rehabilitation Referrals dated 9/1/16, identified therapy staff would routinely screen all long term care residents a minimum of one time each quarter, between MDS assessment periods to determine if the resident might benefit from therapy interventions, and results of all screens would be reviewed with the nurse unit manager and physician where warranted.
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0698 (Tag F0698)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

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

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview, and document review, the facility failed to ensure post-dialysis assessment and monitoring was completed for 1 of 1 residents (R40) reviewed for dialysis. Findings include: R48's admission Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated [DATE], identified R48 had intact cognition and required partial/limited assistance with all activities of daily living (ADLs). R48's diagnoses included atrial fibrillation, coronary artery disease, orthostatic hypotension, end stage renal disease, arthritis, CVA/TIA (stroke) and malnutrition. R48 received dialysis treatment that was done outside of the facility. R48's care plan dated 2/20/24, indicated R48 required hemodialysis related to end-stage renal disease and had a shunt in their left arm for vascular access. R48's care plan lacked pre- and post-dialysis instructions for monitoring of access site for shunt bruit and thrill (when the nurses listens and feels the dialysis access site to ensure blood flow). R48's Medication Administration Record (MAR) for 4/1/23 - 4/11/24 lacked evidence of monitoring of shunt for bruit and thrill. R48's medical record lacked documentation of monitoring of shunt for bruit and thrill. During observation and interview on 4/8/24 at 2:48 p.m., R48 stated he went to dialysis three days per week on Tuesdays, Thursdays, and Saturdays and that nursing does not auscultate (listen to) or palpate shunt (feel) regularly. During interview on 4/10/24 at 2:58 p.m., licensed practical nurse (LPN)-E stated there is only one resident at the facility that has an order to auscultate/palpate for bruit and thrill and confirmed that R48 was not that resident. LPN-E stated it is important to monitor shunt to ensure that the fistula (dialysis access) remained open and doesn't close. During interview on 4/11/24 at 12:16 p.m., LPN-A stated that for dialysis residents, vitals and weights were obtained when they return from dialysis and site is visualized. LPN-A confirmed that R48 did not have an order to auscultate/palpate for bruit and thrill. During interview on 4/11/24 at 12:17 p.m., clinical manager (CM)-D stated R48 went to a dialysis center three days a week and that staff were aware of where residents' dialysis access sites are located. CM-D confirmed that R48 did not have an order for monitoring of shunt for bruit and thrill and that it was not documented on R48's care plan. CM-D stated it was important to monitor shunt to check for patency. During interview on 4/11/24 at 12:38 p.m., director of nursing (DON) stated their expectations for dialysis residents were for staff to complete fluid monitoring, vital sign monitoring when resident returned from dialysis and observation of the site that included skin inspection and checking for bruit and thrill. DON stated it would be important to ensure the shunt was functioning properly by monitoring the blood flow to ensure that there is no decreased blood flow through shunt. The Care for Residents with Hemodialysis policy dated 4/24 indicated residents with an internal shunt will have daily checks of shunt patency by auscultating/palpating for pulse, thrill, and bruit to assure adequate blood flow.
Mar 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

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 resident protection pending an investigation into an allega...

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 resident protection pending an investigation into an allegation of abuse. Findings include: R1's admission Record indicted he admitted to the facility on [DATE] and identified diagnosis that included anxiety. R1's care plan dated 3/1/24, indicated he was alert to person, place and time and identified intact cognition. A report to the state agency (SA) dated 3/12/24, indicated R1 alleged he was physically abused by staff on 3/9/24. The report indicated the alleged abuse caused R1 great fear and anxiety and indicated he was afraid to leave his room. A second report to the SA dated 3/12/24, indicated R1 sent an e-mail to registered nurse RN-A which stated there had been conduct issues with nursing staff and requested NA-A and RN-B not provide care for him. R1 reported to RN-A he had scratches on his forearm as a result of RN-B attempting to grab his phone out of his hand. R1 further reported NA-A had called him a fat ass and said all he did was ask for food. The report indicated R1 had light pink scratch marks on his forearm. R1 indicated he had reported the incident to RN-C on 3/9/24. During interview on 3/14/24 at 11:40 a.m., RN-A stated a nurse had approached him and said R1 showed her some scratches and reported a staff member had called him a fat ass. RN-A said R1 did not want RN-B or NA-A to take care of him. RN-A stated R1 did have scratch marks on his arm RN-A, further stated R1 did not have a history of making false accusations. Facility Shifts Scheduled Report dated 3/12/24, indicated NA-A worked both the morning and evening shifts that day. On 3/14/24, at 4:29 p.m. the administrator and director of nursing (DON) were interviewed. The administrator stated when an allegation of abuse was reported the facility removed the caregiver then gathered information to determine a course of action. The administrator stated neither staff had been removed from the schedule pending the investigation into the abuse allegation and said it seemed the like the story kept changing. The DON stated he had spoke to RN-A right away and she denied the allegation so they did not feel it warranted suspension. The DON stated he had placed a call to NA-A and had not realized she was working. Facility policy Abuse Prevention Plan dated March 2017, indicated each resident had the right to be free from abuse. The policy indicated if a staff member was alleged to be involved in the allegation of abuse the staff member would be suspended pending the outcome of the pending investigation.
Jun 2023 1 deficiency
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 2 of 5 residents (R57, R86) were offered or received the p...

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 2 of 5 residents (R57, R86) were offered or received the pneumococcal vaccine (PCV20) in accordance with the Center for Disease Control (CDC) recommendations. Findings include: The CDC's PneumoRecs VaxAdvisor identified: -based on shared clinical decision-making, decide whether to administer one dose of PCV20 at least 5 years after the last pneumococcal vaccine dose. Regardless of whether PCV20 is administered, their pneumococcal vaccinations are complete. The CDC's Pneumococcal vaccine timing for adults identified: -together, with the patient, vaccine providers may choose to administer PCV20 to adults 65 years and older who have already received PCV13 (but not PCV15 or PCV20) at any age and PPSC23 at or after the age of [AGE] years old. R57's face sheet, identified she was [AGE] years old and admitted on [DATE]. R57 had no allergies to vaccines or contraindications to vaccine listed. R57's immunization report, identified R57 had previously received the PCV13 on11/16/2012 and the PCV13 on 12/14/2016. R57's medical record lacked evidence the recommended pneumococcal (PCV20) vaccination was offered or received. R86's face sheet, identified she was [AGE] years old and admitted on [DATE]. R86 had no allergies to vaccines or contraindications to vaccine listed. R86's immunization report, identified R86 had previously received the PCV23 on 6/16/2014 and the PCV13 on 6/23/15. R86's medical record lacked evidence the recommended pneumococcal (PCV20) vaccination was offered or received. When interviewed on 6/8/23 at 1:05 p.m., infection preventionist (IP) stated when a resident is admitted to the facility, she reviews their Minnesota Immunization Information Connection (MICC) for immunization record. IP stated that the MICC is sometimes not accurate, so she also interviews the resident to ensure that it is correct. If resident is eligible for vaccine, IP gives resident the Vaccine Information Sheet (VIS) and completes a consent/decline form. For pneumococcal vaccines, IP stated that she uses the CDC's PneumoRecs VaxAdvisor to see if resident is eligible and if so, vaccine will be administered within the first couple of weeks. IP stated she had not offered R57 and R86 the PCV20 as she considered them to be fully vaccinated. IP stated that she periodically reviews the resident's immunization record to ensure that they have all recommended vaccines. The Pneumococcal vaccine policy dated 11/30/2017, identified all residents will be offered pneumococcal vaccines to aid in preventing pneumonia/pneumococcal infections. Prior to or upon admission, residents will be assessed for eligibility to receive the pneumococcal vaccine series, and when indicated, will be offered the vaccine series within thirty (30) days of admission to the facility unless medically contraindicated or the resident has already been vaccinated. Administration of the pneumococcal vaccines or revaccinations will be made in accordance with current Center for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) recommendations at the time of the vaccination.
May 2023 3 deficiencies
CONCERN (D) 📢 Someone Reported This

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

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

Comprehensive Care Plan (Tag F0656)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview, and document review the facility failed to follow the comprehensive care plan for transfers for...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview, and document review the facility failed to follow the comprehensive care plan for transfers for 1 of 1 resident (R1) reviewed for transfers. Findings include: Facility reported incident (FRI) submitted to the State Agency (SA) dated 4/30/23, indicted R1 requested assistance to use the bathroom and staff brought in EZ stand mechanical lift to transfer resident. R1 did not use the EZ stand for transfers per care plan. R1's admission Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated [DATE], indicated diagnoses of hemiplegia (weakness on one side of the body), atrial fibrillation (irregular heart rate), cognitive communication deficit and aphasia (speech impairment). R1 required extensive assist of two staff for bed mobility and transfers. R1 used a walker and wheelchair for locomotion. R1's care plan dated 4/13/23, directed staff to transfer R1 with assist of one staff and walker. During an interview on 5/10/23, at 6:14 a.m. nursing assistant (NA)-S stated R1 was a pivot transfer with assist of one to two staff staff and able to make needs known. NA-S did not remember ever using a mechanical lift to transfer R1. NA-S stated R1 sometimes used the bedpan. During an observation on 5/10/23, at 7:30 a.m. R1 was lying in bed with gripper socks on. Without putting on her call light for assistance staff assist, she sat herself up on the side of the bed. At 7:37 a.m. NA-M walked into R1's room and explained she was waiting for her partner to help R1 get ready. At 7:40 a.m. NA-N entered R1's room. NA-N applied the gait belt onto R1. Both aides assisted R1 to stand and pivot transfer into her wheelchair. R1 was pushed to the bathroom where both aides assisted R1 to pivot transfer to the toilet. At 7:48 a.m. after R1's cares were completed, both NAs assisted R1 to stand and pivot transfer R1 back to her wheelchair. All of the transfers were completed safely, without difficulty, and in accordance with R1's care plan. During an interview on 5/10/23, at 2:17 p.m. NA-W indicated on the 3rd day he worked with R1 he had transferred R1 to the bathroom and then back to bed with the EZ stand. During the transfer R1's face had turned red during the transfer back to bed, however R1 had not said anything. NA-W explained after the transfer, he checked R1's care plan and realized R1 was a pivot transfer with the gait belt. NA-W reported he did not follow the care plan and should have. During an interview on 5/10/23, at 12:13 p.m. nurse manager (NM)-A and director of nursing (DON) stated NAs had access to the [NAME] (abbreviated care plan NAs use) on the iPhone they carry. The [NAME] lets them know how to care for the resident. NM-A's and DON's expectation was if NAs were not familiar with resident, they would check the [NAME] or ask another staff member. Facility policy Resident Assessment, Care Planning, Discharge Planning revised 3/17/2017, indicted the plan of care will include resident strength, goals, life history and preferences, and needs.
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

Accident Prevention (Tag F0689)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

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

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview, and document review the facility failed to ensure a comprehensive assessment was completed for sit-to-stand mechanical lift for safe transfers for 1 of 2 residents (R2) reviewed transfers. Findings include: R2's significant change Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated [DATE], indicated diagnoses of arthropathic psoriasis (a form of arthritis), low back pain, osteoarthritis, and weakness. R2's MDS further indicated need for extensive assist of 2 staff for transfers. R2's revised activities of daily living (ADL) care plan dated 12/28/22, R2 required assistance of 1 staff member with EZ Stand (brand of sit-to-stand mechanical lift). During an observation on 5/9/23, at 2:59 p.m. R2 sat in her wheelchair with her call light on. (NA)-R entered R2's room with EZ stand to transfer R2 to the bathroom. NA-R assisted R2 to place her feet onto the platform of the lift and appropriately applied the lift harness around R2's back. NA-R informed R2 she was going lift R2, R2 hung on the bars of the lift. When NA-R lifted R2 out of the wheelchair, R2 did not come to an upright standing position. R2 was in a sitting position which did not allow R2 to bear weight and did not demonstrate upper body strength to pull herself to a standing position. This gave the appearance of R2 hanging in the lift by the harness that was around her back and under her arms. NA-R pushed the lift into the bathroom hitting R2's right elbow on the door frame. NA-R lowered R2 to toilet and left R2 connected to the stand. NA-R then returned and lifted R2 off the toilet. R2 again did not come to an upright standing position rather a seated position and hung by the lift harness. NA-R pushed the lift out of the bathroom, again hitting R2's right elbow on the bathroom door frame. NA-R lowered R2 to her wheelchair and removed the harness. During an interview on 5/9/23, at 3:15 p.m. NA-R indicated during most transfers R2 did not stand up all the way and would be in the seated position hanging not bearing weight. During an observation on 5/10/23, at 6:47 a.m. R2 sat in her recliner, NA-L and NA-M were also in R2's room preparing to transfer R2 to the bathroom. NA-M placed the lift harness under R2's arms and connected the harness to the lift. NA-L informed R2 they were going to lift her up. When NA-M lifted R2 off the recliner, R2 did not come to an upright standing position and was almost in a seated position. R2 did not demonstrate upper body strength by pulling herself up to a standing position rather supported only by the harness. NAs pushed R2 into the bathroom, hitting R2's left elbow on the door frame, and lowered her to the toilet. At 6:54 a.m. NA-L used the lift to raise R2 off the toilet. R2 again did not come to a standing position but rather a sitting position. During an interview on 5/10/23, at 10:54 a.m. NA-M stated when transferring R2 in the lift, she usually looked like she was in a seated position and hanging in the lift. R2 was able to bear some weight but not a lot. NA-M stated she thought therapy decided on how a resident was to be transferred and if she noticed a resident was having increased needs with transfers would report to the nurse or nurse manager (NM). NA-M further indicted that she would look in the [NAME] for transfer instructions. During an interview on 5/10/23, at 11:03 a.m. director of nursing (DON) stated the therapy department handled the transfer assessments to determine the correct transfer device and technique for transfers. During a subsequent interview at 11:05 a.m. DON reported R2's record did not have a completed comprehensive transfer assessment. During an interview and observation on 5/10/23, at 12:48 p.m. DON and NM-A both indicated they had not assessed R2's transfers in the EZ-stand. At 12:50 p.m. DON and NM-A watched R2's transfer to the bathroom at which time R2 was standing straighter and was evident she was bearing more weight than previous observations. However, at 12:59 p.m. on the transfer out of the bathroom, R2 did not stand up straight and was in the seated position. DON stated it was not safe for R2 to transfer with the EZ-stand. DON indicated she would send a request to therapy for further transfer evaluation and NM-A would request a therapy order from the physician. DON and NM-A stated an expectation if NA's noticed an increase with assistance with transfers, they would the nurse or nurse manager so that a referral for assessment could be completed. EZ Way Smart Stand Operator's Instructions dated 1/24/23, included: -Patients should be able to bear some weight, have upper body strength and be able to follow simple commands. If a patient does not meet each of these three criteria, an EZ Way total body lift must be used. -Safety Notes: The EZ Way Smart Stand (Trademark) was designed to transfer weight bearing patients to and from a chair, wheelchair, toilet, or bed and for safely ambulating patients -Transfer the patient: 2) With the patient in a standing position, transfer the patient to the desired location. Facility's policy Mechanical Lift dated 3/2/16, indicated each resident would be assessed for transfer assistance at the time of admission, with each Minimum Data Set (MDS), and on an ongoing basis. Documentation by exception will be used for ongoing basis. Determination will be made regarding the type of mechanical device to be used for the resident if necessary.
CONCERN (D) 📢 Someone Reported This

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

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

Deficiency F0745 (Tag F0745)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview, and document review the facility failed to provide social services for emotional support follow...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview, and document review the facility failed to provide social services for emotional support following an allegation of verbal abuse for 1 of 1 residents (R1) reviewed for allegations of abuse. Findings include: A Facility Reported Incident submitted to the State Agency (SA) on 4/30/23, alleged emotional and mental abuse on 4/30/23 at 2:00 a.m. by an NA. The report indicated R1 had requested to use the bathroom. NA brought a mechanical lift into R1's room. When R1 told the NA I don't use a machine The NA told her to shut up or I am going to slap your face. R1 allowed the NA to use the lift to the toilet. R1's admission Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated [DATE], indicated diagnoses of hemiplegia (weakness on one side of the body), cognitive communication deficit and aphasia (speech impairment). R1 had moderate cognitive impairment with no signs or symptoms of delirium, hallucinations, or delusions. R1's care plan dated 4/19/23, indicated the R1 had no previous history of violent crime or physical aggression with corresponding interventions that directed staff to monitor and provide a safe environment, direct and cue as needed. R1's care plan for psychosocial well being related to adjustment to new facility with corresponding interventions that directed staff when conflict arises, remove resident to a calm safe environment and allow to vent/share feelings. R1's progress note dated 4/13/23 through 5/10/23, indicted social services had only talked with resident regarding her admission to the facility. It was not evident R1 was assessed for or provided with social services after being transferred inappropriately and the alleged verbal abuse. During an interview on 5/9/23 at 4:35 p.m. R1 sat in her room with family member present. R1 indicated about two to three weeks ago when she had to go to the bathroom an NA brought in that big machine [standing lift], she was not supposed to use the machine and was a pivot transfer. R1 explained she was scared because despite R1 telling the NA she was a pivot transfer the man [NA] made her use the machine to go the bathroom and told R1 he would slap her if she said anything. R1 stated she was not injured but was scared and not able to sleep the rest of the night. Throughout the conversation R1 was visibly upset, tearful, covered her face with her right hand, and had increased difficulty finding words as she explained the incident. At several points R1 reached for her family member for support who sat next to her. During the conversation R1 repeated I will shut up. They will hurt me. I will keep my mouth shut. R1 stated she did not report the incident to staff but to her family. During an interview on 5/10/23, at 1:43 p.m. registered nurse (RN)-B stated they were made aware of verbal abuse allegation on 4/30/23 between 10:00 a.m. and 11:00 a.m. by one of R1's family members. After RN-B was made aware she went to talk with R1 with family present, R1 started to cry and became frightened. RN-B explained she then left R1's room, when she returned five minutes later R1 remained visibly upset but was able to talk about the incident. During an interview on 5/10/23, at 11:34 a.m. licensed social worker (LSW)-A indicted she was made aware of incident on 5/1/23 by NM-A and was not involved with the investigation. LSW-A had only talked with R1 and husband in the hallways in passing and at the care conference last week. R1 was offered psychology visits, R1 declined however, R1's family wanted the services for R1. LSW-A had not noticed any change in R1's mood or behavior since the incident. LSW-A indicated she had not been made aware of how R1 responded during RN-B's interview and/or the emotional impact to R1. Social services should have been notified so they could speak to the resident and offer any emotional support or services. During an interview on 5/10/23 nurse manager (NM)-A and director of nursing (DON) indicted neither had interviewed R1 personally rather relied RN-B's documentation and interview of R1's report. NM-A and DON both indicated after being made aware of R1's mood and behaviors during the surveyor's interview on 5/9/23, SS should have been brought into the investigation to provide supportive services. Facility undated job description of SW indicated 3. SW was to act as an advocate for the residents and assist them in maintaining a satisfactory lifestyle in the care center. 5. Assist in providing a dignified, respectful, resident-centered environment for residents.
Understanding Severity Codes (click to expand)
Life-Threatening (Immediate Jeopardy)
J - Isolated K - Pattern L - Widespread
Actual Harm
G - Isolated H - Pattern I - Widespread
Potential for Harm
D - Isolated E - Pattern F - Widespread
No Harm (Minor)
A - Isolated B - Pattern C - Widespread

Questions to Ask on Your Visit

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

Our Honest Assessment

Strengths
  • • Licensed and certified facility. Meets minimum state requirements.
Concerns
  • • Multiple safety concerns identified: 4 life-threatening violation(s), $131,203 in fines, Payment denial on record. Review inspection reports carefully.
  • • 21 deficiencies on record, including 4 critical (life-threatening) violations. These warrant careful review before choosing this facility.
  • • $131,203 in fines. Extremely high, among the most fined facilities in Minnesota. Major compliance failures.
  • • Grade F (0/100). Below average facility with significant concerns.
Bottom line: This facility has 4 Immediate Jeopardy findings. Serious concerns require careful evaluation.

About This Facility

What is Guardian Angels's CMS Rating?

CMS assigns GUARDIAN ANGELS CARE CENTER an overall rating of 1 out of 5 stars, which is considered much below average nationally. Within Minnesota, this rating places the facility higher than 0% of the state's 100 nursing homes. A rating at this level reflects concerns identified through health inspections, staffing assessments, or quality measures that families should carefully consider.

How is Guardian Angels Staffed?

CMS rates GUARDIAN ANGELS CARE CENTER's staffing level at 4 out of 5 stars, which is above average compared to other nursing homes. Staff turnover is 50%, compared to the Minnesota average of 46%. RN turnover specifically is 62%, which is notably high. RNs provide skilled clinical oversight, so turnover in this role can affect medical care quality.

What Have Inspectors Found at Guardian Angels?

State health inspectors documented 21 deficiencies at GUARDIAN ANGELS CARE CENTER during 2023 to 2025. These included: 4 Immediate Jeopardy (the most serious level, indicating potential for serious harm or death) and 17 with potential for harm. Immediate Jeopardy findings are rare and represent the most serious regulatory concerns. They require immediate corrective action.

Who Owns and Operates Guardian Angels?

GUARDIAN ANGELS CARE CENTER is owned by a non-profit organization. Non-profit facilities reinvest revenue into operations rather than distributing to shareholders. The facility operates independently rather than as part of a larger chain. With 120 certified beds and approximately 100 residents (about 83% occupancy), it is a mid-sized facility located in ELK RIVER, Minnesota.

How Does Guardian Angels Compare to Other Minnesota Nursing Homes?

Compared to the 100 nursing homes in Minnesota, GUARDIAN ANGELS CARE CENTER's overall rating (1 stars) is below the state average of 3.2, staff turnover (50%) is near the state average of 46%, and health inspection rating (1 stars) is much below the national benchmark.

What Should Families Ask When Visiting Guardian Angels?

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

Is Guardian Angels Safe?

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

Do Nurses at Guardian Angels Stick Around?

GUARDIAN ANGELS CARE CENTER has a staff turnover rate of 50%, which is about average for Minnesota nursing homes (state average: 46%). Moderate turnover is common in nursing homes, but families should still ask about staff tenure and how the facility maintains care continuity when employees leave.

Was Guardian Angels Ever Fined?

GUARDIAN ANGELS CARE CENTER has been fined $131,203 across 5 penalty actions. This is 3.8x the Minnesota average of $34,391. Fines at this level are uncommon and typically indicate a pattern of serious deficiencies, repeated violations, or failure to correct problems promptly. CMS reserves penalties of this magnitude for facilities that pose significant, documented risk to resident health or safety. Families should request specific documentation of what issues led to these fines and what systemic changes have been implemented.

Is Guardian Angels on Any Federal Watch List?

GUARDIAN ANGELS CARE CENTER 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.