Southside Care Center

2644 ALDRICH AVENUE SOUTH, MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55408 (612) 872-4233
For profit - Individual 17 Beds Independent Data: November 2025
Trust Grade
45/100
#264 of 337 in MN
Last Inspection: February 2025

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

Overview

Southside Care Center has a Trust Grade of D, indicating below-average performance with some concerning issues. It ranks #264 out of 337 facilities in Minnesota, placing it in the bottom half of nursing homes in the state and #40 out of 53 in Hennepin County, meaning there are many better options nearby. The facility is worsening, with issues increasing from 1 in 2024 to 21 in 2025. Staffing is a strong point, with a 0% turnover rate, which is much better than the state average, suggesting staff are stable and familiar with the residents. While the facility has not incurred any fines, some serious concerns were noted, such as a resident sustaining burns from hot towels used for anxiety relief and failures in food safety and sanitation practices that could potentially affect all residents.

Trust Score
D
45/100
In Minnesota
#264/337
Bottom 22%
Safety Record
Moderate
Needs review
Inspections
Getting Worse
1 → 21 violations
Staff Stability
○ Average
Turnover data not reported for this facility.
Penalties
✓ Good
No fines on record. Clean compliance history, better than most Minnesota facilities.
Skilled Nurses
○ Average
RN staffing data not reported for this facility.
Violations
⚠ Watch
48 deficiencies on record. Higher than average. Multiple issues found across inspections.
★★☆☆☆
2.0
Overall Rating
★☆☆☆☆
1.0
Staff Levels
★★★★★
5.0
Care Quality
★☆☆☆☆
1.0
Inspection Score
Stable
2024: 1 issues
2025: 21 issues

The Good

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

Facility shows strength in quality measures, fire safety.

The Bad

2-Star Overall Rating

Below Minnesota average (3.2)

Below average - review inspection findings carefully

The Ugly 48 deficiencies on record

1 actual harm
Feb 2025 21 deficiencies
CONCERN (D)

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

Comprehensive Assessments (Tag F0636)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

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

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 comprehensive assessment was completed and implemented using the Resident Assessment Instrument (RAI) process as specified by CMS for 1 of 3 (R7) residents reviewed for trauma-informed care in addition to 1 of 5 residents (R7) reviewed for psychotropic medications. Findings include: R7's admission Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated [DATE], indicated she had intact cognition and no hallucinations or delusions with no reported behavioral symptoms. The MDS reported diagnoses including depression and alcohol dependence, however, did not identify a post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) diagnosis. The MDS reported R7 took antidepressant medications and antipsychotic medications on a routine basis only. R7's Care Area Assessment (CAA) for psychosocial well-being dated 11/7/24, indicated R7 reported feeling lonely and that her mood and/or behavior impacted her interpersonal relationships or arose from social isolation. The CAA identified R7 took psychotropic medications mirtazapine and fluoxetine (antidepressants) to treat depression. Additionally, the CAA identified she utilized non-pharmacologic interventions such as crafting activities, sitting outside on the front porch, smoking cigarettes, and minimal socializing to manage anxiety symptoms. The CAA indicated R7's psychosocial well-being would be addressed in her care plan and lacked documentation if a referral was warranted to another discipline. R7's CAA for mood state dated 11/7/24, identified her psychiatric disorder(s) and use of psychotropic medications. The CAA also identified her scheduled use of the antipsychotic medication olanzapine at bedtime to treat her insomnia (a sleeping disorder), however, lacked documentation of her PRN use of olanzapine as well as her history of trauma. The CAA indicated her mood state would be addressed in her care plan but lacked documentation if a referral was warranted to another discipline. R7's CAA for activities dated 11/7/24, was triggered but lacked documentation. The CAA indicated activities would be addressed in her care plan and did not address if a referral to another discipline was warranted. A biopsychosocial intake diagnostic assessment dated [DATE], indicated R7 reported a history of trauma. The admission paperwork reported, she was in an abusive marriage for 26 years which included physical, emotional and sexual abuse by her husband. An undated admission record printed 1/30/25, indicated R7 admitted to the facility on [DATE] and identified diagnoses of depression and alcohol dependence. The admission record lacked documentation of a PTSD diagnosis. A comprehensive trauma informed care assessment dated [DATE], identified triggers such as loud male voices, yelling, and angry voices, thrown objects. The assessment included target symptoms of depression under control. On bipolar spectrum. Depression more related to bipolar not actual depression. The assessment identified psychotropic medication management as well as non-pharmacologic interventions and indicated her needs would be addressed in the care plan. R7's signed order summary was requested but not received. R7's medication administration record (MAR) dated 1/25 reflected the following active physician orders: - fluoxetine 80 milligram (mg) (Prozac), total 1 x daily by mouth (total 80mg) for depression, dated 11/14/24. - hydroxyzine hydrochloride (HCl) 50mg tablet (hydroxyzine HCl) 1-2 (50-100mg) by mouth three times daily as needed, dated 11/4/24. - lamotrigine 100mg tabs (Lamictal), Take 300mg by mouth every bedtime for depression dated 1/14/25. - mirtazapine 15mg tablet (Remeron), Take 1 tab by mouth at bedtime for insomnia dated 11/4/24. - olanzapine 15mg (Zyprexa), Take 3 tab by mouth twice daily for anxiety/agitation dated 11/29/24. - olanzapine 10mg (Zyprexa), Take 1/2 tab (5mg) by mouth daily as needed for anxiety/agitation dated 11/04/24. R7's MAR reflected the PRN olanzapine was administered on 1/6/25, 1/7/25, 1/10/25, 1/14/25, 1/18/25, 1/19/25, 1/21/25, 1/22/25, and 1/28/25. R7's care plan dated 11/1/24, identified her depression diagnosis and directed staff to administer medications as ordered and monitor for and report side effects. Furthermore, her care plan, revised 11/24/24, directed staff to her behavioral management care plan and comprehensive behavioral assessment. The care plan lacked documentation regarding her history of trauma as well as her use of a PRN antipsychotic (olanzapine). A behavioral management care plan dated 11/24/24, indicated R7's behavioral triggers included sleep apnea and insomnia, and reported she often stayed awake throughout the night smoking and did experience sleep apnea. Additionally, the triggers identified on the care plan included stress related to medical appointments and getting the medications she needs prescribed to her, and her personal struggles with pain and addiction create a tremendous amount of stress for her. The care plan identified R7's target behavioral monitoring of chain-smoking cigarettes related to her insomnia and her addiction to food and eating between meals. Interventions included on the care plan were managing her medical appointments, setting up a sleep study consultation, assistance in managing her PRN medications and assessing her anxiety levels, and encouraging non-pharmacological solutions for anxiety management. The care plan lacked documentation of R7's history of trauma and related triggers. A facility referral form dated 12/17/24, indicated R7 was referred out for a psychiatry visit. The referral form revealed under the information from: side; diagnosis depression and PTSD. Per interview on 1/29/25 at 9:14 a.m., registered nurse (RN)-B confirmed completing R7's admission MDS dated [DATE] and reported being onsite 2-3 days per week. RN-B indicated when completing an MDS assessment onsite, the process was to review the binder with the paper assessments in it and work through those to build the MDS and then submit it through PointClickCare (PCC). RN-B stated, I get the information from staff and residents, in addition to chart review, and reported information from residents was often corroborated with staff interview because, I sometimes have to take what they say with a grain of salt, if a resident is being interviewed about medications or behaviors. RN-B stated when building the care plan, I definitely look at their history, and reported building the care plan from scratch if a resident was a new admission, like R7. RN-B reported collecting resident assessment information from a resident's history and physical (H&P) or whatever documents they send to us from the referral. RN-B confirmed reviewing R7's admission paperwork from her discharging facility and stated the information utilized to build her admission MDS, CAA worksheets, and care plan were based on true diagnoses that are in the diagnosis list but not necessarily what is being alluded to in other paperwork. RN-B stated being hesitant about reporting a PTSD diagnosis under section I of the MDS if it was not listed under the primary diagnosis or secondary diagnosis list of R7's admission or referral paperwork. RN-B verbalized being unaware of the RAI utilization guidelines (the instructions on how and when to use) to determine a resident's functional status, strengths, weaknesses, and preferences, as well as offering guidance on further assessment once problems have been identified. RN-B stated it was important to capture accurate MDS assessments because that is how the facility was reimbursed for their care. During interview on 1/29/25 at 12:03 p.m., health unit coordinator (HUC)-A, who also identified as the facility's social services director and activities director, reported there were several people in the facility with PTSD. HUC-A stated residents with triggers related to their PTSD were assessed upon admission if staff were aware of their diagnosis. HUC-A stated if a resident was struggling with PTSD or substance abuse, staff could offer a walk outside during the summer months or call management during off-hours for assistance. HUC-A reported it was important to give residents what they needed to succeed, like medication management, medical appointment referrals and transportation arrangements, to provide for their psychosocial well-being and mental health needs. During interview on 1/31/25 at 9:59 a.m., R7 stated there hasn't been a conversation yet here about my triggers or my past trauma. She reported there had been past events that were triggering for her and stated, there's one lady here that keeps asking for cigarettes. R7 shared the other unidentified female resident would ask for more cigarettes until she owed R7 money, which was a trigger for her because, that's not fair for me or her really. She endorsed reporting the events to RN-A, also identified as the facility's director of nursing (DON) and administrator, and believed RN-A spoke to the unidentified resident. Per interview on 1/31/25 at 9:45 a.m., treatment director (TD)-K confirmed working with R7 on her admission to the facility and recalled R7 reporting a history of trauma and that having an impact on her mental health. TD-K stated R7's trauma history included abuse and there was also some history of financial abuse with a previous partner of hers. TD-K stated R7 was assessed for trauma prior to discharge from their facility but I don't think she met full criteria to get the PTSD diagnosis in our diagnostic assessment, however, stated the referral would note if the resident had trauma. TD-K stated, from my recollection it is noted on there, her assessment and her history of trauma. But with her other concerns and wishes to want to be sober, her history of substance use, it made more sense to get those other diagnoses on her admission. During interview on 2/3/25 at 12:51 p.m., nurse practitioner (NP)-J verified working with R7 for a number of years and confirmed her PTSD diagnosis. NP-J further confirmed responsibility for R7's psychotropic medication management, including her PRN antipsychotic medication olanzapine. During interview on 2/3/25 at 1:37 p.m., RN-A stated, I think the care planning is appropriate for the new admissions, including R7. RN-A reported the trauma-informed care plan and assessment for R7 was completed due to a complaint survey and was kept in a separate survey binder and stated, no, I didn't capture that on the first day they were here. I should have done it before day 7, I think you get 7 days for the MDS. But I do expect that if we assess a resident for trauma, like we did, then it should be identified in the MDS. And that's maybe something I should have gone over more with our MDS nurse. RN-A stated if there was a second nurse available to help during the facility's new admissions, I could have helped RN-B more, I could have made it [the training] more robust. A comprehensive care plan policy was requested but not received. A policy pertaining to MDS or RAI was requested but not received.
CONCERN (D)

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

PASARR Coordination (Tag F0644)

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 coordinate assessments with the pre-admission screening and resid...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview and document review, the facility failed to coordinate assessments with the pre-admission screening and resident review (PASARR) program by incorporating recommendations from the PASARR level II determination and the PASARR evaluation report into the care plan for 1 of 6 (R6) reviewed for PASARRs. Findings include: R6's modification of annual Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated [DATE], indicated she was not currently considered by the state to have serious mental illness and/or intellectual disability or a related condition. The MDS indicated she had intact cognition, did not exhibit physical or verbal behaviors directed towards herself or others, but did report hallucinations and delusions during the lookback period. R6's MDS included diagnoses of schizophrenia (a chronic mental health illness that affects a person's thoughts, perceptions, emotions, and behaviors), alcohol dependence in remission, insomnia (a sleeping disorder), history of cocaine abuse, and encephalopathy (a medical condition that disrupts brain function, causing memory loss, confusion, seizures, changes in personality, muscle spasms or coma). R6's Care Area Assessments (CAAs) dated 10/25/24, were triggered for visual function, psychosocial well-being, mood state, activities, falls, nutritional status, dental status, and psychotropic drug use. The CAAs lacked documentation if referrals to another discipline were warranted. A transfer/discharge report printed 1/30/25, indicated R6's admission date to the facility was 2/01/21. Senior LinkAge Line initial Pre-admission Screening (PAS) Results dated 1/20/21 was reviewed on 1/27/25 at 2:13 p.m. The PAS indicated R6 met the criteria for mental illness and was referred to a lead agency and case manager for further evaluation (level II PASARR). Furthermore, the results of the level I were forward to a managed care program, identified as Special Care Basic Needs (SNBC). The report identified R6's lead agency and case manager for the level II PASARR. A request for information (ROI) was made on 1/30/25 at 9:02 a.m. for R6's records from the lead agency but was not received. A request for interview was made on 1/30/25 at 3:30 p.m. from the lead agency's case manager but not received. R6's care plan dated 11/24/24, directed staff to see her behavioral management care plan in the medication administration record (MAR) for detailed information about her behavioral management care plan and comprehensive behavioral assessment. R6's behavioral management care plan updated 11/28/24, lacked documentation indicating services recommended under her level II PASARR were included. A review of R6's medical record on 1/30/25 revealed a lack of documentation regarding the services recommended under the level II PASARR evaluation. Per interview on 1/29/25 at 9:59 a.m., registered nurse (RN)-B confirmed R6's annual MDS dated [DATE], was coded inaccurately for question A1500 regarding her level II PASARR, stating, it looks like 'no'. RN-B stated, I'm fairly new to MDS and indicated they were trained by RN-A, who was also identified as the facility's director of nursing (DON) and administrator. RN-B believed the PASARR was completed by RN-A, so I usually just ask him. It was my understanding RN-A was completing those, so I was taking RN-A's word for it. RN-B verbalized being unaware of what a PASARR was and stated, I wouldn't even know what I was looking for it I was to go through her chart for that. Per interview on 2/3/25 at 1:37 p.m., RN-A was unable to identify what services were recommended under R6's level II PASARR, stating, I'm not sure, as far as what services should have been provided to her, I can't answer that. I never really read it until you guys brought it up, I never really thought to look it up. The PASARR thing, I don't necessarily know how to read them if I'm being honest. RN-A stated the intended use of PASARRs was to ensure individuals with intellectual disabilities and developmental disabilities don't end up in the nursing home. RN-A stated R6 fell right into the wheelhouse of what the facility specializes in and believed she was receiving good and appropriate care. A PASARR policy was requested but not received. A policy pertaining to MDS accuracy was requested but not received.
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0657 (Tag F0657)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview and document review, the facility failed to review and revise the activities care plan with input from the re...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview and document review, the facility failed to review and revise the activities care plan with input from the resident and/or resident representative for 1 of 1 residents (R1) reviewed for activities. Findings include: R1's annual Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated [DATE], reflected a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS, or an assessment to determine a person's mental status) score of 11, indicating mild cognitive impairment. Additionally, the MDS indicated she had clear speech with the ability to make herself understood and was able to understand others. The MDS reported the interview for daily and activity preferences should not be conducted because R1 was rarely/never understood and family/significant other was not available. The MDS indicated staff assessed R1 regarding her daily and activities preferences and identified R1 preferred participating in her favorite activities and doing things in groups of people. The MDS identified diagnoses of anxiety, bipolar disorder (a chronic mental health disorder characterized by extreme mood swings between extreme periods of elevated moods, or mania, and extreme low moods, or depression), schizophrenia (a chronic mental health illness that affects a person's thoughts, perceptions, emotions, and behaviors), and mild intellectual disabilities (a developmental disorder that affects a person's abstract thinking and learning and problem-solving skills). R1's Care Area Assessment (CAA) for activities dated 12/12/24, indicated R1 slept in every morning and refused to get out of bed in the morning. Furthermore, the CAA indicated R1 has little interest in doing activities other than her word find book. Sometimes likes to listen to music with the Activities Director, however, likes to take naps mostly during the morning and has a history of not going to medical appointments because she doesn't feel like doing anything except word find puzzles. The CAA indicated activities would be addressed in R1's care plan to slow or minimize decline and maintain her current level of functioning. R1's CAA for mood state dated 12/12/24, indicated R1 slept in every morning, refuses to get out of bed, has little interest in doing activities other than her word find book. Sometimes likes to listen to music with the activities director, however, likes to take naps mostly during the morning and has a history of not going to medical appointments because she doesn't feel like doing anything except her word find puzzles. Mental Health: BIMS score 15, residents score can vary every time she is asked to perform this assessment. The CAA indicated R1's mood state - functional status would be addressed in the care plan. An activities assessment was requested for the annual MDS dated [DATE], but was not received. R1's care plan revised 4/18/20, identified her risk for not meeting emotional, intellectual, physical and social needs related to her cognitive deficits, schizophrenia, and physical limitations. The goal of care was to maintain involvement in cognitive stimulation and social activities as desired. The care plan directed staff to invite R1 to activities and ensure activities she attended were compatible with physical and mental capabilities, compatible with known interests and preferences, adapted as needed, compatible with her needs and abilities, were age appropriate. The care plan lacked documentation of R1's activity preferences, either facility-sponsored or independent activities. During interview on 1/29/25 at 9:48 a.m., registered nurse (RN)-B confirmed completing the MDS assessments and stated R1 was tricky because she would sometimes say things not based in fact. RN-B verified not interviewing R1 for the MDS dated [DATE] about section F regarding her activity preferences. RN-B stated, I don't care for the questions themselves; I think. I think they are silly questions themselves. The question set is geared towards a different population set than ours. RN-B stated she sometimes gathered the MDS data from interviewing staff, and depending on the situation, I will engage the resident and ask about what they liked to do prior to admission. RN-B confirmed R1 did not have an activities care plan focus and stated, it mostly discusses her behaviors, I don't see anything for activities. I think that maybe is a gap in my understanding. Per interview on 2/3/25 at 1:37 p.m., RN-A, also identified as the facility's director of nursing (DON) and administrator, confirmed training RN-B on the MDS process and stated, it could have been better. RN-A stated if was a second nurse available to help during the facility's new admissions, I could have helped RN-B more, I could have made it [the training] more robust. RN-A stated if there was more time, I could have been more available. Per facility policy titled Activities Policy updated 11/18/24, staff were directed to get to know a resident's history, preferences, dreams and hopes to provide a variety of engaging resident programs while incorporating resident preferences. A comprehensive care plan policy was requested but not received.
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0660 (Tag F0660)

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 evaluate a resident's discharge needs or develop a discharge plan...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview and document review, the facility failed to evaluate a resident's discharge needs or develop a discharge plan to ensure an appropriate discharge location could accommodate resident medical, mental health, oncology, cancer care, and medication needs for 1 of 1 residents (R12) who was discharged to a location where it was unknown if they could meet R12's needs. Findings include: R12's discharge return not anticipated Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated [DATE], indicated R12 had a planned discharge to a home/community setting, had intact cognition, mild depression, no behaviors, and was independent with activities of daily living. The MDS identified diagnoses of major depressive disorder, alcohol dependence, adjustment disorder with depressed mood, history of suicide attempt, and a history of other psychoactive substance abuse. The MDS indicated antipsychotic and antibiotic medication use. The MDS indicated there was not an active discharge plan in place for R12 to return to the community, and R12 did not want a referral to a local contact agency. R12's care plan 8/11/24, did not identify discharge planning, and indicated R12 required pain management, assistance from social services and nursing to schedule medical appointments, transportation, and needed follow-up and communication with oncology staff at cancer institute. R12 attended a day program for alcohol abuse treatment, addiction treatment program, and had little or no activity involvement. R12 had potential for dehydration or potential for fluid deficit related to nausea, poor intake, use and/or side effects of medication, and swallowing problem. R12 had depression and psychosocial well-being problem related to anxiety, cancer, dependent behavior, disease process, inability to concentrate, family discord, inability to problem solve, ineffective coping, lack of motivation, recent admission, and social isolation. R12's interdisciplinary notes indicated the following events: -8/15/24, R12 approved for treatment program for alcohol abuse and would be escorted by social services director. -9/12/24, R12 made a false report about two roommates and steps were taken to move R12 to a private room. -10/10/24, R12 wanted money for chewing tobacco and stated they would call social services and get the building in trouble if the facility did not give R12 money. -10/21/24, registered nurse (RN)-A discussed with R12 about respecting staff and R12 stated they should not have to be respectful to staff. -11/4/24, RN-A called Hennepin County Nurse hotline to request an appointment and scheduler stated R12 was a no call, no show for two appointments. RN-A indicated nursing had arranged transportation for the appointments, and R12 had called to have cab ride back to the facility. RN-A indicated the facility social worker would escort R12 for all appointments. -11/5/24, R12 was discharged [DATE] around noon to a different setting and named the facility. R12 was discharged with all medications, and staff dropped R12 off at the listed address. R12's providers order dated 11/11/24, six days after the discharge took place, indicated R12 was okay to discharge with medications to a group home living environment. R12's documents lacked a discharge summary. When interviewed on 1/28/25 at 12:32 p.m., registered nurse (RN)-A, who was the facility administrator and director of nursing, stated when discharging residents, the facility got a discharge order from the provider and sent discharging residents with a copy of their medication administration record and medications depending on where they were going. RN-A stated they completed discharge summaries in residents' progress notes. RN-A stated R12's discharge was self-directed, and the health unit coordinator (HUC)-A, who also facilitated activities and was the social services director, drove R12 to the group home. RN-A stated they did not remember if they had R12 sign any discharge paperwork, because R12 got to the point where R12 did not want to work with the facility on their discharge. On 1/28/25 at 12:39 p.m., writer called two numbers for R12 and both numbers were changed, disconnected, or no longer in service. When further interviewed on 1/28/25 at 1:17 p.m., RN-A stated R12 was at the facility for cancer treatment and was cured a year. RN-A stated R12 was in counseling for drinking problems and met people at the treatment program who R12 wanted to move in with, and did not tell RN-A where the location was. RN-A stated R12 was safe to make their own decisions, and R12 gave the facility notice of their wishes to discharge a day or two before the discharge was set to occur. RN-A stated they packed R12's medications, got a provider's order for discharge, and moved R12 to their new residence. RN-A stated they normally filled out a discharge summary and had the resident sign it and would look for R12's. RN-A stated R12 discharged on 11-5-24, and verified the providers order for discharge was obtained 11-11-24. RN-A stated orders were delayed at times when providers were contacted. RN-A stated R12 started to be belligerent with staff, and RN-A had thoughts of discharging R12 or calling the police. RN-A reviewed progress notes which indicated R12 was educated to be kinder to staff and manipulated staff for money. When interviewed on 1/28/25 at 1:58 p.m., RN-A stated they could not find a discharge summary for R12 and stated R12 left quickly, and RN-A provided a blank Discharge Summary they would normally fill out for discharging residents. The blank Discharge Summary form had a spot for name, admission and discharge date , discharge location, condition on discharge, admitting diagnosis, course of treatment, and an area for a signature and date. The bottom half of the form had spots for information about discharge diagnosis, prognosis, disposition of medication, provider signature and date. When interviewed on 1/29/25 at 11:49 a.m., certified physician assistant (CPA)-B stated staff sent messages through their portal for discharge recommendations. The facility was not a locked unit, and residents could leave without guidance or provider approval. CPA-B stated they got a message 11/11/24, about R12 wanting to transfer to a group home and indicated R12 was okay to discharge with medications to group home living. CPA-B verified they were aware of the discharge later than the discharge date . CPA-B stated R12 discharged on their own accord and was able to make such decisions and did not have concerns about knowing about R12's facility discharge at a later date. On 1/30/25 at 9:19 a.m., writer attempted to call the facility R12 was discharged to, and the number was no longer working. On 1/30/25 at 9:32 a.m., an overarching program number was called, and the representative stated the facility closed a year ago and did not have R12 in their records. When interviewed on 1/30/25 at 9:37 a.m., HUC-A stated RN-A handled discharges from the facility, and they had not previously had discharges in which the resident said they wanted to leave within 24 hours. HUC-A stated HUC-A and DON usually called the receiving facility to communicate about resident needs, spent time with the staff at the receiving facility when bringing residents to new locations, and would call the facility afterward to ask how the resident was and inquire if they needed anything else. HUC-A stated R12 planned their own discharge with an unknown social worker, stated they were moving out, and did not tell the facility details about the social worker helping with the discharge or discharge location. HUC-A stated R12 mentioned they were moving out a week prior to discharge but did not give a timeline of when the discharge would be, and HUC-A did not know if R12 was truthful. HUC-A stated R12 left on bad terms and was agitated and upset with everyone. When R12's self-planned ride fell through on 11/5/24, HUC-A drove the resident to the unknown facility location using directions provided by R12, however HUC-A stated R12 did not want HUC-A to enter the new facility. HUC-A wrote down the address upon arrival and looked up the address and phone number when HUC-A returned to the facility, however, HUC-A stated they never called the receiving facility number they found. The phone number and facility name were the same as the writer attempted to reach which had closed several months prior to discharge. When interviewed on 1/30/25 at 10:36 a.m., after conversing about closure of the identified receiving facility, CPA-B stated the facility was responsible for safe discharge, especially if dropping the resident off. CPA-B expected a report to be made if the facility did not know where the resident was discharging to and left against medical advice. CPA-B stated R12 was not cognitively impaired, did not have dementia, and was independent with decisions and activities of daily living. When interviewed on 1/30/25 at 10:47 a.m., RN-A stated R12 did not leave against medical advice and was a safe discharge, since R12 reported he was was working with an unknown social worker. R12 was sent with medications and a copy of medication administration record, HUC-A drove R12 to their destination, and R12 had a support system and was independent. RN-A stated the social worker was from R12's drinking rehabilitation group, but RN-A did not know who the social worker was, since R12 did not provide the name or number of the social worker. RN-A tried to call the three numbers the writer called, and the calls failed. RN-A stated R12 had mentioned discharge but did not give a timeline, and then suddenly R12 stated they were discharging. RN-A stated it happened faster than they would have wanted it to happen, but a process was in place. When interviewed on 1/30/25 at 11:00 a.m., RN-D stated R12 did not want staff to know where they were going and just told staff they were leaving. RN-D stated HUC-A dropped R12 off to the place R12 was going. RN-D ended the call prior to interview end. When interviewed on 1/30/25 at 11:22 a.m., R12's psychiatry office representative stated R12 had a psychiatric prescriber and therapist through them, was seen 4/11/24, and missed appointments on 5/9/24, and 6/14/24. The representative stated they did not have a phone number or address for R12 so they were waiting for R12 to reach out to them. The representative stated they had record of the facility reaching out for medication refills in November of 2024. When interviewed on 1/30/25 at 12:51 p.m., R12's chemical counselor stated R12 completed an intensive residential outpatient treatment program but would not have resumed care of R12's at discharge. When interviewed on 1/30/25 at 3:40 p.m., RN-A stated they spoke to their boss, who was going to check on R12 and thought the facility R12 discharged to changed names and ownership. RN-A stated R12 was tired of being at Southside and was ready to leave and thought it was safe for R12 to discharge. RN-A considered filing a report but thought that would have upset R12. The facility provided a new phone number for R12. When interviewed on 1/31/25 at 12:22 p.m., R12 stated they were at the facility for cancer treatment and were in remission. R12 stated their discharge was self-initiated and R12 was trying to get back to work and regular daily life. R12 stated the social worker at the treatment center put R12 into contact with people who helped R12 into a group home where R12 could work. R12 stated they were discharged with their belongings, medications, and a couple of folders of paperwork but did not recall what the paperwork was. R12 stated they had no disruptions with their medications or care. When interviewed on 2/3/25 at 10:01 a.m., RN-A stated they did not have proof and did not make a copy of the summary they sent with R12 at the time of discharge. RN-A stated they did not have an active role in R12's discharge planning and did not have a nurse to hand off report to about R12, since R12 was private about their discharge plans and coordinated their discharge with an outside social worker. A policy related to discharge was requested but not received.
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0679 (Tag F0679)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview and document review, the facility failed to ensure individualized activities were provided for 1...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview and document review, the facility failed to ensure individualized activities were provided for 1 of 1 residents (R1) reviewed for activities. Findings include: R1's annual Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated [DATE], reflected a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS, or an assessment to determine a person's mental status) score of 11, indicating mild cognitive impairment. Additionally, the MDS indicated she had clear speech with the ability to make herself understood and was able to understand others. The MDS reported the interview for daily and activity preferences should not be conducted because R1 was rarely/never understood and family/significant other was not available. The MDS indicated staff assessed R1 regarding her daily and activities preferences and identified R1 preferred participating in her favorite activities and doing things in groups of people. The MDS identified diagnoses of anxiety, bipolar disorder (a chronic mental health disorder characterized by extreme mood swings between extreme periods of elevated moods, or mania, and extreme low moods, or depression), schizophrenia (a chronic mental health illness that affects a person's thoughts, perceptions, emotions, and behaviors), and mild intellectual disabilities (a developmental disorder that affects a person's abstract thinking and learning and problem-solving skills). R1's Care Area Assessment (CAA) for activities dated 12/12/24, was triggered due to the symptom of presence of little interest or pleasure in doing things. The CAA indicated the problem was actual, however lacked documentation of the nature of the problem or condition. The CAA indicated R1 slept in every morning and refused to get out of bed in the morning. Furthermore, the CAA indicated R1 has little interest in doing activities other than her word find book. Sometimes likes to listen to music with the Activities Director, however, likes to take naps mostly during the morning and has a history of not going to medical appointments, because she doesn't feel like doing anything except word find puzzles. The CAA indicated activities would be addressed in R1's care plan to slow or minimize decline and maintain her current level of functioning. R1's CAA for mood state dated 12/12/24, indicated R1 slept in every morning, refuses to get out of bed, has little interest in doing activities other than her word find book. Sometimes likes to listen to music with the activities director, however, likes to take naps mostly during the morning and has a history of not going to medical appointments because she doesn't feel like doing anything except her word find puzzles. Mental Health: BIMS score 15, residents score can vary every time she is asked to perform this assessment. The CAA indicated R1's mood state - functional status would be addressed in the care plan. An activities assessment was requested for the annual MDS dated [DATE], but was not received. R1's care plan revised 4/18/20, identified her risk for not meeting emotional, intellectual, physical and social needs related to her cognitive deficits, schizophrenia, and physical limitations. The goal of care was to maintain involvement in cognitive stimulation and social activities as desired. The care plan directed staff to invite R1 to activities and ensure activities she attended were compatible with physical and mental capabilities, compatible with known interests and preferences, adapted as needed, compatible with her needs and abilities, were age appropriate. The care plan lacked documentation of R1's activity preferences, either facility-sponsored or independent activities. A care conference record dated 4/6/24, indicated her preferred activities included, begging for food, pop, chewing gum. Word find book, watching TV, bingo, group activities, sing alongs, music, will make needs known. An activities participation log dated 9/24 included activities such as morning visit in room, crossword puzzles in dayroom, socialize with others, outside for fresh air, one-to-one visits, outing to clinic for doctor's visit, TV, and Bingo. The monthly participation log lacked documentation if arts or crafts were offered to R1. Furthermore, the log lacked documentation of refusals to participate in activities. An activities participation log dated 10/24 included activities such as sleeping in, morning visit in room, crossword puzzles in dayroom, socialize with others, outside for fresh air or to smoke, one-to-one visits, outing to clinic for doctor's visit, TV, music, napping, and Bingo. The monthly participation log lacked documentation if arts or crafts were offered to R1. Furthermore, the log lacked documentation of refusals to participate in activities. An activities participation log dated 11/24 included activities such as morning visit in room, crossword puzzles in dayroom, socialize with others, outside for fresh air, one-to-one visits, independent activity, went shopping for her at Target, TV, and Bingo. The monthly participation log lacked documentation if arts or crafts were offered to R1. Furthermore, the log lacked documentation of refusals to participate in activities. An activities participation log dated 12/24 included activities such as morning visit in room, crossword puzzles in dayroom, socialize with others, outside to smoke, morning visits, independent activity, TV, and Bingo. The monthly participation log lacked documentation if arts or crafts were offered to R1. Furthermore, the log lacked documentation of refusals to participate in activities. An activities participation log dated 1/25 included activities such as morning visit in room, crossword puzzles in dayroom, socialize with others, outside to smoke, morning visit, independent activity, New Years Day social, listen to the radio, TV, and Bingo. On 1/9/25, R1 was reported to have participated in arts and craft painting. An activities calendar dated 12/16/24 - 12/22/24 lacked an arts and craft activity offering. An activities calendar dated 12/23/24 - 1/5/25 lacked an arts and craft activity offering. An activities calendar dated 1/20/25 - 1/26/25 included the following activities: - Monday: Breakfast, Current Events - Morning News, Independent Resident Outings, Morning Visits, Assist Res [sic, Resident] with Needs, Lunch, Western Classics, 11:30 Lunch, Table Games, Coffee Time, TV Viewing, 4:30 Supper, Evening Meal/Dinner, Evening News, Snack Time, Resident Social Time. - Tuesday: Breakfast, Current Events - Morning News, Independent Resident Outings, Res [sic, Resident] Outing, Ind [sic, independent] Activity, Lunch, Western Classics, 11:30 Lunch, Arts and Craft Group, Social Hour, 4:30 Supper, Evening Meal/Dinner, Evening News, Snack Time, Resident Social Time. - Wednesday: Breakfast, Current Events - Morning News, Independent Resident Outings, News Hour, Crossword Puzzles, Lunch, Western Classics, 11:30 Lunch, Music Listening, Reading Group, TV Time, 4:30 Supper, Evening Meal/Dinner, Evening News, Snack Time, Resident Social Time. - Thursday: Breakfast, Current Events - Morning News, Independent Resident Outings, Current Events, Assist Residents, Lunch, Western Classics, 11:30 Lunch, 1:00 Bingo, 2:00 Discussion Group, 4:30 Supper, Evening Meal/Dinner, Evening News, Snack Time, Resident Social Time. - Friday: Breakfast, Current Events - Morning News, Independent Resident Outings, Morning News, 10:00 Ind [sic, independent] Activity, Lunch, Western Classics, 11:30 Lunch, Ind [sic, independent] Activity, Ind [sic, independent] Activity, Ind [sic, independent] Activity, Ind [sic, independent] Activity, 4:30 Supper, Evening Meal/Dinner, Evening News, Snack Time, Resident Social Time. - Saturday: Breakfast, Current Events - Morning News, Independent Resident Outings, News Hour, Ind [sic, independent] Activity, Lunch, Western Classics, 11:30 Lunch, Ind [sic, independent] Activity, Ind [sic, independent] Activity, Ind [sic, independent] Activity, Ind [sic, independent] Activity, 4:30 Supper, Evening Meal/Dinner, Evening News, Snack Time, Resident Social Time. - Sunday: Breakfast, Current Events - Morning News, Independent Resident Outings, Sunday Morning Church Programs in Main Dining Room, Religious Program on TV, Lunch, Western Classics, 10:00 Ind [sic, independent] Activity, 11:30 Lunch, Ind [sic, independent] Activity, Ind [sic, independent] Activity, 4:30 Supper, Evening Meal/Dinner, Evening News, Snack Time, Resident Social Time. An activities calendar dated 1/13/25 - 1/19/25 included the following activities: - Monday: Breakfast, Current Events - Morning News, Independent Resident Outings, Morning News, Room Visits, Lunch, Western Classics, Crossword Puzzles, Music Listening, TV Time, Supper, Evening Meal/Dinner, Evening News, Snack Time, Resident Social Time. - Tuesday: Breakfast, Current Events - Morning News, Independent Resident Outings, Current Events, Res [sic, Resident] Outing, Lunch, Western Classics, 11:30 Lunch, Table [NAME], Social Hour, Supper, [blank space], Evening Meal/Dinner, Evening News, Snack Time, Resident Social Time. - Wednesday: Breakfast, Current Events - Morning News, Independent Resident Outings, News Hour, Morning Stretch, Lunch, Western Classics, 11:30 Lunch, Bingo, Activities Continue, 4:30 Supper, Evening Meal/Dinner, Evening News, Snack Time, Resident Social Time. - Thursday: Breakfast, Current Events - Morning News, Independent Resident Outings, One to One Visits, Res [sic, Resident] Outing, Lunch, Western Classics, 11:30 Lunch, 1:00 Arts and Craft, Activity, 4:30 Supper, Evening Meal/Dinner, Evening News, Snack Time, Resident Social Time. - Friday: Breakfast, Current Events - Morning News, Independent Resident Outings, Catch Up With the News, Ind [sic, independent] Activity, Lunch, Western Classics, 11:30 Lunch, Ind [sic, independent] Activity, Ind [sic, independent] Activity, Ind [sic, independent] Activity, Ind [sic, independent] Activity, 4:30 Supper, Evening Meal/Dinner, Evening News, Snack Time, Resident Social Time. - Saturday: Breakfast, Current Events - Morning News, Independent Resident Outings, News Hour, Ind [sic, independent] Activity, Lunch, Western Classics, 11:30 Lunch, Ind [sic, independent] Activity, Ind [sic, independent] Activity, Ind [sic, independent] Activity, Ind [sic, independent] Activity, 4:30 Supper, Evening Meal/Dinner, Evening News, Snack Time, Resident Social Time. - Sunday: Breakfast, Current Events - Morning News, Independent Resident Outings, Sunday Morning Church Programs in Main Dining Room, Religious Program on TV, Lunch, Western Classics, 10:00 Ind [sic, independent] Activity, 11:30 Lunch, Ind [sic, independent] Activity, Ind [sic, independent] Activity, 4:30 Supper, Evening Meal/Dinner, Evening News, Snack Time, Resident Social Time. An activities calendar dated 1/27/25 - 2/7/25 included the following activities: - Monday: Breakfast, Current Events - Morning News, Independent Resident Outings, Morning Visits, Res [sic, Resident] Outing, Lunch, Western Classics, 11:30 Lunch, Table Game, 2:30 Social Hour, 4:30 Supper, Evening Meal/Dinner, Evening News, Snack Time, Resident Social Time. - Tuesday: Breakfast, Current Events - Morning News, Independent Resident Outings, Res [sic, Resident] Outing, Ind [sic, Independent] Activity, Lunch, Western Classics, 11:30 Lunch, 1:00 Arts and Craft Group, [blank space], 4:30 Supper, Evening Meal/Dinner, Evening News, Snack Time, Resident Social Time. - Wednesday: Breakfast, Current Events - Morning News, Independent Resident Outings, 9:00 News Hour, 10:00 One to One Visits, Lunch, Western Classics, 11:30 Lunch, 1:00 Reading Group, 2:00 Social Hour, 4:30 Supper, Evening Meal/Dinner, Evening News, Snack Time, Resident Social Time. - Thursday: Breakfast, Current Events - Morning News, Independent Resident Outings, 9:00 Resident Council, 11:30 Lunch, Western Classics, 1:00 Bingo, 3:00 Coffee Time, 4:30 Supper, [blank space], Evening Meal/Dinner, Evening News, Snack Time, Resident Social Time. - Friday: Breakfast, Current Events - Morning News, Independent Resident Outings, 9:00 Morning News, Ind [sic, independent] Activity, Lunch, Western Classics, 11:30 Lunch, Ind [sic, independent] Activity, Ind [sic, independent] Activity, Ind [sic, independent] Activity, Ind [sic, independent] Activity, 4:30 Supper, Evening Meal/Dinner, Evening News, Snack Time, Resident Social Time. - Saturday: Breakfast, Current Events - Morning News, Independent Resident Outings, 9:00 News Hour, [blank space], Lunch, Western Classics, 11:30 Lunch, Ind [sic, independent] Activity, Ind [sic, independent] Activity, Ind [sic, independent] Activity, Ind [sic, independent] Activity, 4:30 Supper, Evening Meal/Dinner, - Evening News, Snack Time, Resident Social Time. - Sunday: Breakfast, Current Events - Morning News, Independent Resident Outings, Sunday Morning Church Programs in Main Dining Room, Religious Program on TV, Lunch, Western Classics, 10:00 Ind [sic, independent] Activity, 11:30 Lunch, Ind [sic, independent] Activity, Ind [sic, independent] Activity, 4:30 Supper, Evening Meal/Dinner, Evening News, Snack Time, Resident Social Time. During observation and interview on 1/27/25 at 2:58 p.m., R1 was in her room and sitting on her bed. She had multiple crossword puzzle books around her room and stated she wished the facility had more arts and crafts because, that's what I like to do. R1 stated the facility did not have activities on the weekends. She stated she enjoyed working independently on puzzle books and did not have trouble getting books to work on as well as arts and crafts but stated when she and other residents would ask for more supplies, staff responded there was no money for that. R1 stated she would accept either structured group activities and independent options, such as a craft bucket where she could independently pick her own activities and supplies at any time. Additionally, R1 stated staff did not ask residents for their input about activities but wished they would. During observation on 1/28/25 at 8:06 a.m., R1 was in the dining room at the table eating breakfast. Behind the table is a white bookshelf with four shelves and various books, board games, coloring supplies and beads. The top shelf held a Jenga game, coloring and cookbooks, a travel to [NAME] book, literature, puzzles, a Cranium board game, a bible, and plain English book. The second shelf had two Yahtzee board games, a Reminiscing board game, two Monopoly board games, and dominoes. The third shelf had puzzles, a Cranium board game, and a game of trivia. The bottom shelf had a plastic container with various beads and thread, construction paper and coloring pencils. There was no bucket observed in the bookshelf with crafts. There was an activities calendar dated 1/27/25 - 2/7/25, posted in the hallway between the dining room and the front door to the facility. At 8:48 a.m., R1 walked through the dining room and conversed with another resident, laughing and joking. At 10:59 a.m., R1 sat in the dining room working on her crossword puzzle book. Licensed practical nurse (LPN)-A talked with her about her crossword puzzle and TV shows. R1 used the remote control to change the channel on the TV in the corner of the room to a MeTV program. During a continuous observation on 1/28/25 between 12:58 p.m. and 1:56 p.m., the following was observed: - 12:56 p.m. The health unit coordinator (HUC)-A, also identified as the facility's activities and social services director, sat in the dining room at the table with resident charts out. LPN-A sat in the dining room as well. The activities calendar posted identified an activity of arts and crafts at 1:00 p.m. There were no residents in the dining room and no activities occurring. - 1:15 p.m. R2 sat down in the dining room at a table and asked LPN-A, what should we do? - 1:25 p.m. There was no ongoing activity or arts and crafts per the posted activity calendar. LPN-A walked to the bookshelf and offered puzzles or board games. R2 declined the puzzles. LPN-A offered to play a DVD movie and R2 stated the DVD player did not work. LPN-A attempted to play the movie and put a DVD into the player and pushed some buttons on the device. LPN-A stated, I think you're right; I don't think this works. Sorry, I tried. LPN-A walked away from the DVD player and sat down at the table and stated, maybe we can find something cool to watch on TV. - 1:29 p.m. R1 walked in the dining room from outside and asked LPN-A what they were watching. LPN-A told her they were watching a cartoon, Frozen, and invited R1 to watch the movie. R1 sat down to watch the movie before leaving the dining room at 1:37 p.m. - 1:56 p.m. R1 returned to the dining room table with her crossword puzzle book. She sat down and began to work on the puzzles. There was no offering of arts and crafts per the posted activities calendar. During observation on 1/29/25 at 12:59 p.m., R1 was participating in Bingo in the dining room. She stated, I am really good at winning at Bingo, I always win. Per interview on 1/29/25 at 12:03 p.m., HUC-A described their role at the facility, including setting up appointments, arranging transportation, escorting residents to appointments, filling in for activities when the activities person was out, picking up supplies for activities and residents, managing resident council, bookwork and answering the phones. HUC-A stated, every morning I go straight to the desk to handle the books and phones and deal with the appointments and transportation. I have become RN-A's right hand. HUC-A stated, even if it gets overwhelming, we improvise and we make it work. HUC-A reported most of the residents were independent with their activities but confirmed assisting some residents with their personal shopping needs and providing the supplies for activities. HUC-A confirmed having independent craft buckets for one of the residents previously and stated, one of the gals liked crafts, so I went out and got supplies for painting and tracing and she came with one time and picked out some supplies. HUC-A confirmed the craft bucket was not for R1 and stated she liked word puzzles. HUC-A stated residents were assessed for their activity preferences upon admission and R1's preferences hadn't really changed except when she quit smoking and started to eat more food and chewing the gum. HUC-A confirmed not asking R1 about activity preferences recently and stated someone else was completing the required MDS assessments about activity preferences. HUC-A reviewed R1's activity log and stated, she loves Bingo, she loves her puzzle books. When she's out, I go get more. During interview on 1/29/25 at 9:48 a.m., registered nurse (RN)-B confirmed completing the MDS assessments and stated R1 was tricky because she would sometimes say things not based in fact. RN-B verified not interviewing R1 for the MDS dated [DATE], about section F regarding her activity preferences. RN-B stated, I don't care for the questions themselves; I think. I think they are silly questions themselves. The question set is geared towards a different population set than ours. RN-B stated she sometimes gathered the MDS data from interviewing staff, and depending on the situation, I will engage the resident and ask about what they liked to do prior to admission. RN-B confirmed R1 did not have an activities care plan focus and stated, it mostly discusses her behaviors, I don't see anything for activities. I think that maybe is a gap in my understanding. During interview on 1/29/25 at 4:56 p.m., R1's medical doctor (MD)-D and psychiatrist was aware R1 enjoyed crafts and believed it was important for her to stay busy. MD-D stated activities were extremely important for R1, whether they were busy activities like light walking or raking or fun activities like coloring because they could be distracting from the voices and can improve the mood. MD-D stated activities helped R1 not to focus on the psychosis and prevented her from sitting around, listening to those voices. Per interview on 2/3/25 at 1:37 p.m., RN-A, also identified as the facility's director of nursing (DON) and administrator, confirmed training RN-B on the MDS process and stated, it could have been better. RN-A stated if was a second nurse available to help during the facility's new admissions, I could have helped RN-B more, I could have made it [the training] more robust. RN-A stated if there was more time, I could have been more available. RN-A stated a belief the residents in the facility were all happy. An interview was requested from the facility's medical director was requested but not received. Per facility policy titled Activities Policy updated 11/18/24, the purpose of the activities program was to maximize independence and focus on residents' remaining strengths and abilities. The policy directed staff to get to know a resident's history, preferences, dreams and hopes to provide a variety of engaging resident programs while incorporating resident preferences. Furthermore, the policy directed staff to provide the necessary resources for independent resident interests and hobbies and encourage resident participation with personal invites to group activities.
CONCERN (D)

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

Quality of Care (Tag F0684)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview, and document review, the facility failed to ensure appropriate blood pressure monitoring and or...

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 appropriate blood pressure monitoring and order was in place for 1 of 5 residents (R3) observed during morning medication administration. Findings include: R3's annual Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated [DATE], indicated R3 had intact cognition, delusions, and no behaviors or rejection of care. The MDS indicated R3 was independent with activities of daily living, had diagnoses of orthostatic hypotension (drop in blood pressure when standing up or sitting down), hyperlipidemia (condition where there are high levels of fats in the blood), depression, and schizophrenia, and medications included antipsychotics and antidepressants. R3's medication and treatment administration record for January 2025, indicated R3 had the following orders: -9/13/23, Midodrine HCL 2.5 milligram (mg) tablet and instructed staff to give [ONE] [TABLET] BY MOUTH TWICE DAILY - HOLD FOR B/P [blood pressure] 110 MMHG [MILLIMETERS OF MERCURY] BUT GIVE IF [R3] IS HAVING SYMPTOMS (DX: HYPOTENSION [low blood pressure]). -8/7/23, take blood pressure daily. R3's Consultation Report dated 1/13/25, directed the facility to clarify if R3's midodrine entry should say hold for blood pressure greater than 110 mmHg. Another clarification indicated blood pressure and pulse were recorded daily and midodrine was twice daily, so please clarify how often blood pressure should be assessed and recorded due to hold parameter on midodrine entry. The Consultation Report had a written reply dated 1/26/25, which indicated sometimes blood pressure was taken after medication given to see effectiveness. The other written reply indicated R3's blood pressure was consistently hypotensive. During medication observation on 1/29/25 at 7:48 a.m., RN-A prepared medication for R3. Three tablets were prepared with one tablet of midodrine 2.5 milligram (mg). RN-A gave R3 medication, and R3 took medication. RN-A did not check R3's blood pressure before administration of medication. When interviewed on 1/29/25 at 8:05 a.m., RN-A verified they did not check R3's blood pressure prior to medication administration and stated they normally checked R3's blood pressure before and about forty-five minutes after medication administration to check medication effectiveness. During observation and interview on 1/29/25 at 8:12 a.m., RN-A checked R3's blood pressure, which was 98/74 mmhg. When interviewed on 1/31/25 at 12:54 p.m., licensed practical nurse (LPN)-A stated blood pressure should be taken before administration of blood pressure medication with parameters to know if the medication needed to be held or okay to give. When interviewed on 2/3/25 at 8:37 a.m., consultant pharmacist (CP)-C stated they indicated to the facility in November 2023 R3 received blood pressure medication twice a day and blood pressure checked once a day. CP-C did not have a copy of the facility reply but had made a note to indicate blood pressure was monitored for R3 once a day. CP-C was not sure if R3 was resistive to getting blood pressure checked twice a day or if the provider clarified to check once a day. CP-C stated they indicated in their pharmacy review dated 1/13/25, to clarify if the R3's midodrine order should say hold for blood pressure greater than 110 mmhg and inquired about whether blood pressure should be checked once or twice a day since midodrine was given twice a day. CP-C had not returned to the facility yet so did not know the facility's reply to their recommendation. When interviewed on 2/3/25 at 9:05 a.m., certified physician assistant (CPA)-B expected nursing to check blood pressure prior to administering a blood pressure medication with hold parameters. If a blood pressure medication with parameters was given twice a day, nursing should check blood pressure twice a day before administration. CPA-B stated they previously discussed hold parameters for blood pressure greater than 120 mmhg but 110 mmhg was okay. CPA-B stated if R3 was stable on current dosing then it may be okay to check R3's blood pressure once a day, but nursing should clarify with the provider first. CPA-B did not recall nursing discussing the pharmacy recommendations directly with them. CPA-B stated it was important to follow orders with hold parameters, because if blood pressure was too high, midodrine could raise blood pressure further and cause problems. When interviewed on 2/3/25 at 9:56 a.m., RN-A, who was the administrator and director of nursing, stated R3's blood pressure had not been 110 mmhg or above and verified they should clarify with the provider if the order should read to hold midodrine for blood pressure equal to or greater than 110 mmhg. RN-A stated they should check R3's blood pressure twice daily. A policy pertaining to blood pressure monitoring and/or administering blood pressure medication was requested but not received.
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0699 (Tag F0699)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview and document review, the facility failed to identify triggers to avoid potential re-traumatization and failed...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview and document review, the facility failed to identify triggers to avoid potential re-traumatization and failed to develop and implement the comprehensive care plan to include individualized trauma-informed approaches for 1 of 2 resident (R7) who had a history of trauma. Findings include: R7's admission Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated [DATE], indicated she had intact cognition and no hallucinations or delusions with no reported behavioral symptoms. The MDS reported diagnoses including depression and alcohol dependence, however, did not identify a post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) diagnosis. R7's Care Area Assessment (CAA) for psychosocial well-being dated 11/7/24, identified R7 took psychotropic medications mirtazapine and fluoxetine (antidepressants) to treat depression. Additionally, the CAA identified she utilized non-pharmacologic interventions such as crafting activities, sitting outside on the front porch, smoking cigarettes, and minimal socializing to manage anxiety symptoms. The CAA indicated R7's psychosocial well-being would be addressed in her care plan and lacked documentation if a referral was warranted to another discipline, and lacked identification of triggers. R7's CAA for mood state dated 11/7/24, identified her non-specific psychiatric disorder(s) and use of psychotropic medications. The CAA indicated her mood state would be addressed in her care plan but lacked documentation if a referral was warranted to another discipline, and lacked identification of triggers. A biopsychosocial intake diagnostic assessment dated [DATE], indicated R7 reported a history of trauma. The admission paperwork reported, she was in an abusive marriage for 26 years which included physical, emotional and sexual abuse by her husband. A comprehensive trauma informed care assessment dated [DATE], identified triggers such as loud male voices, yelling, and angry voices, thrown objects. The assessment included target symptoms of depression under control. On bipolar spectrum. Depression more related to bipolar not actual depression. The assessment identified psychotropic medication management as well as non-pharmacologic interventions and indicated her needs would be addressed in the care plan. R7's care plan revised 11/24/24, directed staff to her behavioral management care plan and comprehensive behavioral assessment. The care plan lacked documentation of R7's history of trauma and potential triggers. A behavioral management care plan dated 11/24/24, indicated R7's behavioral triggers included sleep apnea and insomnia, and reported she often stayed awake throughout the night smoking and did experience sleep apnea. Additionally, the triggers identified on the care plan included stress related to medical appointments and getting the medications she needs prescribed to her, and her personal struggles with pain and addiction create a tremendous amount of stress for her. The care plan identified R7's target behavioral monitoring of chain-smoking cigarettes related to her insomnia and her addiction to food and eating between meals. Interventions included on the care plan were managing her medical appointments, setting up a sleep study consultation, assistance in managing her PRN (as needed) medications and assessing her anxiety levels, and encouraging non-pharmacological solutions for anxiety management. The care plan lacked documentation of R7's history of trauma and related triggers. A facility referral form dated 12/17/24, indicated R7 was referred out for a psychiatry visit. The referral form revealed under the information from: side; diagnosis depression and PTSD. During interview on 1/29/25 at 12:03 p.m., health unit coordinator (HUC)-A, who also identified as the facility's social services director and activities director, reported there were several people in the facility with PTSD. HUC-A stated residents with triggers related to their PTSD were assessed upon admission if staff were aware of their diagnosis. HUC-A stated if a resident was struggling with PTSD or substance abuse, staff could offer a walk outside during the summer months or call management during off-hours for assistance. HUC-A reported it was important to give residents what they needed to succeed, like medication management, medical appointment referrals and transportation arrangement, to provide for their psychosocial well-being and mental health needs. During interview on 1/31/25 at 9:59 a.m., R7 stated there hasn't been a conversation yet here about my triggers or my past trauma. She reported there had been past events at the facility that were triggering for her and stated, there's one lady here that keeps asking for cigarettes. R7 shared the other unidentified female resident would ask for more cigarettes until she owed R7 money, which was a trigger for her because, that's not fair for me or her really. She endorsed reporting the events to RN-A, also identified as the facility's director of nursing (DON) and administrator, and believed RN-A spoke to the unidentified resident. Per interview on 1/31/25 at 9:45 a.m., treatment director (TD)-K confirmed working with R7 on her admission to the facility and recalled R7 reporting a history of trauma and that having an impact on her mental health. TD-K stated R7's trauma history included abuse and there was also some history of financial abuse with a previous partner of hers. TD-K stated R7 was assessed for trauma prior to discharge from their facility but I don't think she met full criteria to get the PTSD diagnosis in our diagnostic assessment, however, stated the referral would note if the resident had trauma. TD-K stated, from my recollection it is noted on there, her assessment and her history of trauma. But with her other concerns and wishes to want to be sober, her history of substance use, it made more sense to get those other diagnoses on her admission. During interview on 2/3/25 at 12:51 p.m., nurse practitioner (NP)-J verified working with R7 for a number of years and confirmed her PTSD diagnosis. NP-J further confirmed responsibility for R7's psychotropic medication management, including her PRN antipsychotic medication olanzapine. During interview on 2/3/25 at 1:37 p.m., RN-A stated, R7, I know the least amount about her, but I know she sees a trauma center. I think the care planning is appropriate. RN-A reported the trauma-informed care plan and assessment for R7 was completed but was kept separately from her behavioral management care plan. RN-A explained the trauma assessments and care plans for residents were kept in a separate survey binder because the facility had gone through a complaint survey and RN-A thought they were supposed to keep all related documents together in a separate binder. RN-A confirmed, no, I didn't capture that on the first day they were here. I should have done it before day 7, I think you get 7 days for the MDS. But I do expect that if we assess a resident for trauma, like we did, then it should be identified in the MDS. A facility policy titled Trauma Informed Care dated 11/8/24, indicated the facility would ensure to assess a resident who had a history of trauma and/or PTSD and facilitate appropriate treatment and services to manage the assessed problem to attain the highest practicable mental and psychological well-being. The policy directed staff to complete the comprehensive trauma informed care assessment upon admission, quarterly, annually and with a significant change. The assessment included an interview of the resident and/or representative and if available a review of the resident's medical or psychosocial history regarding any serious or traumatic life events, to aid in identifying any possible trauma history. The policy indicated the facility would collaborate with resident trauma survivors, and as appropriate, the resident's family, friends, and other healthcare professions to develop and implement individualized interventions. The policy instructed trauma-specific interventions should recognize the interrelation between trauma and symptoms of trauma such as substance abuse, eating disorders, depression, and anxiety.
CONCERN (D)

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

Medication Errors (Tag F0758)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview and document review, the facility failed to ensure a PRN (as needed) psychotropic medication order included a...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview and document review, the facility failed to ensure a PRN (as needed) psychotropic medication order included an end date or a documented clinical rationale for 1 of 1 residents (R7) reviewed for PRN psychotropic medications. Findings include: R7's admission Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated [DATE], indicated she had intact cognition and no hallucinations or delusions with no reported behavioral symptoms. The MDS reported diagnoses including depression and alcohol dependence. The MDS reported R7 took antidepressant medications and took antipsychotic medications on a routine basis only. R7's Care Area Assessment (CAA) for psychotropic drug use dated 11/7/24, identified she took an antidepressant, a mood stabilizer, and scheduled antipsychotic medication, however, lacked documentation of her as needed (PRN) antipsychotic medication. R7's signed order summary was requested but not received. R7's medication administration record (MAR) dated 1/25 reflected the following active physician orders: - fluoxetine 80 milligram (mg) (Prozac), total 1 x daily by mouth (total 80mg) for depression, dated 11/14/24. - hydroxyzine hydrochloride (HCl) 50mg tablet (hydroxyzine HCl) 1-2 (50-100mg) by mouth three times daily as needed, dated 11/4/24. - lamotrigine 100mg tabs (Lamictal), Take 300mg by mouth every bedtime for depression dated 1/14/25. - mirtazapine 15mg tablet (Remeron), Take 1 tab by mouth at bedtime for insomnia dated 11/4/24. - olanzapine 15mg (Zyprexa), Take 3 tab by mouth twice daily for anxiety/agitation dated 11/29/24. - olanzapine 10mg (Zyprexa), Take 1/2 tab (5mg) by mouth daily as needed for anxiety/agitation dated 11/04/24. R7's MAR reflected the PRN olanzapine was administered on 1/6/25, 1/7/25, 1/10/25, 1/14/25, 1/18/25, 1/19/25, 1/21/25, 1/22/25, and 1/28/25. R7's MARs dated 11/24, and 12/24, were requested but not received. During interview on 1/31/25 at 10:51 a.m., consultant pharmacist (CP)-C reported the importance of limiting antipsychotic medications, like olanzapine, to 14 days was because we want to make sure they are used appropriately and to ensure they are monitored for adverse effects. CP-C stated if those medications were being utilized frequently and a resident was having a regular occurrence of behaviors, we could look at scheduled meds and see if that would be more appropriate, and discuss a risk versus benefits. During interview on 2/3/25 at 9:05 a.m., certified physician assistant (CPA)-B, who also identified as the facility's medial director's designee, expected PRN psychotropic medications to have a stop date after 14 days and if not, to have a clinical rationale. CPA-B stated there should be an effort to get ahold of the resident's psychiatrist to obtain the clinical rationale to extend the PRN order beyond 14 days, and if staff were unable to reach the resident's psychiatrist, CPA-B expected staff to reach out to either a resident's provider or the facility's medical director. CPA-B stated it was important to follow the regulation regarding 14-day limits with such medications because they could affect brain function and capacity. During interview on 2/3/25 at 12:51 p.m., nurse practitioner (NP)-J verified working with R7 for a number of years and confirmed responsibility for R7's psychotropic medication management, including her PRN antipsychotic medication olanzapine. NP-J confirmed the PRN olanzapine order did not have an end date and confirmed not receiving a request for a clinical rationale to extend the order beyond 14 days. NP-J voiced familiarity with such requests and stated, the only form we've gotten was a medication list, but no communication about those PRN medications or needing a rationale to go beyond the 14 days. NP-J verbalized a belief R7 was on an appropriate dose of olanzapine and stated had the facility requested a clinical rationale to extend the PRN beyond 14-day limit, I believe what she is currently on is appropriate. I would have provided a clinical rationale as to why it was necessary for her to go beyond that timeframe. A request for a policy pertaining to psychotropic drug use was requested but not received.
CONCERN (E)

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

Assessment Accuracy (Tag F0641)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** R10 - PASARR, medication R10's admission Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated [DATE], indicated R10 admitted to the facility on [DATE], ...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** R10 - PASARR, medication R10's admission Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated [DATE], indicated R10 admitted to the facility on [DATE], had intact cognition, delusions, and diagnoses of bipolar disease and post-traumatic stress disorder. Item A1500 inquired had the resident been evaluated by level II PASARR and determined to have a serious mental illness and/or mental retardation or a related condition, and the MDS indicated no. The MDS indicated R10 received antipsychotic medication. R10's preadmission screening (PAS) dated 11/20/24, indicated the following preadmission screening result: -OBRA [Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act; nursing home reform act to protect people from abuse in nursing homes]: Before this person admits to a nursing facility, an OBRA Level II assessment for mental illness is required. R10's letter sent with the PAS dated 11/20/24, indicated Senior Linkage Line made a referral for mental illness OBRA level II to lead agency Hennepin and indicated a name and phone number. R10's documents did not reflect a completed OBRA level II. Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services' (CMS') Long-Term Care Facility Resident Assessment Instrument (RAI) User's Manual dated 10/1/24, indicated to code no if any of the following apply: -PASARR level I screening did not result in an referral for level II screening, or -Level II screening determined the resident does not have a serious mental illness and/or ID/DD (intellectual disability and/or developmental disability) or related conditions, or -PASARR screening is not required because the resident was admitted from a hospital after requiring acute inpatient care, is receiving services for the condition for which they received care in the hospital, and the attending physician has certified before admission the resident is likely to require less than 30 days of nursing home care. CMS' RAI manual dated 10/1/24, indicated to code yes if PASARR level II screening determined the resident has a serious mental illness and/or ID/DD or related condition, and continue to item A1510, Level II PASARR conditions. R10's discharge/admission medications signed 11/15/24, indicated R10 received medication which included buspirone (an antianxiety medication) for mood disorder and gabapentin (an anticonvulsant) for mood disorder. R11 - PASARR, medication R11's admission MDS dated [DATE], indicated R11 admitted to the facility on [DATE], had intact cognition, moderate depression, and diagnoses of anxiety disorder and post-traumatic stress disorder. Item A1500 inquired had the resident been evaluated by level II PASARR and determined to have a serious mental illness and/or mental retardation or a related condition, and the MDS indicated no. The MDS indicated R11 received antianxiety and antidepressant medication. R11's PAS dated 12/19/24, indicated R11 required an OBRA level II assessment for mental illness before admission to a nursing facility. R11's Level II PAS dated 12/20/24, indicated R11's admission was approved, had a documented mental illness, needed specialized mental health services, and mental health services were recommended to support R11 in their management of mental health symptoms. R11's medication administration record for the month of January 2025, identified R11 had medications which included gabapentin (an anticonvulsant) for nerve pain, with a start date of 12/7/24, and methadone (an opioid) for opioid dependence, with a start date of 12/3/24. When interviewed on 1/29/25 at 10:03 a.m., registered nurse (RN)-B stated they did not review PASARRs and asked RN-A, who was the facility administrator and director of nursing, how to answer A1500 section of the MDS and was told to answer no for R10 and R11. RN-B stated they answered the high-risk drug classes section of the MDS after they reviewed R10 and R11's discharge and admission paperwork. RN-B verified the MDS did not reflect R10's antianxiety and anticonvilsant medications, and R10 admitted with buspirone and gabapentin. RN-B verified R11's MDS did not reflect opioid and anticonvisant medications, and R11 admitted with methadone and gabapentin. When interviewed on 2/3/25 at 9:54 a.m., RN-A stated accurate MDS assessments were important to develop residents' care plans, which informed staff how to care for the residents. A policy pertaining to MDS accuracy was requested but not received. Based on observation, interview and document review, the facility failed to ensure the Minimum Data Set (MDS) was accurately coded for 5 of 7 residents (R1, R6, R7, R10, R11) reviewed for inaccurate MDS assessments. Findings include: R1 - Activity Preferences R1's annual Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated [DATE], reflected a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS, or an assessment to determine a person's mental status) score of 11, indicating mild cognitive impairment. Additionally, the MDS indicated she had clear speech with the ability to make herself understood and was able to understand others. The MDS reported the interview for daily and activity preferences should not be conducted because R1 was rarely/never understood and family/significant other was not available. The MDS indicated staff assessed R1 regarding her daily and activities preferences and identified R1 preferred participating in her favorite activities and doing things in groups of people. The MDS identified diagnoses of anxiety, bipolar disorder (a chronic mental health disorder characterized by extreme mood swings between extreme periods of elevated moods, or mania, and extreme low moods, or depression), schizophrenia (a chronic mental health illness that affects a person's thoughts, perceptions, emotions, and behaviors), and mild intellectual disabilities (a developmental disorder that affects a person's abstract thinking and learning and problem-solving skills). R1's Care Area Assessment (CAA) for activities dated 12/12/24, indicated R1 slept in every morning and refused to get out of bed in the morning. Furthermore, the CAA indicated R1 has little interest in doing activities other than her word find book. Sometimes likes to listen to music with the Activities Director, however, likes to take naps mostly during the morning and has a history of not going to medical appointments, because she doesn't feel like doing anything except word find puzzles. The CAA indicated activities would be addressed in R1's care plan to slow or minimize decline and maintain her current level of functioning. An activities assessment was requested for the annual MDS dated [DATE], but was not received. During interview on 1/29/25 at 9:48 a.m., registered nurse (RN)-B verified R1 was not interviewed about her activity preferences to complete section F during her annual MDS dated [DATE]. RN-B stated she sometimes gathered the MDS data from interviewing staff, and depending on the situation, I will engage the resident and ask about what they liked to do prior to admission. RN-B stated, I don't care for the questions themselves; I think they are silly questions. The question set is geared towards different [population] set than ours. RN-B confirmed R1 did not have an activities care plan focus and stated, it mostly discusses her behaviors, I don't see anything for activities. I think that maybe is a gap in my understanding. Per facility policy titled Activities Policy updated 11/18/24, staff were directed to get to know a resident's history, preferences, dreams, and hopes to provide a variety of engaging resident programs while incorporating resident preferences. R6 - Level II PASARR (Preadmission screening and resident review) R6's modification of annual Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated [DATE], indicated she had intact cognition, did not exhibit physical or verbal behaviors directed towards herself or others, but did report she experienced hallucinations and delusions during the lookback period. R6's MDS included diagnoses of schizophrenia (a chronic mental health illness that affects a person's thoughts, perceptions, emotions, and behaviors), alcohol dependence in remission, insomnia (a sleeping disorder), history of cocaine abuse, and encephalopathy (a medical condition that disrupts brain function, causing memory loss, confusion, seizures, changes in personality, muscle spasms or coma). Furthermore, the MDS reported R6 was not currently considered by the state to have serious mental illness and/or intellectual disability or a related condition. Senior LinkAge Line initial Pre-admission Screening (PAS) Results dated 1/20/21, was reviewed on 1/27/25 at 2:13 p.m. The PAS indicated R6 met the criteria for mental illness and was referred to a lead agency and case manager for further evaluation (level II PASARR). Furthermore, the results of the level I were forward to a managed care program, identified as Special Care Basic Needs (SNBC). The report identified R6's lead agency and case manager for the level II PASARR. A request for information (ROI) was made on 1/30/25 at 9:02 a.m., for R6's records from the lead agency but was not received. A request for interview was made on 1/30/25 at 3:30 p.m., from the lead agency's case manager but was not received. R6's care plan updated 11/28/24, lacked documentation indicating services recommended under her level II PASRR were included. A review of R6's medical record on 1/30/25, revealed a lack of documentation regarding the services recommended under the level II PASARR evaluation. Per interview on 1/29/25 at 9:59 a.m., registered nurse (RN)-B confirmed R6's annual MDS dated [DATE], was coded inaccurately for question A1500 regarding her level II PASARR, stating, it looks like 'no'. Per interview on 2/3/25 at 1:37 p.m., RN-A was unable to identify what services were recommended under R6's level II PASARR, stating, I'm not sure, as far as what services should have been provided to her, I can't answer that. I never really read it until you guys brought it up, I never really thought to look it up. The PASARR thing, I don't necessarily know how to read them if I'm being honest. R7 - PRN Antipsychotic Medication, PASARR R7's admission Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated [DATE], indicated she had intact cognition and no hallucinations or delusions with no reported behavioral symptoms. The MDS reported diagnoses including depression and alcohol dependence. The MDS reported R7 took antidepressant medications and antipsychotic medications on a routine basis only. Additionally, the MDS reported R7 was not currently considered by the state level II preadmission screening and resident review (PASRR) process to have serious mental illness and/or intellectual disability or a related condition. R7's CAA for psychotropic drug use dated 11/7/24, identified her use of antidepressants and a mood stabilizer (lamotrigine) as well as her routine (scheduled) use of the antipsychotic medication olanzapine at bedtime to treat her insomnia (a sleeping disorder), however, lacked documentation of her PRN use of olanzapine. The CAA indicated the psychotropic drug use would be addressed in the care plan. R7's Minnesota Senior Linkage Line preadmission screening results dated 11/21/24, identified a Level II assessment for mental illness was required prior to her admission to the facility. The results identified a lead agency and provided contact information. R7's medical record was reviewed on 1/27/25 and lacked documentation of results of a Level II assessment. R7's signed order summary was requested but not received. R7's medication administration record (MAR) dated 1/25 reflected the following active physician orders: - olanzapine 15mg (Zyprexa), Take 3 tab by mouth twice daily for anxiety/agitation dated 11/29/24. - olanzapine 10mg (Zyprexa), Take 1/2 tab (5mg) by mouth daily as needed for anxiety/agitation dated 11/04/24. R7's MAR reflected the PRN olanzapine was administered on 1/6/25, 1/7/25, 1/10/25, 1/14/25, 1/18/25, 1/19/25, 1/21/25, 1/22/25, and 1/28/25. Per interview on 1/29/25 at 9:14 a.m., registered nurse (RN)-B confirmed completing R7's admission MDS dated [DATE]. RN-B stated, I get the information from staff and residents, in addition to chart review, and reported information from residents was often corroborated with staff interview because, I sometimes have to take what they say with a grain of salt, if a resident was being interviewed about medications or behaviors. RN-B stated medications were reviewed and reconciled against the chart. RN-B reported collecting resident assessment information from a resident's history and physical (H&P) or whatever documents they send to us from the referral. RN-B confirmed reviewing R7's admission paperwork from her discharging facility and stated the information utilized to build her admission MDS, CAA worksheets, and care plan were based on true diagnoses that are in the diagnosis list but not necessarily what is being alluded to in other paperwork. RN-B reviewed R7's admission MDS and verified it reported she was not currently considered by the state level II PASRR process to have serious mental illness and/or intellectual disability or a related condition. RN-B believed the PASARR was completed by RN-A and stated, I usually just ask him, it was my understanding that he was completing those so I was taking him on his word for it. I wouldn't even know what I was looking for if I was to go through her chart for that [PASARR] anyway. RN-B confirmed not interviewing R7 regarding her activity preferences and stated, depending on the situation, I will engage the resident and ask about what they liked to do prior to admission. RN-B recalled R7 admitted to the facility freshly sober and had a lot of anxiety, that she talked about having non-pharmacologic interventions to address. RN-B stated, I thought if I clicked 'not assessed' it would trigger on the care plan, it would trigger something on the CAA. RN-B stated, I don't care for the questions themselves; I think they are silly questions. The question set is geared towards different [population] set than ours. RN-B stated it was important to capture accurate MDS assessments because that is how the facility was reimbursed for their care. During interview on 2/3/25 at 12:51 p.m., nurse practitioner (NP)-J verified working with R7 for a number of years and confirmed her PTSD diagnosis. NP-J further confirmed responsibility for R7's psychotropic medication management, including her PRN antipsychotic medication olanzapine. During interview on 1/28/25 at 2:46 p.m., the Hennepin County supervisor (HCS)-L for Health and Human Services for adult access explained they were the contact person for the mental illness level II PASARR for the county. HCS-L stated a person should not be admitted to a facility without having the level II PASARR completed to ensure whatever services the individual was assessed to need are in place once the individual admits the facility. HCS-L confirmed receiving a level II PASARR for R7 and stated, I don't see a note that is was completed, but I see the referral came to us in October. Per follow-up interview on 1/28/25 at 4:44 p.m., HCS-L stated after many attempted contacts with the facility, the assessor assigned to R7's level II PASARR was not able to obtain the needed documentation to complete the assessment. HCS-L stated, Clearly we have a disjunct here, which sometimes happens when a nursing facility admission is done without an assessment and the facility isn't clear about what is required in this situation. During interview on 2/3/25 at 1:37 p.m., RN-A stated, I think the care planning is appropriate for the new admissions, including R7. RN-A reported the trauma-informed care plan and assessment for R7 was completed due to a complaint survey and was kept in a separate survey binder and stated, no, I didn't capture that on the first day they were here. I should have done it before day 7, I think you get 7 days for the MDS. But I do expect that if we assess a resident for trauma, like we did, then it should be identified in the MDS. And that's maybe something I should have gone over more with our MDS nurse. RN-A stated if there was a second nurse available to help during the facility's new admissions, I could have helped RN-B more, I could have made it [the training] more robust.
CONCERN (E)

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

Deficiency F0645 (Tag F0645)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** R10: -level I done after admission and no level II completed R10's admission Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated [DATE], indicated R10 ...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** R10: -level I done after admission and no level II completed R10's admission Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated [DATE], indicated R10 admitted to the facility on [DATE], had intact cognition, delusions, and diagnoses of bipolar disease and post-traumatic stress disorder. R10's Biopsychosocial Intake from The Landing (facility which provided short-term, intensive support and stabilization for clients experiencing acute psychological or emotional crises) dated 8/23/24, indicated R10 had the following diagnoses: -8/23/24, bipolar I disorder, with psychotic features -8/23/24, posttraumatic stress disorder R10's preadmission screening (PAS) dated 11/20/24, indicated the following preadmission screening results: -OBRA [Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act; nursing home reform act to protect people from abuse in nursing homes]: Before this person admits to a nursing facility, an OBRA Level II assessment for mental illness is required. R10's letter sent with the PAS dated 11/20/24, indicated Senior Linkage Line made a referral for mental illness OBRA level II to lead agency Hennepin and indicated a name and phone number. During interview on 2/3/25 at 9:54 a.m., RN-A looked at R10's PAS and stated they thought the process was completed and verified they did not have a OBRA level II for R10. R11: - level I and II done after admission R11's admission MDS dated [DATE], indicated R11 admitted to the facility on [DATE], had intact cognition, moderate depression, and diagnoses of anxiety disorder and post-traumatic stress disorder. R11's Biopsychosocial Intake from The Landing dated 9/11/24, indicated R11 had the following diagnoses: -9/11/24, panic disorder -9/11/24, posttraumatic stress disorder R11's PAS dated 12/19/24, indicated R11 required an OBRA level II assessment for mental illness before admission to a nursing facility. R11's Level II PAS dated 12/20/24, indicated persons referred for level II screening for a mental illness may not be admitted to a nursing facility until the form was completed and the level II screener approved the admission. The Level II PAS indicated R11's admission was approved, had a documented mental illness, needed specialized mental health services, and mental health services were recommended to support R11 in their management of mental health symptoms. During interview on 1/28/25 at 3:07 p.m., registered nurse (RN)-A, who was the facility administrator and director of nursing, stated PASARRs were completed prior to admissions. RN-A stated the hospital social workers usually initiated the PASRR process but found with their new admissions, which included R10 and R11, the facility previously did not initiate the PASRR process. During interview on 1/30/25 at 8:39 a.m., health unit coordinator (HUC)-A, who also facilitated activities and was the social services director, stated RN-A handled the PASRR part of the admission process, and HUC-A reviewed referrals and completed the therapeutic recreation assessment form with new admissions. During interview on 2/3/25 at 9:54 a.m., RN-A verified R11's PASARR process was initiated after admission and agreed PASARRs were important to have completed prior to admission to know what additional services residents needed. A facility policy was requested and not received. Based on interview and document review, the facility failed to ensure a level II pre-admission screen and resident review (PASARR) was completed prior to admission for 4 of 5 residents (R7, R9, R10, R11) reviewed who required a level II PASARR screening for mental illness. Findings include: R7: R7's admission Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated [DATE], indicated she had intact cognition and no hallucinations or delusions with no reported behavioral symptoms. The MDS reported diagnoses including depression and alcohol dependence. Additionally, the MDS reported R7 was not currently considered by the state level II preadmission screening and resident review (PASARR) process to have serious mental illness and/or intellectual disability or a related condition. An admission record dated 11/13/24, indicated R7 admitted to the facility on [DATE]. R7's Minnesota Senior Linkage Line preadmission screening results dated 11/21/24, identified a Level II assessment for mental illness was required prior to her admission to the facility. The results identified a lead agency and provided contact information. R7's medical record was reviewed on 1/27/25 and lacked documentation of results of a Level II assessment. During interview on 1/28/25 at 2:46 p.m., the Hennepin County supervisor (HCS)-L for Health and Human Services for adult access explained they were the contact person for the mental illness level II PASRR for the county. HCS-L stated a person should not be admitted to a facility without having the level II PASRR completed to ensure whatever services the individual was assessed to need are in place once the individual admits the facility. HCS-L confirmed receiving a level II PASRR for R7 and stated, I don't see a note that is was completed, but I see the referral came to us in October. Per follow-up interview on 1/28/25 at 4:44 p.m., HCS-L stated after many attempted contacts with the facility, the assessor assigned to R7's level II PASRR was not able to obtain the needed documentation to complete the assessment. HCS-L stated, Clearly we have a disjunct here, which sometimes happens when a nursing facility admission is done without an assessment and the facility isn't clear about what is required in this situation. Per interview on 1/29/25 at 9:14 a.m., registered nurse (RN)-B confirmed completing R7's admission MDS dated [DATE], and verified answering no to question A1500 regarding the level II PASSRR. RN-B stated, I'm fairly new to MDS and indicated being trained by RN-A, who also identified as the facility's director of nursing (DON) and administrator. RN-B believed the PASRR was completed by RN-A, so I usually just ask him. It was my understanding RN-A was completing those, so I was taking RN-A's word for it. RN-B verbalized being unaware of what a PASARR was and stated, I wouldn't even know what I was looking for it I was to go through her chart for that. Per interview on 2/3/25 at 1:37 p.m., RN-A stated, The PASARR thing, I don't necessarily know how to read them if I'm being honest. RN-A stated the intended use of PASARRs was to ensure individuals with intellectual disabilities and developmental disabilities don't end up in the nursing home. RN-A confirmed training RN-B on the MDS process and stated, it could have been better. RN-A stated if there was a second nurse available to help during the facility's new admissions, I could have helped RN-B more, I could have made it [the training] more robust. RN-A stated if there was more time, I could have been more available. R9: R9's admission Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated [DATE], indicated (BIMS) of 13, intact cognition, and a admission date of 10/21/24. R9's Transfer/Discharge Report, indicated R9 was admitted to the facility with a primary diagnosis of bipolar disorder (a mental illness that causes unusual shifts in a person's mood, energy, activity levels, and concentration that can make it difficult to carry out day-to-day tasks.) and secondary diagnoses of other stimulant dependence. R9's preadmission screening results (PAS) dated 11/20/24, indicated a referral for mental illness OBRA level II was made. The letter indicated a lead agency and phone number to follow up with. It also stated before this person was admitted to a facility the level II assessment was required. 01/27/25 06:23 p.m., director of nursing, (DON) stated the PASARR II was something that fell through the cracks with new admissions. Previously, the facility had a nurse who completed this information, however they recently retired. R9's medical record lacked evidence a PASARR Level II assessment was completed to ensure R9's mental health care needs were met.
CONCERN (E)

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

Menu Adequacy (Tag F0803)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview, and document review, the facility failed to serve food according to a menu, and review changes ...

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 serve food according to a menu, and review changes to a menu with a qualified dietician or other qualified nutrition professional. In addition, the facility failed to ensure the menu met the nutritional needs of residents with a cardiac diet and other diets for 5 of 5 residents (R1, R2, R3, R5, R10) reviewed for dietary recommendations. Findings include: R1's annual Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated [DATE], indicated R1 had mild cognitive impairment. The MDS identified diagnoses of diabetes mellitus, hyperlipidemia (condition where there are high levels of fats in the blood), anxiety, bipolar disorder (a chronic mental health disorder characterized by extreme mood swings between extreme periods of elevated moods, or mania, and extreme low moods, or depression), schizophrenia (a chronic mental health illness that affects a person's thoughts, perceptions, emotions, and behaviors), and mild intellectual disabilities (a developmental disorder that affects abstract thinking and learning and problem-solving skills). R1's medication and treatment administration record and diabetic flowsheet for January 2025, indicated R1's diet as no concentrated sweets (a diet which limits added sugar and helps control blood sugar levels). R1's Behavior Sheet dated 12/26/24, indicated R1 believes [they] need more food all day. R1's Behavior Sheet dated 1/11/25, indicated R1 did not stick to diet. R2's annual MDS dated [DATE], indicated R2 had intact cognition, diagnoses of atrial fibrillation (condition which causes irregular and rapid heartbeat) or other dysrhythmias (abnormal heartbeat), hypertension (high blood pressure), diabetes mellitus, thyroid disorder, depression, and psychotic disorder (severe mental illness which causes a person to lose touch with reality). The MDS did not indicate R2 had a therapeutic diet. R2's medication and treatment administration record for January 2025, indicated R2's diet as cardiac, consistent carbohydrate diet (dietary plan which involved consuming a consistent amount of carbohydrates at each meal and snack). R3's annual Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated [DATE], indicated R3 had intact cognition, delusions, and no behaviors or rejection of care. The MDS indicated R3 was independent with activities of daily living, had diagnoses of orthostatic hypotension (drop in blood pressure when standing up or sitting down), hyperlipidemia (condition where there are high levels of fats in the blood), depression, and schizophrenia, and medications included antipsychotics and antidepressants. R3's medication and treatment administration recorded, indicated R3 had a regular diet with increase sodium. R5's annual MDS dated [DATE], indicated R5 had intact cognition, diagnoses of diabetes mellitus, hyperlipidemia, bipolar disease, and schizophrenia. R5's medication and treatment administration record for January 2025, indicated R5's diet as no concentrated sweets. R10's admission Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated [DATE], indicated R10 admitted to the facility on [DATE], had intact cognition, delusions, and diagnoses of malnutrition or at risk for malnutrition, bipolar disease, and post-traumatic stress disorder R10's medication and treatment administration record for January 2025, indicated R10's diet as regular. When interviewed on 1/27/25 at 12:07 p.m., cook (C)-B, who was the head cook, stated eggs were on the menu every day, but they did not serve eggs every day. C-B stated other cooks did not follow the menu which made ordering and using items before perishing more difficult. C-B stated they had one resident who was a vegetarian; otherwise, the other residents were on a regular house diet. When asked about the registered dietician's involvement, C-B stated they thought the registered dietician quit and did not come to the facility anymore. When interviewed on 1/27/25 at 1:24 p.m., registered nurse (RN)-A, who was the facility administrator and director or nursing, stated they had a newly-hired dietician, and the new dietician had not been as involved as the previous one. RN-A stated the facility needed to get the new dietician dialed in. When interviewed on 1/27/25 at 3:21 p.m., C-A asked R10 what they wanted for their evening meal, and R10 stated spaghetti. C-A stated they asked what residents wanted for supper and made sure the meals had a protein, starch, and vegetable. When interviewed on 1/27/25 at 6:12 p.m., C-A stated R10 had a vegetarian diet and there were no other residents with a different diet. C-A stated they were thawing meat for chili the following day, 1/28/25. During observation and interview on 1/28/25 at 8:15 a.m., C-A served pancakes, scrambled eggs, bananas, and resident choice of juice and coffee, and C-A verified the items served. The menu indicated choice of juice, pancakes and syrup, hard boiled eggs, sausage, choice of milk, and coffee/tea/water. During observation and interview on 1/28/25 at 11:26 a.m., C-A served chili, cornbread, cheese, and sour cream. C-A stated they made chili since there was a lot of ground beef downstairs. C-A stated they did not always follow the menu. C-A stated the residents used to bring back full trays of food after mealtime when C-A followed the menu but eat more when C-A made what the residents wanted. C-A stated they do not have to discuss menu changes with anyone. A cake was on the counter in a pan, and C-A stated the cake was for snack tonight. The menu indicated beef goulash, peas, applesauce, bread and margarine, choice of milk, and coffee/tea/water. The menu indicated the PM [evening] Snack was peanut butter sandwich and choice of fruit. The menu for Friday supper indicated chili con carne, cornbread, baby carrots, oatmeal cookie, diced pears, choice of milk, and coffee/tea/water. When interviewed on 1/28/25 at 2:59 a.m., C-A stated they were preparing tomato soup and grilled cheese for the evening meal and was not sure what fruit would be served yet. The menu indicated potato chips and diced pears would be served with tomato soup and grilled cheese on wheat. When interviewed on 1/29/25 at 2:17 p.m., RN-A stated R1 and R2 should technically be on a diabetic diet, but the residents did not follow the diet. RN-A stated everyone else was on the regular house diet. When interviewed on 1/29/25 at 2:33 p.m., RN-A stated the dietician their boss hired indicated they would come to the facility, but now indicated they were not going to take the facility assignment. RN-A stated they were now between dieticians since the last one retired and/or resigned and would provide the last time the residents were reviewed by a dietician. RN-A stated they were going to contract a dietician. During observation and interview on 1/31/25 at 12:51 p.m., C-B stated there were no residents with a cardiac diet, R10 had a vegetarian diet, and everyone else had a regular diet. C-B presented menus which indicated regular House Diet and another menu with renal diet, but C-B stated the resident with the renal diet was not currently at the facility. When interviewed on 1/31/25 at 12:53 p.m., licensed practical nurse (LPN)-A stated they checked with the cook, and all residents had a regular diet. Per email correspondence on 1/31/25 at 5:47 a.m., RN-A indicated the previous registered dietician's last day with the facility was 5/31/24. When interviewed on 2/3/25 at 9:05 a.m., certified physician assistant (CPA)-B stated they were not involved with the facility's nutritional assessments or diet orders. When interviewed on 2/3/25 at 10:09 a.m., RN-A stated the facility did not have a lot of special diets and nursing completed nutritional assessments in the absence of a registered dietician. RN-A stated C-B made changes to the menu as needed and cycled the menus by season. RN-A stated R3 ate what was prepared in the kitchen and staff added extra sodium at mealtimes for R3, R2 followed their house diet which was cardiac friendly, R1 was noncompliant with their diet when they ate food outside the facility, and R5 only ate what the kitchen prepared. RN-A stated staff followed items on the menu but served items on days which differed from the menu. RN-A stated they will get organized once they have a new dietician. When interviewed on 2/3/25 at 10:33 a.m., C-B stated they only knew about R3's sodium diet and R10's vegetarian preference. C-B stated the residents knew their diets and some tried to cheat. C-B stated they would not need to serve differently for R2's cardiac diet, and R2 told staff what they do or do not eat. C-B stated they ordered items which were sugar free and would not serve R1 and R5 concentrated sweets. Facility policy Resident's Care Supervised by a Physician dated 12/31/24, indicated the following: A resident's attending physician may delegate the task of writing dietary orders, consistent with 483.60, to a qualified dietitian or other clinically qualified nutrition professional who is acting within the scope of practice as defined by State law; and is under the supervision of the physician.
CONCERN (F)

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

Deficiency F0801 (Tag F0801)

Could have caused harm · This affected most or all residents

Based on interview and document review, the facility failed to employ a registered dietician or other active qualified clinical nutrition professional to carry out the functions of a facility register...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on interview and document review, the facility failed to employ a registered dietician or other active qualified clinical nutrition professional to carry out the functions of a facility registered dietician. This had potential to affect 11 of 11 residents who received food from the kitchen. Findings include: When interviewed on 1/27/25 at 12:07 p.m., cook (C)-B, who was the head cook, stated eggs were on the menu every day, but they did not serve eggs every day. C-B stated other cooks did not follow the menu which made ordering and using items before perishing more difficult. C-B stated they had one resident who was a vegetarian; otherwise, the other residents were on a regular house diet. When asked about the registered dietician's involvement, C-B stated they thought the registered dietician quit and did not come to the facility anymore. When interviewed on 1/27/25 at 1:24 p.m., registered nurse (RN)-A, who was the facility administrator and director or nursing, stated they had a newly-hired dietician, and the new dietician had not been as involved as the previous one. RN-A stated the facility needed to get the new dietician dialed in. When interviewed on 1/27/25 at 3:21 p.m., C-A stated they asked what residents wanted for supper and made sure the meals had a protein, starch, and vegetable. When interviewed on 1/28/25 at 11:26 a.m., C-A stated they did not always follow the menu and did not have to discuss menu changes with anyone. When interviewed on 1/29/25 at 2:33 p.m., RN-A stated the dietician their boss hired indicated they would come to the facility, but now indicated they were not going to take the facility assignment. RN-A stated they were now between dieticians, since the last one retired and/or resigned and would provide the last time the residents were reviewed by a dietician. RN-A stated they were going to contract a dietician. Per email correspondence on 1/31/25 at 5:47 a.m., RN-A indicated the previous registered dietician's last day with the facility was 5/31/24. When interviewed on 2/3/25 at 9:05 a.m., certified physician assistant (CPA)-B stated they were not involved with the facility's nutritional assessments or diet orders. When interviewed on 2/3/25 at 10:09 a.m., RN-A stated the facility did not have a lot of special diets and nursing completed nutritional assessments in the absence of a registered dietician. RN-A stated C-B made changes to the menu as needed and cycled the menus by season. RN-A stated staff followed items on the menu but served items on days which differed from the menu. RN-A stated they will get organized once they have a new dietician. Facility policy Resident's Care Supervised by a Physician dated 12/31/24, indicated the following: A resident's attending physician may delegate the task of writing dietary orders, consistent with 483.60, to a qualified dietitian or other clinically qualified nutrition professional who is acting within the scope of practice as defined by State law; and is under the supervision of the physician.
CONCERN (F)

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

Food Safety (Tag F0812)

Could have caused harm · This affected most or all residents

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure proper sanitization of dishware used for meal ...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure proper sanitization of dishware used for meal preparation and resident service, and ensure food was properly stored and dated and disposed of. Furthermore, the facility failed to ensure staff followed appropriate infection control techniques while rinsing dirty dishes, placing clean dishes to dry, and placing items into the refrigerator. This deficient practice affected all 11 residents residing in the facility. Findings include: During the initial tour of the kitchen on 1/27/25 at 12:04 p.m., cook (C)-B, who was the head cook, had gloves on and rinsed dishes in the sink, placed silverware and serving trays into the dish machine, and removed gloves and did not perform hand hygiene. The dish machine ran, and the wash temperature fluctuated between 141 to 144 degrees Fahrenheit (°F) and the rinse temperature raised to 178°F . C-B stated the temperature of the dish machine fluctuated, and the dish machine was fixed multiple times. C-B stated the front door did not completely close, one of the side panels stuck out, and the dish machine leaked. The right-side panel of the dish machine was not secured, and the top edge of the panel was visible. C-B stated they did not remove the dishes until the temperature reached 155 °F and started the dish machine again. The wash temperature raised to 156°F , and the rinse temperature was 176°F . C-B opened the dishwasher, removed the trays which were already dry, and stacked the trays. During the continued initial tour, the main kitchen refrigerator had orange juice and 1% milk which was undated, and C-B stated those were opened today and/or Friday. There was a cup of juice which was uncovered and unlabeled. C-B stated they had poured too many glasses this morning so they saved it. The kitchen freezer had an area for ice, and a small coffee-type mug with a handle was on top of the ice. C-B stated they used the mug this morning to get ice out of the freezer and their practice was to take the mug out of the freezer when they cleaned up after lunch. There were tater tots in clear plastic which had been opened. C-B verified the tater tots had an expiration date but did not have a label to indicate they were opened on Friday. Approximately two to three pieces of fish were wrapped in plastic and did not have a label. C-B stated they had fish on Friday, three days prior. C-B stated the items should be labeled when opened. During the continued initial tour, the dry storage in the main kitchen had two opened cereal bags which were opened and not secured shut. C-B stated they went through cereal fast and used a twist tie to close the two bags of cereal. C-B washed their hands before leaving the main kitchen. C-B stated they wore gloves to wash dishes and washed their hands when gloves were removed, however, C-B verified they did not wash hand their hands after glove removal and before stacking the clean trays. During the continued initial tour, the downstairs storage area had a meat freezer, and chicken, with white flaky crusts in the bag, was not labeled. C-B stated the bag with the chicken was probably opened on Thursday, four days earlier. C-B stated they had stickers they used to label opened items with the date the items were opened. In the non-meat freezer downstairs a bag of undated, partially used cauliflower was covered in white flaky crusts. C-B looked at the white flaky crusts in the bag and stated the cauliflower was no good. A partially used bag of green beans was not labeled with an opened date, and C-B verified opened items should be labeled with the date they were opened. A downstairs refrigerator had lettuce, eggs, carrots, cheese, and tortillas. The head of lettuce in the refrigerator had a large spot of purplish discoloration, and C-B verified the head of lettuce should not be used. C-B stated lettuce was supposed to be on the menu and used already, but the cook made something else instead. The freezer above the refrigerator with the lettuce and eggs had frozen bread and two freezer packs. C-B stated they were not sure who placed the freezer packs in the refrigerator, and the freezer packs did not belong in the bread freezer. During observation and interview on 1/27/25 at 3:21 p.m., C-A placed a resident's personal water bottle into the dish machine. The dish machine wash temperature was between 112 °F and 115°F , and the rinse temperature reached 168°F . C-A removed the resident's water bottle and handed it back to the resident. C-A stated they observe the dish machine temperature get to 130°F for the wash and 170°F for the rinse. C-A stated they were told the dish machine door did not close all the way. Registered nurse (RN)-A entered the kitchen, washed their hands, and stated to try the yellow thermometer above the dish machine. The yellow thermometer was placed in the empty dish machine and ran. The wash temperature varied between 128°F and 132°F , and the rinse temperature reached 181 °F on the digital dish machine gauge. C-B stated the yellow thermometer read 150.6 as the max (maximum) temperature, and RN-A instructed to run the dish machine again since it was just turned on. The dish machine wash temperature reached 143°F and the rinse reached 183°F . C-B stated the yellow thermometer indicated 160.1 °F as the max temperature. RN-A instructed the dish machine needed to run a few times to get up to appropriate temperatures. During observation and interview on 1/28/25 at 8:15 a.m., C-A had gloves on and loaded dirty dishes into the dish machine. C-A removed their gloves, did not wash their hands, and started to place food items away into the refrigerator. C-A rinsed dirty dishes, did not have gloves on, did not perform hand hygiene, and took clean trays, a plate, and plasticware out of the dish machine. C-A placed some rinsed dishes into the dish machine with no gloves on. C-A washed their hands, tapped their hands on the inside side of the sink, and dried their hands with a paper towel. C-A stated they wash their hands after dealing with food and any raw food. C-A stated they had washed their hands prior to placing on gloves. C-A removed more clean dishes from the dish machine. When interviewed on 1/28/25 at 8:58 a.m., C-A verified the mug in the ice bin of the freezer and stated they changed the cup out every week. When interviewed on 1/28/25 at 2:59 p.m., C-A stated they kept cereal closed in their original boxes, so they knew the expiration date. Otherwise, they closed the cereal bags with a twist tie. C-A stated items needed to be labeled and dated when opened. C-A stated they checked inventory of food throughout the day, so they knew what they needed to throw away. The dish machine was an Ecolab and model U-HT-1-70. A manufacturer sticker on the dish machine indicated a wash temperature of 150°F and rinse temperature of 180°F . A U-HT Dishmachine Lease Program brochure dated 2013, indicated minimum operating temperature for the wash was 150 degrees F and sanitizing rinse was 180 degrees F. The yellow thermometer was a 2023 [NAME] Precision product dishwasher thermometer and was labeled ip67 waterproof with number 8791. The [NAME] website with copyright date of 2025, indicated the product had a temperature range of 32°F to 194°F with accuracy of +/- 1.8°F, was FDA Food Code compliant for sanitization, accurately measured the surface temperature of water, and designed for use in commercial dishwashers. When interviewed on 2/3/25 at 10:09 a.m., RN-A, who was the administrator and director of nursing, stated when the maximum temperature on the [NAME] Precision thermometer reached 160°F , the dish machine was reaching its 180°F rinse temperature and sanitization requirements. RN-A stated they educated C-A the dish machine needed multiple cycles to reach the appropriate sanitization temperatures and re-educated C-A about the [NAME] Precision thermometer. RN-A stated they knew the mug in the ice was sometimes used more than once and was not sure if the mug should be replaced each day or each use. RN-A stated food needed to have a label with a date when opened and helped staff know when items needed to be discarded. RN-A stated they had white stickers and sharpies for labeling dates on food. RN-A expected staff to throw away damaged food and rotated food as first in, first out. RN-A expected staff to wash their hands between dirty and clean tasks. The facility Food Storage and Procurement Policy and Procedure dated 12/31/24, indicated opened bags of food must be labeled with the date the food was opened and staff would discard spoiled or contaminated food. The policy directed staff to label food prepared at the facility with the name of the food, date the food was made, and use by date. The facility Infection Prevention and Control Manual Dietary Department dated 11/28/24, directed staff to wash hand as frequently as needed between tasks. The policy further directed staff to ensure high-temperature dish machine water temperature reached at least 150 degrees F or according to manufacturer instructions, and rinse temperature reached at least 180 degrees F or according to manufacturer instructions.
CONCERN (F)

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

Administration (Tag F0835)

Could have caused harm · This affected most or all residents

Based on observation, interview and document review, the administration failed to provide adequate oversight, training, and guidance for appropriate resident care related to accurate Minimum Data Set ...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, interview and document review, the administration failed to provide adequate oversight, training, and guidance for appropriate resident care related to accurate Minimum Data Set (MDS) Assessments, qualified staff and related services, the pre-admission screen and resident review (PASARR) process, and Quality Assurance and Performance Improvement (QAPI) plan and Quality Assurance and Assessment (QAA) committee requirements. This deficient practice had the potential to affect all 11 residents residing in the facility, potential new admissions, visitors, and employees of the facility. Findings include: QUALIFIED STAFF AND RELATED SERVICES ADMINISTRATOR Per Southside Care Center Nursing and Administrator Coverage policy and procedure updated 12/5/24, the administration would have addressed all the proposed plans of correction (POC) to ensure consistent compliance with both state and federal regulations for nursing facilities and would audit these corrective actions throughout the QAPI process. Furthermore, the policy indicated the facility's administration would ensure ongoing monitoring and ensure staff would be educated in the POC to make the needed improvements. Additionally, the policy directed the administrator to oversee the QAPI program and plan and provide written documentation about the good faith attempts by the committee to correct potential deficiencies identified. Per interview on 2/3/25 at 1:37 p.m., registered nurse (RN)-A, who also identified as the facility's director of nursing (DON) and administrator, reported the facility's previous assistant director of nursing (ADON) retired in 9/2024 and the facility had not replaced the position. RN-A stated, it was easier when there was two of us, and I have been trying to train someone to backfill for [that position], and that hasn't been easy. RN-A believed day-to-day nursing should take priority and stated, I think I've managed my charge nurse role alright, but I'll have to stay late to get the other things done because that's stuff other people can't do, like getting the new admissions applied for medical assistance. RN-A confirmed, in short, I need help. During interview on 2/3/25 at 3:16 p.m., the facility's owner stated RN-A's primary responsibilities are nursing, to ensure the staff are trained, responsible for admissions and taking care of those things. When asked how RN-A was expected to allocate the hours between the facility's main charge nurse and DON versus the administrative, the facility's owner reported an expectation for RN-A to put the nursing and DON role full-time and the administrative role mostly on the weekends, this additional part time gig. It's obviously not part-time, but that side of the job. QUALIFIED DIETARY STAFF - SEE F801 Per interview on 2/3/25 at 3:16 p.m., the facility's owner was aware of the facility failing to employ a registered dietitian or other active qualified clinical nutrition professional to carry out the functions of a facility registered dietician. The facility's owner stated the dietitian they hired believed the role could be entirely virtual. The facility's owner stated, we were going back and forth, we were telling her some elements could be, and RN-A and the previous ADON both stated it couldn't be done 100% virtually. The facility's owner confirmed due to technology issues, the dietitian was not able to perform the role virtually and we ended up parting ways, but it wasn't official I guess, indicating they were unaware of the dietician's official employment status. INFECTION PREVENTIONIST - SEE F882 Per interview on 1/28/25 at 9:04 a.m., RN-A confirmed acting as the facility's infection preventionist and verified not having specialized training in infection prevention and control. Per interview on 2/3/25 at 3:16 p.m., the facility's owner was not aware the facility failed to ensure the acting infection preventionist (IP) had completed specialized training. Per facility policy titled Infection Preventionist revised 7/24, relevant staff would be trained in infection control upon hire and periodically thereafter. The content of the employee training was dependent on the degree of direct resident contact and job responsibilities. ACCURATE MDS ASSESSMENTS - SEE F641 Per interview on 1/29/25 at 9:14 a.m., RN-B confirmed responsibility for the MDS assessments and stated RN-A provided training. RN-B stated, I am fairly new to MDS, and I took this role over in September. I get the information [for the MDS] from staff and residents, from chart review and by performing medication reconciliation. When asked how RN-B interviewed residents for section F, activity preferences during the MDS, RN-B stated, Depending on the situation, I will engage the resident and ask about what they liked to do prior [to admission] . I don't care for the questions themselves; I think they are silly questions. The question set is geared towards different [population] set than ours. Per interview on 2/3/25 at 1:37 p.m., RN-A, also identified as the facility's director of nursing (DON) and administrator, confirmed training RN-B on the MDS process and stated, it could have been better. RN-A stated if there was a second nurse available to help during the facility's new admissions, I could have helped RN-B more, I could have made it [the training] more robust. RN-A stated if there was more time, I could have been more available. During interview on 2/3/25 at 3:16 p.m., the facility's owner stated RN-A's primary responsibilities are nursing, to ensure the staff are trained, responsible for admissions and taking care of those things. PASARR - SEE F645 During interview on 1/28/25 at 2:46 p.m., the Hennepin County supervisor (HCS)-L for Health and Human Services for adult access explained they were the contact person for the mental illness level II PASARR for the county. HCS-L stated a person should not be admitted to a facility without having the level II PASARR completed to ensure whatever services the individual was assessed to need are in place once the individual admits the facility. HCS-L confirmed receiving level II PASARR referrals for R7, R9, R10, and R11 and stated, I don't see a note that it was completed, but I see the referral came to use in October. Per follow-up interview on 1/28/25 at 4:44 p.m., HCS-L stated after many attempted contacts with the facility, the assessor assigned to R7's level II PASARR was not able to obtain the needed documentation to complete the assessment. HCS-L stated, Clearly we have a disjunct here, which sometimes happens when a nursing facility admission is done without an assessment and the facility isn't clear about what is required in this situation. When interviewed on 1/30/25 at 8:39 a.m., health unit coordinator (HUC)-A, who also facilitated activities and was the social services director, stated RN-A handled the PASARR as part of the admission process, and HUC-A reviewed referrals and completed the Therapeutic Recreation Assessment form with new admissions. Per interview on 2/3/25 at 1:37 p.m., RN-A stated, The PASARR thing, I don't necessarily know how to read them if I'm being honest. RN-A stated the intended use of PASARRs was to ensure individuals with intellectual disabilities and developmental disabilities don't end up in the nursing home. QAPI AND QAA - SEE F865, F867, F868 A request for interview from the medical director was made on 2/3/25 at 8:42 a.m. but was not received. During interview on 2/3/25 at 1:37 p.m., RN-A stated most of the QAA information goes through the medical director's designee. RN-A stated the certified physician assistant (CPA)-B was present during the QAA meetings and was their continuity person. RN-A stated, we used to rely on medical doctor (MD)-I quite a bit, but not as much now that we have another physician working with CPA-B, although, RN-A confirmed, the other physician was not as involved in the QAPI stuff. RN-A stated correcting quality deficiencies was not a formal process and it was not always included in the meeting minutes. When asked how the facility was made aware of high-risk, high-volume or problem-prone areas, as well as health outcomes, resident safety, choice autonomy and quality of care, RN-A stated, we could probably do a better job at comparing ourselves to benchmarks, we don't do enough of that. During interview on 2/3/25 at 3:16 p.m., the facility's owner agreed there was definitely room for improvement regarding RN-A's time allocation between acting as the facility's DON and administrator. The facility's owner verbalized relying on RN-A to provide updates about survey results and the facility's plan of correction and stated they would review the deficiencies and talk them through, however, stated, there's definitely room for improvement when it comes to QAPI. The facility's owner also agreed when it came to QAPI, there was room for improvement when it comes to communication.
CONCERN (F)

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

Staffing Data (Tag F0851)

Could have caused harm · This affected most or all residents

Based on document review and interview, the facility failed to submit complete and accurate direct care staffing information, based on payroll and other verifiable and auditable data, during 1 of 1 qu...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on document review and interview, the facility failed to submit complete and accurate direct care staffing information, based on payroll and other verifiable and auditable data, during 1 of 1 quarter reviewed (Q4), to the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) according to specifications established by CMS. Findings include: Review of the facility's payroll based journal (PBJ) staffing data report dated 7/1/24 - 9/30/24 (Q4), identified the facility failed to have licensed nursing coverage 24 hours/day for the following dates: 7/3/24, 7/6/24, 7/7/24, 7/12/24, 7/13/24, 7/14/24, 7/19/24, 7/20/24, 7/28/24, 7/29/24, 7/30/24, 8/1/24, 8/2/24, 8/3/24, 8/4/24, 8/5/24, 8/6/24, 8/10/24, 8/11/24, 8/12/24, 8/13/24, 8/16/24, 8/17/24, 8/18/24, 8/20/24, 8/23/24, 8/24/24, 8/25/24, 8/27/24, 8/28/24, 8/30/24, 8/31/24, 9/1/24, 9/2/24, 9/3/24, 9/6/24, 9/7/24, 9/8/24, 9/9/24, 9/10/24, 9/10/24, 9/11/24, 9/14/24, 9/15/24, 9/20/24, 9/21/24, 9/22/24, 9/25/24, 9/26/24, 9/27/24, 9/28/24, and 9/30/24. The facility's schedule dated 7/1/24 - 7/15/24 indicated they did have licensed nursing coverage 24 hours/day for the dates of 7/3/24, 7/6/24, 7/7/24, 7/12/24, 7/13/24, and 7/14/24. The facility's schedule dated 7/16/24 - 7/31/24 indicated they did have licensed nursing coverage 24 hours/day for the dates of 7/19/24, 7/20/24, 7/28/24, 7/29/24, and 7/30/24. The facility's schedule dated 8/1/24 - 8/15/24 indicated they did have licensed nursing coverage 24 hours/day for the dates of 8/2/24, 8/3/24, 8/4/24, 8/5/24, 8/6/24, /10/24, 8/11/24, 8/12/24, and 8/13/24. The schedule lacked licensed nursing coverage for the evening shift (2:30 p.m. - 11:00 p.m.) on 8/1/24. An employee time card dated 8/1/24, indicated registered nurse (RN)-A punched in at 6:51 a.m. on 8/1/24 and punched out at 6:52 p.m. An employee time card dated 8/1/24, indicated RN-C punched in at 4:03 p.m. on 8/1/24 and punched out at 10:53 p.m. on 8/1/24. The facility's schedule dated 8/16/24 - 8/31/24, indicated they did have licensed nursing coverage 24 hours/day for the dates of 8/16/24, 8/17/24, 8/18/24, 8/20/24, 8/23/24, 8/24/24, 8/25/24, 8/27/24, 8/28/24, 8/30/24, and 8/31/24. The facility's schedule dated 9/1/24 - 9/15/24, indicated they did have licensed nursing coverage 24 hours/day for the dates of 9/1/24, 9/2/24, 9/3/24, 9/6/24, 9/7/24, 9/8/24, 9/9/24, 9/10/24, 9/10/24, 9/11/24, 9/14/24, and 9/15/24. The facility's schedule dated 9/15/24 - 9/30/24, indicated they did have licensed nursing coverage 24 hours/day for the dates of 9/20/24, 9/21/24, 9/22/24, 9/25/24, 9/26/24, 9/27/24, 9/28/24, and 9/30/24. Per interview on 2/3/25 at 1:37 p.m., RN-A, who was also identified as the facility's director of nursing (DON) and administrator, verified responsibility for submitting the facility's PBJ data. RN-A stated the data reported on the facility's PBJ report were artificially low because sometimes I enter lower numbers than what we actually have due to losing the ability to report staff that have been discharged from their payroll system. RN-A reviewed the PBJ triggered dates with the schedule and verified there was licensed nursing coverage for the triggered dates. RN-A stated if there was inaccurate data reported, it was by accident. A policy pertaining to reporting PBJ data was requested but not received.
CONCERN (F)

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

Deficiency F0865 (Tag F0865)

Could have caused harm · This affected most or all residents

Based on observation, interview and document review, the facility failed to implement a Quality Assurance and Performance Improvement (QAPI) plan assuring care and services were identified to maintain...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, interview and document review, the facility failed to implement a Quality Assurance and Performance Improvement (QAPI) plan assuring care and services were identified to maintain acceptable levels of performance and continual improvement. Additionally, facility failed to identify and prioritize problems and opportunities that reflect organizational process, functions, and services provided to residents based on performance indicators, and resident and staff input. Furthermore, the facility failed to ensure governing body oversight of the facility's QAPI program and activities. This deficient practice had the potential to affect all 11 residents residing in the facility. Findings include: An undated facility policy titled Quality Assessment and Assurance program (QAA) indicated the facility would maintain a QAA committee which would meet quarterly, and its purpose was to develop an on-going quality assurance program through an interdisciplinary approach and assess the effectiveness of the health care provided to the residents. The policy indicated the structure of the committee should consist of the administrator, the medical director, director of nursing (DON), program director, and consulting pharmacist. The policy directed the committee to develop and implement appropriate plans of action to correct identified quality deficiencies. The facility's Quality Assurance Meeting sign-in sheets dated 1/8/24, 4/8/24, 7/8/24, 10/7/24, and 1/13/25 were reviewed on 1/31/25 at 1:47 p.m. and revealed the medical director had not signed in for any QAA meetings. The sign-in sheets further identified registered nurse (RN)-A identified as both director of nursing (DON) and administrator. An undated quality of life and quality of care projects meeting minutes was reviewed and identified a quality deficiency and a potential improvement project. The minutes indicated the improvement project was aimed at developing meaningful activities for residents and improving resident participation and their overall quality of life. The meeting minutes reviewed the nursing and quality of life systems, included data collection and analysis, and interventions and plan evaluation. There were no further meeting minutes for review, however. The meeting minutes did not identify falls or falls with injury as a current issue. A request for interview from the facility's medical director was made on 2/3/25 at 8:42 a.m., but not received. During interview on 2/3/25 at 1:37 p.m., RN-A stated most of the QAA information goes through the medical director's designee. RN-A stated the certified physician assistant (CPA)-B was present during the QAA meetings and was their continuity person. RN-A stated, we used to rely on medical doctor (MD)-I quite a bit, but not as much now that we have another physician working with CPA-B, although, RN-A confirmed, the other physician was not as involved in the QAPI stuff. RN-A stated information from the QAA meetings was provided to the designee and I know she takes it to MD-I. RN-A stated correcting quality deficiencies was not a formal process and it was not always included in the meeting minutes. When asked how the facility was made aware of high-risk, high-volume or problem-prone areas, as well as health outcomes, resident safety, choice autonomy and quality of care, RN-A stated, we could probably do a better job at comparing ourselves to benchmarks, we don't do enough of that. RN-A stated the QAA committee included subjective and objective feedback and identified resident data like medication reports from the consultant pharmacist and related information, like their weights and vital signs as the objective data. RN-A stated, I get real-time feedback, and I can observe it firsthand while I'm doing med admin and confirmed it was not a formal process brought back to QAA or like where people are doing surveys. RN-A stated, the important thing is the feedback is accurate and it gives us the ability to gauge, 'is it effective or not? Do we need to make a course change?' RN-A provided an example of correcting a quality concern identified by resident input; the palatability of the cooking and stated the real-time feedback received was all positive except sometimes cook (C)-A will move the menu things around and sometimes that can play into the dietary aspect. RN-A stated old business and new business items discussed during QAA meetings were kept in a binder and sometimes there's a formal report I do, however for more informal things, RN-A stated I'll give a quick verbal update. I do send emails. RN-A stated when the facility owner came, they would ask, what do I need to know? and stated it was not a formal process, but believed the owner felt informed. During interview on 2/3/25 at 3:16 p.m., the facility's owner agreed there was definitely room for improvement regarding RN-A's time allocation between acting as the facility's DON and administrator. The facility's owner verbalized relying on RN-A to provide updates about survey results and the facility's plan of correction and stated they would review the deficiencies and talk them through, however, stated, there's definitely room for improvement when it comes to QAPI.
CONCERN (F)

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

QAPI Program (Tag F0867)

Could have caused harm · This affected most or all residents

Based on interview and document review the facility failed to ensure the Quality Assessment and Assurance (QAA)/Quality Assurance Process improvement (QAPI) committee was effective in implementing app...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on interview and document review the facility failed to ensure the Quality Assessment and Assurance (QAA)/Quality Assurance Process improvement (QAPI) committee was effective in implementing appropriate action plans to correct quality deficiencies identified in previous surveys related to Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment inaccuracies, activities, trauma-informed care, food sanitation, and failure to implement a QAPI plan and maintain a QAPI committee with improvement projects which resulted in deficiencies identified during this survey. This deficient practice had the potential to affect all residents residing in the facility. Findings include: A review of the Certification and Survey Provider Enhanced Reporting (CASPER) system report (a quality measure report for nursing facilities) last updated 1/22/25, indicated the facility had the following deficiencies with a survey exit date of 11/30/23: - F641 Accuracy of Assessments - F679 Activities Meet Interest/Needs of Each Resident - F699 Trauma-Informed Care - F812 Food Procurement, Store/Prepare/Serve Sanitary - F865 QAPI Program/Plan, Disclosure/Good Faith Attempt - F867 QAA Committee The CASPER report further indicated the facility had the following repeat deficiencies with a survey exit date of 10/22: - F679 Activities Meet Interest/Needs of Each Resident - F865 QAPI Program/Plan, Disclosure/Good Faith Attempt The facility's QAPI meeting minutes dated 1/8/24, were reviewed and lacked documentation on how the facility developed, monitored, and evaluated performance indicators for improvement activities. Furthermore, the meeting minutes lacked documentation on how the facility identified, reported and tracked or intended to track adverse events, high risk, high volume, and/or problem-prone concerns. The facility's QAPI meeting minutes dated 4/8/24, were reviewed and revealed an undated quality of life and quality of care project that identified an improvement project related to activities. The meeting minutes included a comprehensive system analysis and data collection review, as well as potential corrective actions. The facility's QAPI meeting minutes dated 7/8/24, were reviewed and lacked documentation on how the facility developed, monitored, and evaluated performance indicators for improvement activities. Furthermore, the meeting minutes lacked documentation on how the facility identified, reported and tracked or intended to track adverse events, high risk, high volume, and/or problem-prone concerns. The meeting minutes included a duplicate undated quality of life and quality of care projects with no new data identified or evaluated regarding the improvement project. The facility's QAPI meeting minutes dated 10/7/24, and 1/13/25, were reviewed and lacked documentation on how the facility developed, monitored, and evaluated performance indicators for improvement activities. Furthermore, the meeting minutes lacked documentation on how the facility identified, reported and tracked or intended to track adverse events, high risk, high volume, and/or problem-prone concerns. The meeting minutes lacked documentation on an improvement project. A request for interview from the facility's medical director was made on 2/3/25 at 8:42 a.m., but not received. During interview on 2/3/25 at 1:37 p.m., RN-A stated correcting quality deficiencies was not a formal process and was not always included in the meeting minutes. When asked how the facility was made aware of high-risk, high-volume or problem-prone areas, as well as health outcomes, resident safety, choice autonomy, and quality of care, RN-A stated, we could probably do a better job at comparing ourselves to benchmarks, we don't do enough of that. RN-A stated the QAA committee included subjective and objective feedback and stated, I get real-time feedback, and I can observe it firsthand while I'm doing med admin [administration] and confirmed it was not brought back to QAA or like where people are doing surveys. RN-A stated, the important thing is the feedback is accurate and it gives us the ability to gauge, 'is it effective or not? Do we need to make a course change?' RN-A provided an example of correcting a quality concern identified by resident input; the palatability of the cooking and stated the real-time feedback received was all positive except sometimes cook (C)-A will move the menu things around and sometimes that can play into the dietary aspect. When asked about the facility's improvement projects and how the facility identified and made good faith efforts to correct quality deficiencies from previous survey results, RN-A stated, we got feedback about improvements on the house [facility], so we promoted housekeeper (HSKP)-A. Residents wanted more access to the community, so health unit coordinator (HUC)-A changed his position to accommodate that so he can help take people to stores. We target falls heavily because we had some people that had fallen and they were high risks for scary falls. RN-A described assessing high-risk residents and collaborating with the interdisciplinary team (IDT) to discharge those residents to a higher level of care because those residents needed more care than the facility could offer. RN-A explained tracking falls with those residents in the facility and performing ongoing monitoring when they discharged and stated the falls dropped dramatically once those residents discharged . RN-A was not able to identify other improvement projects, including the project identified in the undated quality of life and quality of care project meeting minutes. During interview on 2/3/25 at 3:16 p.m., the facility's owner confirmed, there's definitely room for improvement when it comes to QAPI. The facility's owner verbalized relying on RN-A to provide updates about survey results and the facility's plan of correction. An undated facility policy titled Quality Assessment and Assurance program (QAA) indicated the facility would maintain a QAA committee which would meet quarterly, and its purpose was to develop an on-going quality assurance program through an interdisciplinary approach and assess the effectiveness of the health care provided to the residents. The policy directed the committee to develop and implement appropriate plans of action to correct identified quality deficiencies.
CONCERN (F)

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

Deficiency F0868 (Tag F0868)

Could have caused harm · This affected most or all residents

Based on interview, and document review, the Quality Assurance (QA) committee failed to ensure required members of the committee attended the quarterly meetings. This had the potential to affect all 1...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on interview, and document review, the Quality Assurance (QA) committee failed to ensure required members of the committee attended the quarterly meetings. This had the potential to affect all 11 residents who resided at the facility. Findings include: An undated facility policy titled Quality Assessment and Assurance program (QAA) indicated the facility would maintain a QAA committee which would meet quarterly, and the structure of the committee would consist of the administrator, the medical director, director of nursing (DON), program director, and consulting pharmacist. The policy further indicated the objective of the QAA program was the ensure compliance with standards and regulations and other staff and/or individuals may be asked to attend the meetings by request of the committee. The facility's Quality Assurance Meeting sign-in sheets dated 1/8/24, 4/8/24, 7/8/24, 10/7/24, and 1/13/25 were reviewed on 1/31/25 at 1:47 p.m. and revealed the medical director had not signed in for any QAA meetings. The sign-in sheets further identified registered nurse (RN)-A identified as both director of nursing (DON) and administrator. Per interview on 1/27/25 at 12:40 p.m., registered nurse (RN)-A reported the facility's infection preventionist retired in 9/24. Per subsequent interview on 1/28/25 at 9:04 a.m., RN-A confirmed there was no individual in the facility who had completed the specialized training for infection prevention and control and no staff were currently enrolled in any specialized training or education. A request for interview from the facility's medical director was made on 2/3/25 at 8:42 a.m., but not received. During follow-up interview on 2/3/25 at 1:37 p.m., RN-A stated most of the QAA information goes through the medical director's designee. RN-A stated the certified physician assistant (CPA)-B was present during the QAA meetings and was their continuity person. RN-A stated, we used to rely on medical doctor (MD)-I quite a bit, but not as much now that we have another physician working with CPA-B, although, RN-A confirmed, the other physician was not as involved in the QAPI stuff. RN-A stated information from the QAA meetings was provided to the designee and I know she takes it to MD-I. During interview on 2/3/25 at 3:16 p.m., the facility's owner stated, there's definitely room for improvement when it comes to QAPI.
CONCERN (F)

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

Infection Control (Tag F0880)

Could have caused harm · This affected most or all residents

Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure proper infection control practices were maintained during laundry services. This had potential to affect all 11 reside...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure proper infection control practices were maintained during laundry services. This had potential to affect all 11 residents who resided in the facility. Findings include: During observation and interview on 1/28/25 at 8:05 a.m., housekeeping (HK)-D, who was also the head of housekeeping and laundry services, wore gloves and no gown to put laundry detergent and Clorox Bleach into the washer machine, took linens and bed sheets from a bag on the floor and placed them into the washer machine in multiple loads, and closed the washer machine. HK-D folded clean washcloths with the same gloves. HK-D stated they do not need to wear a gown to load dirty linen and clothes into the washer machine. HK-D verified they used the same gloves to load the dirty laundry and fold the clean washcloths. When interviewed on 2/3/25 at 10:09 a.m., registered nurse (RN)-A, who was the administrator and director of nursing, expected staff to wear gloves to handle soiled laundry and change gloves and perform hand hygiene prior to touching clean laundry. RN-A stated the facility was more residential, and staff should not touch dirty laundry to their body or arms. RN-A stated staff could be more careful and wear gowns when dirty laundry handled. The facility Housekeeping and Laundry - Policy and Procedure Southside Care Center dated 1/5/25, directed the facility to ensure gowns were available to wear while sorting linens. The policy directed staff to handle all potentially contaminated linen with appropriate measures to prevent cross-transmission and follow standard precautions for all used linen which is potentially contaminated.
CONCERN (F)

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

Deficiency F0882 (Tag F0882)

Could have caused harm · This affected most or all residents

Based on interview and document review, the facility failed to ensure the acting infection preventionist (IP) had completed specialized training in infection prevention and control. This deficient pra...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on interview and document review, the facility failed to ensure the acting infection preventionist (IP) had completed specialized training in infection prevention and control. This deficient practice had the potential to affect all 11 residents residing in the facility. Findings include: After reviewing the facility documents, no certification for Infection Preventionist was revealed. On 1/28/25 at 9:04 a.m., director of nursing (DON) stated he was currently the acting facility infection preventionist and was responsible for overseeing the infection control program. DON verified he had not completed specialized training for infection prevention and control. and no staff were currently enrolled in any specialized training at this time nor had any specialized infection control education scheduled. A facility policy titled Infection Preventionist, revised 7/2024, indicated the following: Policy Interpretation and Implementation 1. The facility's infection control policies and procedures apply to all personnel, consultants, contractors, residents, visitors, volunteer workers and the general public. 2. The Infection Control Nurse and Housing Director shall oversee the implementation of infection control policies and procedures and help department directors and managers ensure that they are implemented and followed. 3. Relevant staff will be trained in infection control upon hire and periodically thereafter, including when and how to find pertinent procedures and equipment related to infection control. The content of the employee training is dependent on the degree of direct resident contact and job responsibilities. 4. The facility's infection control policies and procedures will be reviewed and revised or updated as needed. The Facility Nurse and Housing Director will be responsible for keeping the infection control program (policies and procedures) current and staff members will be notified of changes or updates. 5. Questions about the infection control policies and procedures should be referred to the Facility Nurse. Required Skills and Experience (Minimum requirements in terms of educational background, work experience, licenses/certifications or other knowledge skills and abilities) * Must be unrestricted licensed with the State of Minnesota as a Registered Nurse, and maintain current unencumbered licensure *Thorough knowledge of state and federal regulations regarding long term care *Knows and practices of infection control and prevention in a nursing facility healthcare setting
MINOR (C)

Minor Issue - procedural, no safety impact

Staffing Information (Tag F0732)

Minor procedural issue · This affected most or all residents

Based on interview and document review, the facility failed to ensure the posted nurse staffing information accurately displayed the total number/actual hours worked by the licensed staff for each shi...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on interview and document review, the facility failed to ensure the posted nurse staffing information accurately displayed the total number/actual hours worked by the licensed staff for each shift on a daily basis. This had the potential to affect all 11 residents or visitors who wished to review the information. Findings include: A weekly staffing post dated 1/1/25 - 1/7/25 included the facility's name, the date, census and total hours for registered nurses (RNs), licensed practical nurses (LPNs), and trained medication assistants (TMAs). The post lacked actual worked hours for RNs and LPNs. A weekly staffing post dated 1/8/25 - 1/14/25 included the facility's name, the date, census and total hours for registered nurses (RNs), licensed practical nurses (LPNs), and trained medication assistants (TMAs). The post lacked actual worked hours for RNs and LPNs. A weekly staffing post dated 1/15/25 - 1/21/25 included the facility's name, the date, census and total hours for registered nurses (RNs), licensed practical nurses (LPNs), and trained medication assistants (TMAs). The post lacked actual worked hours for RNs and LPNs. A weekly staffing post dated 1/22/25 - 1/28/25, included the facility's name, the date, census and total hours for registered nurses (RNs), licensed practical nurses (LPNs), and trained medication assistants (TMAs). The post lacked actual worked hours for RNs and LPNs. A facility schedule dated 1/1/25 - 1/15/25, indicated the actual hours worked per shift contradicted the total hours posted on the weekly staffing post. A facility schedule dated 1/16/25 - 1/31/25, indicated the actual hours worked per shift contradicted the total hours posted on the weekly staffing post. During interview on 1/27/25 at 1:17 p.m., RN-A, who also identified as the facility's director of nursing (DON) and administrator, verified responsibility for the weekly staffing posts and the staffing schedule. RN-A asked if the daily staff posts were the ones with the ratios? before providing the requested documents on 1/28/25 at 12:24 p.m. During subsequent interview on 2/3/25 at 1:37 p.m., RN-A confirmed the facility schedules as accurate working hours. A request for a policy pertaining to staffing posts was requested but not received.
Oct 2024 1 deficiency 1 Harm
SERIOUS (G) 📢 Someone Reported This

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

Actual Harm - a resident was hurt due to facility failures

Deficiency F0740 (Tag F0740)

A resident was harmed · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview and document review the facility failed to develop and implement individualized non-pharmacological intervent...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview and document review the facility failed to develop and implement individualized non-pharmacological interventions to manage behaviors for 2 of 2 residents (R1, R3) who had mental health disorders with behaviors. The facility's failures resulted in harm for R1 when she sustained burns from using hot towels to self-soothe to relieve anxiety symptoms and had multiple hospitalization for mental health stabilization. Findings include: R1's face sheet identified R1 was admitted to facility October of 2022 with diagnoses including, borderline personality disorder, generalized anxiety disorder, unspecified mood [affective] disorder, and major depressive disorder, single episode, severe without psychotic features. R1's significant change Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated [DATE], identified R1 as cognitively intact with no evidence of acute change in mental status from R1's baseline. R1 did not display behaviors. R1 was independent in mobility and activities of daily living. R1's care plan dated 6/22/23, identified R1 had delirium or an acute confusional episode due to acute disease process [Specify incomplete field] change in condition keep the resident safe from self-harm during episodes of confusion or psychosis. Resident had a history of heating up towels in the microwave and trying to burn herself. Interventions directed staff to identify themselves at each interaction. Face R1 when speaking and make eye contact. Reduce any distractions (turn off TV, radio, close doors etc.). R1 understands consistent, simple, directive sentences. Provide the resident with necessary cues stop and return if agitated. Discuss concerns about delirium with the resident/family/caregiver. Educate the resident/family/caregiver to observe for and report any signs/symptoms of delirium. Engage the resident in simple structured activities that avoid overly demanding tasks. The resident prefers (specify the activities), If resident was not redirectable, send resident 911 to HCMC Hospital for 72 hour hold and 1:1 nursing staffing to prevent self-harm. Resident had a history of trying to burn herself with hot towels from microwave. R1's nurse re-admission record dated 2/21/24, (no time identified) indicated R1 had returned to the facility after a hospitalization that began on 2/16/24 related to mental status changes. The note indicated R1's mental status upon return was cooperative and her anxiety had improved. Medications were adjusted in the hospital. The note indicated on 2/22/24 at 1:30 a.m. R1 up to smoke and to have a snack and beverage. R1 stated she's okand seemed less anxious that night. R1 went back to bed after smoking a cigarette, staff were to continue to monitor. R1 started saying she had anxiety at 3:30 p.m. gave her the medication PRN (as needed) medication to calm her down but she was trying to use the hot towel and scrunching herself up against the wall. At 5:30 p.m. R1 was taken to the hospital by staff. R1's behavior monitoring dated 2/22/24, identified R1 had suicidal ideations let me die, let me die due to excessive anxiety she was having. Behaviors included self-injurious heating towel in the microwave too hot to warm her back x2 occasions in the last 7 days. Crying, tearfulness x4 occurrences in the last 7 days. Nursing interventions/comments: unable to sit or stand still. Had the towel in the microwave extremely hot that could burn her skin. Staff trying to prevent her from using it on her back but she kicked staff away. Impossible to have her under control. Had to be taken to the emergency room. R1's progress note dated 2/22/24 at 5:00 p.m., identified R1 was having a lot of anxiety and crying out for help. All R1's medications were administered, but not helpful. Staff had driven R1 to the hospital and was kept for observation. R1's record did not identify non-pharmacological interventions were offered or attempted to reduce or relieve R1's anxiety. Facility reported incident (FRI) dated 2/26/24, identified on 2/22/24 during an anxiety attack, R1 accidentally self-injured her back trying to sooth herself using a heating pad that was too hot. Staff discovered the heating pad and removed it. R1 was sent to the hospital for an emergency mental health crisis- anxiety attack. R1 had a superficial skin open area on her back measuring 3 centimeters (cm) by 3 cm. R1's care plan was not updated with individualized interventions to prevent R1 from burning herself with hot towels and/or alternatives to offer R1 to use to soothe herself when she became anxious. Emergency Department (ED) discharge summery dated 2/22/24, identified R1 had a hospital visit from 2/22/24 and discharged [DATE] for the principal problem of agitation. Note identified R1 was recently in the hospital and was discharged two days prior when symptoms were similar. Recommendations for outpatient provider identified to address concerns on a follow up visit included: adherence to medications and sleeping well. R1's progress note dated 2/25/24 at 4:30 p.m., R1 was back from hospital. All medication had stayed the same from previous hospitalization. Note indicated R1 was provided with a sleep medication to help her sleep and avoid anxiety episodes during the day. R1's back was charcoal burnt black with two large open areas. Very painful to touch when assisting her to take top off. Writer had applied bacitracin (antibiotic) on gauze to the open areas. Resident strongly advised to stop heating up towels to destroy her back. Resident could have neuropathy so does not feel the excessive heat to the back but was burning her skin. R1's care plan dated 3/2/24, identified R1 was resistive to care due to anxiety attack brought on by episodes of insomnia. During an anxiety attack the resident will ask for help but refuse to go to the hospital. In the past the resident will only agree to go to the hospital if staff drive her in the car. R1 will not go by ambulance through 911. R1 has a history of insomnia resulting in anxiety attack. Staff are to give clear explanation of all care activities prior to and as they occur during each contact. Staff were to give one-to one attention for (individualized minutes and times each day/week field) were left blank. Praise R1 when behavior was appropriate. Provide opportunities for choice during care provision. Resident triggers for resisting care are (Specify incomplete field) were left blank. The resident's behavior was de-escalated by (Specify incomplete field) were left blank. R1's care plan lacked individualized non-pharmacological interventions to manage insomnia to prevent and/or reduce the risk of anxiety attack. The care plan continued to lack individualized non-pharmacological interventions to prevent R1 from burning herself with hot towels and other injurious behaviors to self-soothe. Additionally the care plan did not identify individualized interventions to mange insomnia nor a quanitative/qualitative assessment of R1's sleep patterns in order to develop interventions and/or assessment to determine the effectiveness of sleep medication. During interview on 10/18/24 at 9:37 a.m., R1 reported sleep was a continued factor which affected her anxiety. R1 described a good night sleep of consistent sleep of 8 to 9 hours a night and a poor night sleep would be 3 hours at night or inconsistent sleeping hours or choppy sleep. Poor sleep had been happening approximately one to two times a week while in the facility. R1 reported the first sign of anxiety was pacing and needing to go outside to go for a walk or smoke. R1 reported when the need to repetitively smoke the anxiety was probably starting to get pretty bad. Other coping strategies R1 would utilize in the facility was a hot shower and to try a heated towel from the microwave, R1 would use the hot towel to put on her back to fall asleep. R1 denied it to be an intentional self-injurious, however, reported to be pretty ramped up if using the hot packs. R1 denied ever burning self from a hot pack. R1 had been directed to request PRN medications as needed when needing to shower or use a hot pack. R1 reported she was supposed to ask when needing medications and facility staff do not anticipate R1's anxiety or encourage medication until its uncontrollable. R1 reported when begging or crying for medication it's too late and the medication does not work. R1 reported staff tend to try to talk to her, however when anxiety is too bad its too difficult to be redirected. R1's progress notes, behavior monitoring documentation, and as needed psychotropic medication administrations were reviewed between 3/19/24 through 10/12/24. The record revealed despite R1 continuing to use or attempt to use hot towels and rub her back up against walls no individualized interventions were developed or implemented to manage the behavior other than temporarily removing the microwave, no alternatives were evident including staff consistently offering PRN medications. R1's progress note dated 3/19/24, identified R1 had seen certified nurse practitioner (CNP)-A from clinical psychiatry. R1 had been stable since recent hospitalization when Belsomra (suvorexant) prescribed for bipolar insomnia diagnosis. Disrupted sleep was contributing to anxiety exasperation. Since prescription R1 was sleeping better. No concerns currently. No medication changes were proposed. R1's progress notes from 3/19/24 through 8/22/24 did not address R1's behaviors. R1's progress notes from 8/23/24 at 5:00 p.m., identified R1 had severe anxiety episode. R1 became restless, scratching her back against the wall. Unable to utter sensibility, heating up the towel in the microwave too hot to the back of her skin. Writer was with her most of the time to help calm her down. This time her medication at 5:00 p.m. and the HS (hours of sleep) medication helped, and she was back to normal by 11:00 p.m. R1's progress notes from 8/29/24 from a late note entry dated 8/30/24 identified R1 had severe anxiety at approx. 1:00 p.m. Writer and social worker escorted the resident to United Hospital due to anxiety attack and psychosis. Resident scratching back on doorway trying to self sooth anxiety. Unable to sit still, refusing medication, refusing to eat. 1:1 staffing required, so writer escorted R1 to an inpatient mental health unit. Emergency Department (ED) discharge summery dated 8/29/24, identified R1 had a hospital visit from 8/29/24 and discharged on 8/31/24. Reason for admission was due to a concern for mania and chief complaint of anxiety. R1 required hospitalization due to potential safety risk to self or others within the last week., diagnostic clarification, decreased functioning in setting of inadequate outpatient management, need for highly structured inpatient management for stabilization of psychiatric symptoms and for psychiatric medication initiation and stabilization. R1 was stabilized and discharged . R1's progress note dated 9/6/24 at 11:00 a.m. identified R1 had high anxiety this morning and started heating up washcloth and putting on her back. Writer encouraged resident not to do too hot for washcloth to prevent skin burn. There was no indicated other than to encourage her not to use the hot pack to assist with her anxiety. R1's progress note dated 9/6/24 at 3:00 p.m., indicated R1 was a little sad because her dialysis could not be completed and had to go back to the surgical room again on Monday . Noted the presence of anxiety that make her restless. R1 started to heat up towel too hot to warm her back. Scratching her back and legs on the wall and speech not very clear. She asked for PRN medications including Seroquel and calmed her down a bit. At 8:00 p.m. staff had to monitor R1 so she does not warm the towel in the microwave too hot to put on her skin. Given meds at 9:00p.m. R1's progress note dated 9/7/24 at 1:00 p.m., writer had got report from night nurse that R1 used hot towel on her back during night shift. Night nurse took the microwave downstairs. Resident went downstairs and got microwave and started heating up towel too hot. Writer encouraged resident not to do too hot towel. Resident refused and started heating up too hot. Writer removed microwave. R1's progress note dated 9/7/24 4:15p.m., identified R1 took a shower this morning and came out with a towel wrapped around her and writer noticed how badly her back looked. It looked like a lizard skin. Has black (dark) and looked like somebody burned patient all over with cigarette. R1 was starting to wet towels and put them in the microwave for 4 minutes. Writer had to tell her she was endangering herself and burning her back, but patient ignored staff. Writer had to call manager and remove microwave and place it downstairs, hoping it stopped patient from burning her back. R1's progress note dated 9/7/24 at 9:00 p.m., identified resident had been unable to eat all day. Instead, she had been jerking, scratching her back against the wall and unable to sit still. When she sits her preference was to sit on the table and not the chair. Took all medications at 8:00 p.m., but at 9:00 p.m. not the slightest improvement. R1 looked too miserable to be here so writer called and sent resident back to hospital. Emergency Department (ED) discharge summery dated 9/7/24, identified R1 had a hospital visit from 9/7/24 and discharged on10/4/24. The reason for continued admission was due to decompensated mental illness conditions. Stabilization was required prior to transferring R1 back to facility R1's progress notes identified R1 was readmitted to facility from hospital 10/4/24 at 4:00 p.m., and R1 had a follow up outpatient psychology appointment on 10/8/24. R1's PRN medication administration record (MAR) for October 2024 identified the following physician orders: -Order date 10/4/24 Quetiapine (Seroquel) 50 milligram. Take one tablet by mouth every six hours as needed for agitation (not further defined) identified two doses administrated on 10/11/24 at 10:00 p.m. and 10/12/24 at 10:40 a.m. -Order date of 9/5/24 hydroxyzine pamoate 50 mg capsule (Vistaril) 1 cap by mouth every six hours as needed for anxiety (not further defined). Signed on 10/11/24, however time was not noted. R1's progress note dated 10/11/24 identified R1 came out of room reported feeling very anxious and wanted to heat some towels in the microwave. Nurse informed R1 that would not be beneficial and redirected R1 to take a PRN hydroxyzine. R1 agreed and went back to room. While writer was in restroom, R1 used the dining room microwave to heat up wash cloths in a plastic bag. Resident perplexed it helps. Education provided on the dangers of hot towels on skin. Resident reported no its fine. Removed microwave for safety reasons. Besides removing the microwave there was no indication if other interventions were used to address R1 anxiety. R1's document titled behavior sheet dated 10/11/24, identified the following: R1 resists cares does her own plan ignores staff x 2 occurrences in the last seven days. Self-injurious goes out after curfew to smoke x2 occurrences in the last seven days. Delusions x 3 occurrences in the last seven days believes she can take care of herself. Inappropriate smoking behaviors x3 occurrences in the last seven days chain smokes. Nursing interventions/additional comments: Resident believes she can live in her own apartment and take care of herself; staff have to watch her when she is anxious, she will heat towels too hot and burn herself. R1's weekly progress note/care plan review dated 10/11/24, identified R1 rarely requests PRN's during the night shift, she remains intact with bruises and scar tissue, she sleeps well some nights, she goes out after curfew to smoke. R1's progress note dated 10/12/24 at 4:00 a.m., identified writer arrived on shift and immediately R1 went to take shower. It was a long shower. After that asked nurse to warm up towels, nurse replied she was not allowed to do that. R1 continued to ask writer said no again. R1 went to room to sleep. Around 4:00 a.m. R1 tried to teat up towels in kitchen. Writer told her it was not allowed and removed both microwaves due to R1 heating up towels so hot and placing them on her back. R1's back is scarred. R1's progress note dated 10/12/24 at 7:00 a.m., identified R1 was restless all night and was reporting anxiety. R1 received all PRN medication, Resident was undirectable [sic] to any cues. Resident was crying. Writer called 9-1-1 and sent to hospital. Resident was taking hot showers and rubbing against doorways. R1's progress note dated 10/12/24 3:00 p.m., identified resident from when she left until 3:00 p.m. did not sleep. Resident smoked 2-6 cigarettes to keep busy. Resident kept begging staff to get the microwaves out. Resident was crying and rocking back and forth. Called EMS and returned to emergency room. Emergency Department (ED) discharge summery dated 10/12/24, identified R1 had a hospital visit from 10/12/24- Current. R1 was admitted for the chief complaint of anxiety and high blood sugar. R1 arrived by emergency medical services from R1's facility. R1 had reported having an anxiety attack for the last 23 hours and started throwing up and reporting severe abdominal pain. There was no indication in the medical record the the facility had completed a comprehensive assessment to determine triggers, or any specific behaviors pattern or trends that could be addressed by medication management or interventions to reduce or prevent her anxiety that resulted in several hospitalizations. During interview on 10/18/24 at 12:21 p.m., family member (FM)-A reported R1 had a long-standing history of anxiety prior to admitting to the facility. FM-A reported concerns regarding R1's sleep and when FM-A received late-night phone calls to be very worried about R1's anxiety for the next day. If R1's sleep was out of control it would be a trigger for behaviors to get worse. FM-A reported historically R1 had a weighted blanket but was unsure where it had gone. FM-A reported PRN medications were for the facility to provide prior to R1 not sleeping and prior to R1 reporting she needed it. FM-A reported R1 was to receive the PRN's from facility staff based of how R1 was acting or how her behaviors were. During interview on 10/18/24 at 10:15 a.m., licensed practical nurse (LPN)-A reported R1 did fine on her good days, however had times with a lot of anxiety and scratching her back on the walls. LPN-A reported staff were to calm her down by providing R1 with an as needed medication if it was available (Seroquel). LPN-A recalled providing R1 an as needed medication in the month of October as R1 was acting up and having one of her episodes. LPN-A described this behavior as R1 scratching her back on walls, warming up wash cloths and when she starts to beg/cry to know R1 needed her as need medication. LPN-A reported had needed to hide the microwave as R1 was attempting to warm up towels too hot. R1 was independent and able to do so without assistance, but staff do not condone it. LPN-A reported R1 did not display signs of anxiety until R1 was scratching her back. Staff were only able to give her the as needed medication and there is nothing else staff can do. R1 was able to report anxiety and tell staff it's getting worse, but once she's gone, she's gone. LPN-A reported R1 may needed more medication to cope with the anxiety and more psychological help. During interview on 10/22/24 at 10:45 a.m., registered nurse (RN)-B reported R1 was in the facility for medication management and was independent in most of her cares. RN-B reported R1 had anxiety and R1's anxiety presents when she was crying and starts acting like she needs medication. RN-B further described this behavior as crying, taking multiple showers, and warming towels. In most cases R1 would ask for the medication and the PRN medication was for when R1's anxiety was bad. RN-B was unaware of any non-pharmacological options that were successful for R1. RN-B reported when R1's anxiety comes the facility staff cannot control it and was unsure why her medication was not working. RN-B reported staff were unable to provide R1 with PRN medications unless R1 requests it. RN-B would not give PRN medication to prevent anxiety such as going to a dialysis appointment and only provide it if R1 requests it. During interview on 10/18/24 at 2:38 p.m., RN-A recalled being the RN who needed to send R1 to the hospital on the morning of 10/12/24. R1 was noted to be anxious and walking back and forth. When asking about R1's anxiety R1 reported I just can't. R1 was attempting to warm towels with the use of the microwave and education provided for safety. RN-A educated R1 on heating packs that do not get as hot can be sold at Walgreens, however, the facility did not have any alternatives to offer R1. RN-A reported R1 was not allowing RN-A to heat the hot pack for R1, as R1 wanted to heat it longer than 2 minutes. RN-A was attempting to redirect R1 by talking to her. RN-A reported giving all PRN medications available, and R1 wanted to shower when night shift had arrived. RN-A had asked the overnight staff if R1 was able to get any sleep. R1 had not, however, was water seeking and trying to get hot water or to heat towels. LPN-A had removed one of the microwaves. RN-A was worried as R1 had not slept and was rubbing her back on the sides of doorways. RN-A had contacted 911 around 7:00 a.m. RN-A reported only giving a PRN medication if R1 asks for it. During interview with administrator on 10/23/24 at 9:56 a.m., Administrator/director of nursing reported R1 had stress related triggers such as going to multiple medical appointments and inability to sleep. Staff should be giving PRN medication prior to R1 having an episode of crying, using hot packs and the inability to self-regulate/self sooth. Administrator reported the facility could have done a better job offering the PRN medications. Administrator reported R1's sleep could impact her stress tolerance and the facility had been tracking the hours of sleep, however not monitoring the quality of sleep. The facility had a sleep disturbance evaluation tool which could have benefited R1. Additionally, Administrator reported R1's care plan was not individualized and did not have all of R1's triggers nor individualized interventions identified. R1's target behaviors were not being monitored. During interview on 10/22/24 at 3:32 p.m., certified nurse practitioner (CNP)-A reported to be a board-certified nurse practitioner specializing in psychiatry who had worked with R1 for 10 years working together on an outpatient bases and consulting as needed while she was inpatient. CNP-A reported seeing R1 about monthly, however due to inpatient hospitalizations outpatient services would be delayed. CNP-A reported seeing R1 in December and then not again until March, May and then June. July got delayed until October due to frequent hospitalizations. During that time CNP-A had contact with impatient psychiatry team. CNP-A reported R1 was on a PRN Seroquel for agitation. R1 should be asking for medications ideally, but the facility should also be offering when they are seeing some key futures of R1's agitation such as pacing or frequently smoking. R1 was described as a very vulnerable adult who may not always present as such due to age and appeared functional. CNP-A reported R1's anxiety presents as very restless and agitated. If R1's behaviors present past that, R1 would either do healthy coping or unhealthy coping such as using hot towels and burn her back. Using hot towels had been a long-standing coping strategy described as an intentional and self-inflicted relief such as cutting/burning/punching self. R1 was known to intentionally attempt this method to self-regulate, not attempting to kill herself. R1's sleep was reported as intermittently terrible and waxes and wanes. R1's sleep was known to affect the way R1 could respond to anxiety or stress. CNP-A reported it was an indicator R1 could be kind of destabilizing and was currently R1's biggest complaints. Non-pharmacological interventions that are successful include some movement with activity, crafting and reported R1 had limited tools and was one of the reasons they were initiating dialectical behavior therapy (DBT) since this recent hospitalization. R3's face sheet printed identified R3 was admitted with diagnoses including, schizoaffective disorder, depressive type, other psychoactive substance use, unspecified with psychoactive substance- induced mood disorder and unspecified mental disorder due to known physiological condition. R3's quarterly change Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated , 7/27/24 identified R3 as cognitively intact with no behaviors. R3 was independent in mobility and activities of daily living. R3's care plan dated, 2/6/2021 identified R3 had alteration in neurological status of paranoid delusions people are out to get her due to schizoaffective disorder. R3 was to be assessed for effects of psychotropic medications, dystnoia, akithesia, akinesia, rigidity, tremors, etc. R3 required cueing reorientation as needed. Staff were to give medication as ordered. Monitor/document for side effects and effectiveness. Staff were to provide main management as needed. See medical doctor (MD) orders. Provide alternative comfort measures as needed. Staff were to give PRN analgesics and monitor effectiveness. Report new onset of pain to MD. R3's medical record lacked individualized behavior interventions for target behaviors. R3's behavior monitoring sheet requested and not received. During an interview on 10/23/24 at 3:33 p.m. DON/administrator stated we have identified target behaviors for our residents but have not gone the extra step to include personalized interventions for target behaviors. During interview on 10/23/24 at 4:13 p.m., DON/administrator reported the facility did not have any policy or procedure related to mental health/behavioral management/psychiatric or mental health care needs.
Nov 2023 13 deficiencies
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0554 (Tag F0554)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview, and document review, the facility failed to assess residents for the ability to self administer...

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 assess residents for the ability to self administer medications for 2 of 2 resident (R5 and R6) reviewed for medications at bedside. Findings include: R6's quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated [DATE], indicated R6 was cognitively intact and had diagnoses of schizophrenia and depression. R6's medication administration record (MAR) dated 11/2023, indicated a scheduled morning medication pass of the following: -escitalopram oxalate 10 milligrams (mg) tablet (Lexapro) for depression. -fiber unboxed 625mg tablet (Fibercon) for constipation. -molnupiravir 800mg capsules (Lagevrio) for coronavirus 19 (COVID-19) infection. -midodrine hydrochloride (hcl) 2.5mg tablet (Proamatine) for low blood pressure. R6's treatment administration record (TAR) dated 11/2023, indicates R6 required monitoring of medication compliance as resident tried to hide medication in mouth or hand instead of taking it. R6's care plan dated 5/01/22, indicated R6 had behaviors of hiding medications related to paranoid schizophrenia. Interventions included administering medications as ordered. R6's medical record lacked an assessment for self-administration of medications. R6's self-administration assessment was requested but was not received. An observation on 11/27/23 8:30 a.m., registered nurse (RN)-A knocked on R6's door, entered, handed R6 the medication cup, and immediately exited the room before ensuring R6 took the medication. When interviewed on 11/27/23 06:45 p.m., RN-B stated, I make sure the resident takes them [medications] all. RN-B stated a self-administration assessment is needed to determine if a resident is safe to administer their own medications and the assessment would be in the chart and care plan. When interviewed on 11/30/23 at 12:45 p.m., RN-A stated that self-administration assessments were in the MDS assessments. RN-A was unable to locate R6's assessment during interview. R5's quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated [DATE], indicated R5 was cognitively intact and had diagnoses of diabetes, high blood pressure, depression, and schizophrenia. R5's self-administration assessment dated [DATE], indicated R5 was safe to complete their own blood glucose testing in the morning. The self-administration assessment lacked indications that R5 was safe to self-administer other medications or treatments. R5's medication administration record (MAR) dated 11/2023, showed scheduled morning medication pass included the following: -amantadine 100mg tablet (Symmetrel) for treatment of tremors. -celluvisc 1% eye drops to treat dry eyes. -haloperidol 10mg tablet (Haldol) to take a half tablet for schizophrenia. -lisinopril 2.5mg tablet (Prinivil) for diabetes and high blood pressure. -metformin hcl film-coated (f/c) 1000mg tablet (Glucophage) for diabetes. -propranolol hcl 10mg tablet (Inderal) for tremors. -sertraline hcl f/c 100mg (Zoloft) for depression. -solifenacin succinate 5mg tablet (Vesicare) for retention of urine. -tamsulosin hcl 0.4mg capsules (Flomax) to take two capsules for retention of urine. -vitamin B-12 1000 micrograms (mcg) for supplement. -blood sugar check daily in the morning. -molnupiravir 800mg capsules (Lagevrio) for treatment of coronavirus-19 (COVID-19) infection. R5's care plan 8/01/22, identified R5 had a physician order for self-administration of checking blood glucose. An observation on 11/27/23 at 9:11 a.m., registered nurse (RN)-A entered R5's room, handed R5 the medication cup and told R5 to, take all four meds, buddy. RN-A left the room. R5 held out the cup of medications and said, I got them all down. When interviewed on 11/28/23 at 5:28 p.m., R5 stated preference for self-administration of medications, but no one has ever talked to me about that. R5 stated it is normal for staff to leave medications without watching them be taken. When interviewed on 11/27/23 1:48 p.m., RN-A who was also the director of nursing (DON) stated due to COVID-19 in the facility staff limit time spent with positive residents, but the standard was to stay with a resident to ensure all medications were taken. RN-A stated all residents were assessed for self-administration of medications, so if I leave the medications there, they're okay. Facility policy for self-administration requested but was not received.
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 completed Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessments were accurate...

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 completed Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessments were accurate for 3 of 5 residents (R2, R3, R13) reviewed for unnecessary medication. Findings include: R2's annual Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated [DATE], indicated R2 had diagnoses of schizophrenia and major depressive disorder. R2's MDS further indicated R2 was taking antianxiety and antidepressant medications. R2's MDS lacked a completed and accurate patient health questioner-9 (PHQ-9) assessment (an assessment used to determine severity of depression and used to monitor response to treatment). R3's quarterly MDS dated [DATE], indicated R3 had mild cognitive impairment and diagnoses of bipolar disorder and anxiety. R3's MDS further indicated R3 was taking anti-psychotic medication. R3's MDS lacked a completed and accurate PHQ-9 assessment. R13's quarterly MDS dated [DATE], indicated R13 was cognitively intact and had diagnoses of bipolar disorder, depression and anxiety. R13's MDS further indicated R3 was taking antianxiety and antidepressant medications. R13's MDS lacked a completed and accurate PHQ-9 assessment. When interviewed on 11/30/23 at 3:36 p.m. the Director of Nursing (DON) stated the facility used an older paper version of the PHQ-9 and with the new MDS format the questions don't all line up. DON further stated he remembered the MDS locking out of most of the assessment when trying to enter it and was not sure why. DON acknowledged the incomplete and locked assessment was left and he should have reached out for assistance. Furthermore, the DON stated accurate assessments were important to ensure residents receive the right care and treatments are working for them. A facility policy on MDS assessments was requested however was not received.
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0679 (Tag F0679)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview and document review, the facility failed to ensure individualized activities were provided for 2...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview and document review, the facility failed to ensure individualized activities were provided for 2 of 2 residents (R11, R13) reviewed for activities. Findings include: R11's annual MDS dated [DATE], indicated they were cognitively intact and had a diagnosis of depression. R11 identified it was very important for her to do her favorite activities, and somewhat important to have reading material and do thing with groups of people. R11's care plan activity focus areas dated 11/20/22, indicated R11 did not want to participate in activities with interventions to modify daily schedule and treatment plan as needed to accommodate activity participation as requested by the resident, and identified R11's preferred activities were playing bingo, reading, listening to news in the morning, current events, watching football and reality television, and talking on the phone. R11's Care Conference Record dated 4/5/23, included preferred activities of medical appointments part-time work, friend visits and family leaves of absence, laptop/iPad, and will make needs known. R11's Care Conference Record dated 7/12/23, included preferred activities of dialysis 3 times weekly, recent hospitalizations, inability to work part-time job, chain smoking on the front porch secondary to increased anxiety, and will make needs known. R11's Care Conference Record dated 9/22/23, included preferred activities of most of the day filled with medical appts (appointments), talking on the phone, leaves of absence with family, friends at care center, and will make needs known. R11's Leisure Records for 9/23 - 11/23, included dialysis or doctor appointments 37 times, was hospitalized or on leave of absence for 13 days, went out to smoke 7 times, had 7 morning visits, watched TV 3 times, and stayed in their room one day due to a facility COVID-19 outbreak. During interview on 11/27/23 at 8:27 p.m., R11 stated there were absolutely no activities at the facility, just TV. R13's significant change Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated [DATE], indicated they were cognitively intact. R13 identified it was very important for her to do her favorite activities, listen to music they like, and do things with groups of people. R13's care plan lacked an activity focus and interventions. R13's Care Conference Record dated 5/1/23, included R13 enjoyed playing cribbage, bingo, artwork, going out to smoke, outings, social and music hour, smartphone, and will make needs known. R13's Care Conference Record dated 8/18/23 included R13 enjoyed painting, board games and cards with other residents, independent outing with friends, and will make needs known. R13's Leisure Records for 9/23 - 11/23, included watching TV and/or telephone use 24 times, smoking 24 times, taking self into the community 13 times, doctor, and other appointments 11 times, leave of absence 5 times, family visit once, sing-along once, arts and crafts once on 11/15/23, and stayed in her room one day due to a facility COVID-19 outbreak. During observation on 11/28/23 at 12:15 p.m., the Life Enrichment Activities Schedule for the previous week of 11/20/23 -11/26/23 was posted in the hallway. No schedule was posted for the current week. Review of the schedule for the week of 11/20/23 - 11/26/23, revealed the following scheduled every day, 7 days per week: 7:30 - 9:00a.m. - Breakfast / Current events-morning news 10:00 a.m. - 11:30 a.m. Independent resident outings 11:30 - 1:00 p.m. - Lunch 1:00 p.m. - 4:30 p.m. Western Classics (WE TV - Gunsmoke, Little House on the Prairie, etc.) 4:30 p.m. - 6:00 p.m. - Dinner, evening news 7:00 p.m. - 8:30 p.m. - snack and resident social time Additional activities added to the calendar included TV time, assist with making lunch, assist residents with making appointments, coffee time, relaxation time, viewing religious program, and independent activities. Listening to music, arts and crafts, Bingo, and games were listed, however no evidence of resident participation was provided. During interview on 11/27/23 at 7:40 a.m., R13 stated the activities coordinator was usually cooking in the kitchen or hiding and came to sing songs occasionally. R13 stated when R13 came to the facility there was supposed to be three activities per week, and that had not occurred. They stated they had to purchase their own craft supplies to create a facility project, and they needed more stimulation than that. During observation on 11/28/23 at 12:15 p.m., the activity calendar for the previous week of 11/20/23 -11/26/23 was posted in the hallway. A bookshelf was noted to the left of the fireplace in the dining room which contained approximately 10 games, seven puzzles, five cookbooks, 3 Bibles, 11 other books, 10 coloring books and a few miscellaneous boxes of paper, beads, colored pencils, and other craft items. The items on the shelves remained untouched and in the same positions each day of the survey. During observation on 11/28/23 at 12:40 p.m., R11 was standing in the dining room approximately three feet from the television (TV) where an old Western TV show was on. No other residents were present. During interview on 11/28/23 at 1:41 p.m., R11 stated they would do crafts and maybe exercises if they were offered, and the facility had Bingo once in the past year. They stated the activities director visited about once a month which lasted a few minutes, and they would like to read books but there weren't any to read. They stated someone always changed the TV to old westerns all day long, but they would prefer to watch something else. They stated if there were activities they were often directed toward older people. During continuous observation on 11/29/23, starting at 8:15 a.m., the following was observed: 8:15 a.m. AD sitting at nurses' desk arranging appointments and transportation, communicating with outside resources for residents. 8:37 a.m., one resident eating breakfast in the dining room, R11 standing in the hallway watching the TV with no sound. 8:45 a.m. - one resident trying to make conversation with R11 in the dining room, while R11 continued to watch TV with no sound. 8:55 a.m. AD assisting nurse, R11 and another resident sitting in silence in dining room. 9:13 a.m. AD talking with a resident about upcoming appointment. 9:25 a.m. a third resident sat at a table with no sound on TV. 9:58 a.m. R11 still watching TV with no sound while AD was at nurses' desk. 10:21 a.m. AD still at nurses' desk coordinating appointments. No facility activities were conducted during this time. During continuous observation on 11/29/23, starting at 12:45 p.m., the TV was playing an old western show with no residents in the dining room. At 1:06 p.m. one resident entered the room with a word find book. At 1:26 p.m. the resident left. At 2:24 p.m. the resident returned with the puzzle book. The TV continued to be showing old westerns without volume. During interview in the dining room at 2:24 p.m. administrator stated AD had a second job and would be back the next day. Old western TV shows with no volume continued to play. At 2:29 p.m. the resident stated they asked AD if they could play Bingo and AD declined. The resident stated AD was always busy doing other things, like working on the phone. At 3:07 p.m. the TV was still on, playing old westerns with no sound and no residents present. No facility conducted activities were conducted during this time. During interview on 11/30/23 at 9:20 a.m., activities director (AD) stated his duties varied, from helping to cook in the kitchen to making appointments for residents. They stated resident did their own activities independently. They identified the resident enjoyed socials where they served food and had music, and he did one-to one meetings with the residents in the mornings for 5-10 minutes each or sat and watched and talked about the news. They loved to play bingo but sometimes only 4 showed up to play, and they cancelled if they didn't get at least 6 players. AD asked residents if they needed anything, and sometimes took some to the store or cut their fingernails and tried to do an activity every Friday. They identified there were items on the shelf in the dining room for self-directed activities for when they wanted something to do, but for the most part activities were all done independently. During interview on 11/30/23, at 10:59 a.m., administrator stated sometimes the sound on the TV was turned off because the medication cart was next to it, and it was bothersome to the nurses. He confirmed they did not have any activities during the week due to a COVID-19 outbreak, but in general many of the residents were taking mental health medications and preferred to sleep and do things by themselves. They stated AD did some one-to-one visits, but the residents didn't have much interest in activities, and he did not know how to fill the gap between what they said they enjoyed and what was offered. The Policy and Procedure for Activities Program Development - Southside Care Center dated 11/20/22, indicated the Activities Department is to complete Activities Initial Assessment to identify the activities interest of each resident upon initial admission and thereafter following the MDS schedule. When residents' activities interests have changed, a new Activities Assessment should be completed. The activities assessment should develop an inventory of interests customized to the individual resident. From those assessments the activities calendar can be updated and modified to reflect the interests of the residents at Southside collectively and honoring their individual choices for life fulfillment.
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0699 (Tag F0699)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview and document review, the facility failed to comprehensively assess for and identify potential triggers to avo...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview and document review, the facility failed to comprehensively assess for and identify potential triggers to avoid re-traumatization for 1 of 1 resident (R13) who had a history of trauma. Findings include: R13's quarterly MDS dated [DATE], indicated she was cognitively intact, had diagnoses of post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), anxiety, depression, manic depression, psychotic disorder, and had delusions. The MDS identified R13 exhibited verbal symptoms (such as threatening, screaming, cursing) directed toward others daily, and often exhibited other behavioral symptoms such as self-injury and pacing on 1-3 of the previous seven days. R13 took antianxiety, antidepressant, hypnotic, antipsychotic, and opioid medications regularly. R13's Medical Diagnosis list printed 11/29/23, included (PTSD). R13's Care Area Summary dated 5/12/23, identified the Mood State and Behavioral Symptoms care areas were not triggered. R13's care plan revised 9/24/23, included mood and depression focus areas, however the interventions column was blank. R13's Care Conference Record dated 8/18/23, indicated R13 saw a psychiatrist and directed staff to 'assist resident with de-escalation', but lacked resident-focused interventions. R13's medical record lacked evidence of assessment for PTSD triggers. During interview on 11/30/23 at 8:32 a.m. R13 stated they had a history of PTSD but nobody from the facility asked them about any past trauma or what their triggers were to help identify things that might re-traumatize them. During interview on 11/30/23 at 10:02 a.m. licensed practical nurse (LPN)-A stated if a resident had a diagnosis of PTSD the facility assessed mood and behavior, but they could not recall any residents who had a diagnosis of PTSD at the facility. They stated the director of nursing (DON) added it to the care plan, but if the hospital paperwork did not identify it, the facility would not know about the diagnosis. LPN-A identified it would be important to add individualized interventions to the care plan to be able to better care for the resident on a daily basis and help them cope. During interview on 11/30/23 at 12:28 p.m. DON stated they relied on the psychiatrist to help when a resident had a diagnosis of PTSD, and any assessments would be completed in the standard MDS forms. They stated they did not do a specific PTSD assessment, and they learned what residents' triggers might be by taking care of them but relied on the psychiatrist to address psychological needs and R13 refused to see a psychiatrist. They confirmed staff did not have conversation with the residents around PTSD and triggers, but it was important to know what they are to prevent a situation which might bring back some of those trauma-related feeling and emotions. In an email dated 11/30/23 at 6:07 p.m., DON identified the facility did not have a trauma-related care policy.
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0700 (Tag F0700)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview, and document review the facility failed to assess for safety and appropriate use of bed rails, ...

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 assess for safety and appropriate use of bed rails, ensure alternate interventions were assessed and/or attempted, and failed to review risks and benefits of bed rails and obtain consent for 1 of 1 resident (R11) who was observed to have a bed rail affixed to their bed. Findings include: R13's quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated [DATE], indicated they were cognitively intact, used a walker and wheelchair for mobility, and were independent with bed mobility, standing, and transfers. R13 had diagnoses of high blood pressure, ankle fracture, anxiety, depression, bipolar psychotic disorder, and PTSD and lung disease. The MDS indicated bed rails were not in use. R13's care plan dated 9/4/23, lacked indication for the bed rail. R13's medical record lacked evidence of assessment for safety and use, discussion of risk and benefits, resident consent, and attempted alternatives prior to installation of the bed rail. During observation and interview on 11/27/23 at 8:01 a.m., R13 was seated at the edge of her bed. A metal side rail approximately 20 inches in length and 10 inches high from the top of the mattress was affixed to the left side. R13 stated she asked for the bed rail and used it to help her lay down and get up. During interview on 11/28/23 at 1:57 p.m., director of nursing (DON) stated R13 told them she wanted the bed rail, so they got it for her right after her admission to the facility approximately six months earlier to promote independence. They stated they assessed how she transferred, rearranged her room, and placed the bedrail on the bed, made sure it was stable, and would re-evaluate bedrail use if something happened. They stated they thought they wrote a progress note, however upon review of the medical record, DON was unable to locate the documentation, and confirmed the record lacked documentation of discussion of risks and benefits, resident consent, attempted alternatives, and an assessment for safety. The facility Bed Physical Devices for Mobility policy dated 7/25/23, indicated any device that is attached to the bed, or fixed adjacent to the bed is defined as a bed assist device and additionally as defined in the guidance will follow the criteria for side rails. The device will not be placed until after an attempt without the bed assistive device is trialed. This trial will be documented on the assessment. Southside Care Center must also attempt to use appropriate alternatives to bed rails and determine that those alternatives do not meet the resident's needs. Prior to application of the device, the assessment for the device will be documented and will include: The medical reason why the device is needed, devices are not applied to the bed for safety purposes. The device must be used by the resident to enhance or maintain mobility.
CONCERN (D)

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

Dental Services (Tag F0791)

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 assist 1 of 1 residents (R6) with denture pain to o...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview, and document review, the facility failed to assist 1 of 1 residents (R6) with denture pain to obtain an appointment for dental services. Findings include: R6's quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated [DATE], indicated R6 had intact cognition and diagnoses of disorder of teeth and supporting structures. Furthermore, R6's MDS identified R6 had broken or loosely fitting dentures as well as mouth or facial pain and discomfort with chewing. R6's dental Care Area Assessment (CAA) indicated R6 had infrequent gum pain that was relieved by removing dentures and will be care planned to maintain current level of functioning and minimize decline. R6's care plan dated 6/4/21, identified gum pain secondary to dentures. Interventions included removal of dentures when experiencing pain and use of medication to relieve pain. Additionally, R6's care plan indicated to notify R6's dentist if pain did not resolve. R6's care plan also identified that R6 had the potential for oral/dental health problems related to poor oral hygiene and full upper and lower dentures. Interventions included coordinating arrangements for dental care and transportation, administering medications as ordered and mouth inspections quarterly and as needed by the licensed nurse. R6's care conference note dated 7/07/23, indicated R6 needed to see a dentist every six months, and that R6 required assistance with setting up appointments and coordinating transportation. A review of physician's orders indicated the following: -on 11/8/23, R6 required Orajel gel for gum twice daily (medication to numb the gums and relieve pain). -on 7/18/23, R6 required Anbeseol 20% gel (gram) apply topically four times a day as needed for gum pain. An observation on 11/27/23 9:19 a.m., R6 was sitting on the bed with a breakfast tray. R6 did not have upper or lower dentures in. R6 stated she had gum pain that interfered with eating certain foods. However, staff gave medication to help with the pain. When interviewed on 11/28/23 6:19 p.m., registered nurse (RN)-B stated R6 requested Orajel for gum pain relief. Furthermore, two weeks ago, R6 had pain more often and was sore. When interviewed on 11/30/23 9:04 a.m., Activities (ACT)-A stated they assisted residents with scheduling appointments. ACT-A stated an appointment book was used to manage resident appointments or residents could request one. ACT-A stated resident dental referrals are kept in their charts. ACT-A verified R6's physician visit tracking record form indicated R6's last dental appointment was on 6/2/21. ACT-A further stated they had remembered a time when R6 asked for an appointment but had not heard anything from R6 since. ACT-A was not able to verify any appointments had been made since 6/2/21. A facility policy on dental care/appointments was requested however was not received.
CONCERN (E) 📢 Someone Reported This

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

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

Safe Environment (Tag F0584)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview, and document review, the facility failed to ensure resident showers/bathtubs were sanitary 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 resident showers/bathtubs were sanitary for 1 of 2 resident bathrooms reviewed for a clean, homelike environment. R13's quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated [DATE], indicated she was cognitively intact, ambulatory, and showered independently. During interview on 11/27/23 at 7:51 a.m., R13 stated the bathtubs in both bathrooms did not get cleaned right and sometimes the residents had to clean them themselves before using them. R11's annual MDS dated [DATE], indicated she was cognitively intact, ambulatory, and showered independently. During interview on 11/27/23, at 8:29 p.m., R11 stated the bathrooms were really gross, and things didn't seem to be sanitized. During observation on 11/28/23 at 5:05 p.m., the shower curtain liner in the upstairs bathroom was streaked with large areas of orange, white, and dark brown substances within the folds as it hung on the bar. A dark brownish-black substance was noted along the bottom edge of the curtain, spreading upward approximately ½ inch along its length. During interview on 11/29/23 at 9:38 a.m. housekeeper (HSK)-A stated he cleaned the bathrooms, including the showers, second thing each morning after taking out the trash. During interview with HSK-A at 10:24 a.m. they stated he washed the outside of the curtains sometimes but the insides were the worst. He identified licensed practical nurse (LPN)-A sometimes came to check the curtains, or if they got too bad, they let LPN-A know, and LPN-A bought a new one so HSK-A could change it. Upon observing the back of the shower curtain HSK-A stated it would not be acceptable in his home as it was, and they were going to mention it to LPN-A so they could purchase a new one. During interview on 11/29/23 at 10:34 a.m., the administrator stated residents generally used the bathrooms on the floors where their rooms were located, but anyone could use either. He stated they regularly replaced the shower curtain liners and thought LPN-A replaced them every six months since they were difficult to clean. He observed the liner in the upstairs bathroom and thought the streaks to be shampoo and soap residue, and indicated it was replaced in August of 2023, but the showers got a lot of use and the liners needed to be replaced more often to keep things clean. An environmental services policy was requested but not provided.
CONCERN (E)

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

Deficiency F0883 (Tag F0883)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview and document review, the facility failed to ensure 3 of 5 residents (R1, R12, R13) received education and wer...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview and document review, the facility failed to ensure 3 of 5 residents (R1, R12, R13) received education and were offered or received the pneumococcal vaccine in accordance with the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) recommendations. In addition, the facility failed to obtain educated consent or refusal for 5 of 5 residents (R1, R3, R11, R12, R13) who were offered the influenza vaccine at the facility. Findings include: R1 R1's quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated [DATE], included R1 was age [AGE], had a diagnosis of seizure disorder, and indicated R1 received the influenza vaccine outside the facility and was not up to date with Pneumococcal vaccination due to a medical contraindication. R1's History of Communicable Diseases form indicated R1 had the PPSV23 vaccination on 9/29/21, and the influenza vaccine on 10/2/23. The CDC's PneumoRecs VaxAdvisor indicated for patients aged 65 and over who have not received PCV15 or PCV20, had a PPSV23 and did not have a PCV13, Give one dose of PCV15 or PCV 20 at least one year after their last dose of PPSV23. Regardless of which vaccine is used (PCV15 or PCV20) their pneumococcal vaccinations are complete. R1's medical record lacked evidence R13 was educated about, offered, and received or declined the recommended pneumococcal immunization, and lacked evidence of education and consent for the given influenza vaccine. R3 R3's quarterly MDS dated [DATE], indicated she received the influenza vaccine on 10/6/2021. R3's History of Communicable Diseases form indicated they received the influenza vaccine on 10/2/23. R3's medical record lacked evidence of education and consent for the given influenza vaccine. R11 R11's annual MDS dated [DATE], lacked documentation of the influenza vaccine. R11's History of Communicable Diseases form indicated they received the influenza vaccine on 10/2/23. R11's medical record lacked evidence of education and consent for the given influenza vaccine. R12 R12's quarterly MDS dated [DATE], indicated R12 was age [AGE] and did not receive the influenza or pneumococcal vaccines due to a medical contraindication. R12's Medical Diagnosis list printed 11/30/23, indicated had a diagnosis of lymphoma (cancer in the lymphatic system). R12's History of Communicable Diseases form indicated they received the influenza vaccine on 10/2/23, and lacked evidence of pneumococcal vaccinations. The CDC's The CDC's PneumoRecs VaxAdvisor indicated for patients aged 19-64 who have not received PCV15 or PCV20, with a risk factor of lymphoma, and did not receive the PPSV23 or the PCV13, Give one dose of PCV15 or PCV 20. If PCV20 is used, their pneumococcal vaccinations are complete. If PCV15 is used, follow with one dose of PPSV23 to complete their pneumococcal vaccinations. The recommended interval between PCV15 and PPSV23 is at least one year. The minimum interval is 8 weeks and can be considered in adults with immunocompromising conditions, cochlear implants, or cerebrospinal fluid leaks. R12's medical record lacked evidence R13 was educated about, offered, and received or declined the recommended pneumococcal immunization, and lacked evidence of education and consent for the given influenza vaccine. R13 R13's quarterly MDS dated [DATE], R13 was age [AGE] and included a diagnosis of chronic lung disease and lacked documentation of influenza and pneumococcal vaccination. R13's History of Communicable Diseases form indicted R13 was offered and decline the influenza vaccine on 10/2/23, and lacked documentation of pneumococcal immunizations. The CDCs CDC's PneumoRecs VaxAdvisor indicated for patients aged 19-64 who have not received PCV15 or PCV20, with a risk factor of lung disease, and did not receive the PPSV23 or the PCV13, Give one dose of PCV15 or PCV 20. If PCV20 is used, their pneumococcal vaccinations are complete. If PCV15 is used, follow with one dose of PPSV23 to complete their pneumococcal vaccinations. R13's medical record lacked evidence R13 was educated about, offered, and received or declined the recommended pneumococcal immunization. and lacked evidence of education regarding the influenza vaccine. During interview on 11/30/23 at 1:25 p.m. infection preventionist (IP) stated all resident had standing orders. The facility Standing Orders for Skilled Nursing Facilities dated 1/2018, included per CDC guidelines, administer pneumococcal vaccinations (PPSV23 or PCV13) to patients who have not already received it unless contraindicated. No newer version of the orders was received. During interview on 11/29/23 at 2:09 p.m. infection preventionist stated the facility receive resident immunization information from the admitting hospital, and residents received recommendations regarding immunizations from their primary provider, although sometimes the facility also recommended them. They stated everyone received the flu shot but they did not provide official education since the residents already knew it was to help prevent them from getting the flu, and they did not require a consent/declination prior to administration. They identified there was educational material delivered with the flu vaccine itself, however they did not keep it. If a resident refused there was a form for them to sign however, they did not have R13 sign one when she declined. They kept track of immunizations on a handwritten paper and did not have access to any immunization data bases to obtain vaccine history or to document immunization they gave on site. During interview on 11/29/23 at 2:28 p.m. nurse practitioner (NP) stated usually facilities review resident MIIC (Minnesota Immunization Information Connection - a system which stores immunization records) reports and gather immunization information to ensure residents were up to date, and the providers reviewed it on an annual basis. The facility recently gave flu vaccine to residents, and needed to revisit the provision of pneumococcal vaccine since some residents were overdue. She stated she reviewed immunizations yearly; however, it was the facilities responsibility to maintain records, and if they gave an immunization, upload the information to MIIC. They stated they expected staff to document provision of education and a signed consent or declination when offering vaccinations. During interview on 11/29/23 at 2:39 p.m. director of nursing (DON) stated influenza vaccines were offered yearly and staff completed a form containing education, consent, and lot numbers of the vial. If a resident refused, they signed a risk/benefit form. He stated he gave the immunizations, and the IP recorded them on paper, and they relied upon the pharmacy to assist in uploading them to MIIC. DON thought IP may have forgotten to obtain consent prior to administration of the influenza vaccines, and every resident should have had a form whether they received the vaccine or refused. DON stated they worked on the pneumococcal immunization process for their plan of correction from the previous year, but they had not followed up and did not get it completed. He stated immunizations were important for infection prevention, and to keep the residents healthy. The Southside Care Center Pneumococcal Policy (undated) indicated It is the practice of the Health Care Facility to ensure all eligible residents receive the pneumococcal vaccines to aid in the prevention of pneumococcal/ pneumonia infections. Before receiving a pneumococcal vaccine, the resident or resident representative shall receive information and education regarding the benefits and possible side effects of the pneumococcal vaccine. This education will be documented in the resident's medical record. The Director of Nursing or designee will conduct periodic audits of resident medical records to determine compliance with the Pneumococcal-Disease Prevention Protocol. The Southside Care Center Influenza Outbreak Prevention and Treatment Policy dated 7/19, indicated Between October 1st and March 31st each year, the influenza vaccine shall be encouraged to the residents and staff. A resident's refusal of the vaccine (for reasons other than medical contraindication) will also be documented in the medical record. The policy lacked direction to provide education and obtain informed consent prior to administration of the influenza vaccine.
CONCERN (F)

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

Deficiency F0727 (Tag F0727)

Could have caused harm · This affected most or all residents

Based on interview and document review, the facility failed to ensure a registered nurse (RN) was scheduled for a minimum of eight hours per day. This deficient practice had the potential to affect al...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on interview and document review, the facility failed to ensure a registered nurse (RN) was scheduled for a minimum of eight hours per day. This deficient practice had the potential to affect all 13 residents who resided in the facility. Findings include: Review of the facility Staffing Schedules dated 10/1/2023, through 11/30/23, revealed the facility lacked eight hours of RN coverage for the following dates in 2023: 10/1, 10/7, 10/8, 10/14, 10/15, 10/21, 10/22, 10/28, 10/29, 11/4, 11/5, 11/11, 11/12. 11/18, 11/19, 11/25, 11/26. Review of the Southside Care Center Weekly Staffing posting revealed the facility lacked RN hours on the following dates in 2023: 10/1, 10/7, 10/8, 10/14, 10/15, 10/21, 10/22, 10/28, 10/29, 11/4, 11/5, 11/11, 11/12. 11/18, 11/19, 11/26. During interview on 11/29/23 at 2:49 p.m. the administrator stated they tried to hire staff, but it was difficult to find anyone who was willing to work weekends. They confirmed they did not have any staffing waivers, and the facility did not always have an RN on duty for eight hours each day.
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 ensure proper sanitization of dishware used for meal preparation and resident service when 1 of 1 high-temperature commercia...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, interview and document review, the facility failed to ensure proper sanitization of dishware used for meal preparation and resident service when 1 of 1 high-temperature commercial dishwashers was identified as not reaching adequate wash and final rinse temperature (i.e., 150 degrees Fahrenheit (F) and 180 degrees F, respectively). This had the potential to affect all 12 residents within the nursing facility and staff who consumed food in the main production kitchen. Findings include: A facility document titled Dishwasher Temperature Logs dated 11/2023, indicated dishwasher temperatures were tracked after each meal. The log further indicated 14 of 29 days lacked any documentation of dishwasher temperatures. On 11/28/23 12:36 p.m., an initial kitchen tour was completed with cook (CK)-A present. A single Ecolab commercial dishwasher was located next to a two-sided sink. The dishwasher had two digital thermometer readouts on the door: one reading wash and one rinse. Hanging out of the top closed dishwasher door was a dripping-wet towel. Inside cabinet doors under the sink were two containers with visible tubing connected to the dishwasher, one labeled as a dry agent and the other detergent. During observation, the dishwasher wash temperature was noted to be at 145 degrees F and the rinse temperature reached 181 degrees F. Interview on 11/28/23 at 12:36 p.m., with CK-A stated the dishwasher had been leaking which is why he placed the towel in the door. CK-A stated Ecolab service was contacted about repairing the dishwasher. CK-A was unsure how to confirm the dishwasher reached appropriate sanitization temperatures but stated during a wash cycle, the chemicals can be witnessed coming out the tubing attached to the dishwasher. A return visit to the kitchen on 11/28/23 at 4:57 p.m., revealed dishes in a sink of soapy water and a jug of Dawn dish soap next to the sink. Registered Nurse (RN)-B was filling in for the evening cook. RN-B pointed out the leaking dishwasher but there was no longer a towel in the door. RN-B started the dishwasher at 5:01 p.m. The wash temperature started at 131 degrees F and dropped to 126 degrees F. The rinse temperature started at 168 degrees F and reached 179 degrees F. RN-B stated she was new to working in the facility and unsure of how to verify the dishwasher reached appropriate sanitization temperatures. An interview on 11/29/23 at 9:42 a.m., Ecolab technician stated a few weeks ago he inspected the machine, and noted condensating water dripping down the front of the dishwasher door. Ecolab technician confirmed he ordered a door seal kit and was awaiting its delivery to repair the machine. During the interview, the Ecolab technician denied concerns about the dishwasher not being able to sanitize at appropriate temperatures, stating he had observed the machine to be hitting 160 during the wash and 180 temps during rinse. An interview on 11/29/23 at 10:31 a.m., Activities (ACT)-A verified the log for November, which was partially filled out, but missing entries for all meals and both wash and rinse temperatures for the dates of November 7, 8, 14, 15, 16, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29. ACT-A stated the expectation was that temperatures should be recorded every shift. Interview on 11/28/23 at 4:57 p.m., with RN-A stated the technician had been out to the facility to inspect and repair the dishwasher three times in the last month due to the seal leaking down the front of the door. RN-A also reported that the technician had been onsite the week prior because the cook reported the leak. A dishwasher policy was requested but was not received.
CONCERN (F)

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

Deficiency F0865 (Tag F0865)

Could have caused harm · This affected most or all residents

Based on interview and document review, the facility failed to implement a Quality Assurance and Performance Improvement (QAPI) plan assuring care and services were identified to maintain acceptable l...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on interview and document review, the facility failed to implement a Quality Assurance and Performance Improvement (QAPI) plan assuring care and services were identified to maintain acceptable levels of performance and continual improvement. This deficient practice had the potential to affect all 13 residents residing in the facility. Findings include: The facility's QAPI - Quality Assurrance and Performance Improvement - Quality Assurance Assessment policy date 11/4/22, indicated the plan included the policies and procedures to: 1. Identify and use data to monitor our performance 2. Establish goals and thresholds for our performance measurement 3. Utilize resident and staff ideas for improvement 4. Identify and prioritize problems and opportunities for improvement 5. Systematically analyze underlying causes of systemic problems and adverse events 6. Develop corrective action or performance improvement activities The the above policies and procedures were requested but not provided. When interviewed on 11/30/23, at 4:58 p.m., the administrator stated QAPI meeting were held quarterly using the same agenda each time. They identified they did not take meeting minutes, but action items were added to their personal calendar. They identified the QAPI committee had been working with the nurse practitioner to identify resident who needed updated immunizations, however the administrator verified there was no formal plan for QAPI or tracking of what improvement projects had been completed and how continued success was measured. A facility policy titled Quality Assurance Meeting, revised 10/5/2020, directed the QAPI committee to meet quarterly and as needed. The policy identified it was required for the medical director, director of nursing, and administrator to be present at each meeting.
CONCERN (F)

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

QAPI Program (Tag F0867)

Could have caused harm · This affected most or all residents

Based on document review and interview, the facility failed to maintain a Quality Assurance and Performance Improvement (QAPI) committee that was effective in identifying and responding to quality def...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on document review and interview, the facility failed to maintain a Quality Assurance and Performance Improvement (QAPI) committee that was effective in identifying and responding to quality deficiencies, and developing procedures for feedback, data collection and monitoring systems. In addition, the facility failed to provide evidence of a Performance Improvement Project (PIP) which focused on high risk or problem-prone areas. This deficient practice had the potential to affect all 13 residents currently residing in the facility. Findings include: Quality tracking data was requested from the facility but was not provided. The agendas for quality committee meetings 1/23 - 11/23, lacked identification adverse events and tracking of data-driven quality metrics or performance improvement projects (PIPs). During interview on 11/30/23 at 4:58 p.m., administrator stated a summary of care concerns was presented at QAPI meetings, however the facility did not track adverse events on a spreadsheet or by other means, and there was no method to monitor and track trends. They stated the meetings were unstructured and there was no formal PIP in progress, but sometimes they worked on a project awhile and it fell 'off the radar'. They stated individual resident concerns were addressed right away, but they never stepped back to identify trends and he needed to come up with a monitoring tool. Administrator verified the facility had no additional QAPI policies other than the one outlining meeting frequency and attendance. The facility's QAPI - Quality Assurrance and Performance Improvement - Quality Assurance Assessment policy date 11/4/22, indicated the facility will use data to define goals/targets, benchmarks, and/or trends for performance and measures progress toward these goals and make decisions. In addition, PIP topics will be identified through input from staff and resident concerns, and other data sources. Issues will be prioritized by urgency, scope, safety of residents, and regulatory compliance. Project improvement will be approached using the SMART process of improvement by making goals (specific, measurable, attainable, relevant and time-bound) will be used to set goals.
CONCERN (F) 📢 Someone Reported This

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

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

Infection Control (Tag F0880)

Could have caused harm · This affected most or all residents

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** TBP An observation on 11/27/23 at 7:46 a.m., on the second floor revealed R6's door had a handwritten sign that read, COVID-19 p...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** TBP An observation on 11/27/23 at 7:46 a.m., on the second floor revealed R6's door had a handwritten sign that read, COVID-19 please wear a mask. There was no PPE available, no receptacle for soiled PPE, and no hand sanitizer outside of resident rooms. At 8:39 a.m., registered nurse (RN)-A wore a surgical mask and gloves, entered R6's room, handed R6 medication, left the room and closed the door. RN-A removed gloves and without hand hygiene and with dirty gloves in hand went downstairs. At 8:44 a.m., cook (CK)-A entered the second floor with N95 mask and gloves on and brought a breakfast tray to R5's room, which did not have any signage indicating R5 needed TBP. To get to R5's door to the room, staff had to walk through a shared living space with R9 separated by a drawn privacy curtain. CK-A exited R5's room and the second-floor stairwell without removing PPE or performing hand hygiene. At 9:11 a.m., RN-A entered R5's room with surgical mask and gloves on and no hand hygiene, handed R5 the medication cup and left the room without any hand hygiene. RN-A came back into R5's room without hand hygiene still wearing surgical mask and gloves and told R5 to take his medications before leaving the room without hand hygiene. An observation on 11/27/23 at 10:54 a.m., showed PPE of gowns, surgical masks, gloves and hand sanitizer. There was no signage indicating TBP with instructions for appropriate PPE on R5 or R6's door. Housekeeper (HSKP)-A put on a gown, used hand sanitizer and said that because of the COVID-19 outbreak, he needed to wear the gown and mask, but did not apply gloves. HSKP-A finished vacuuming and removed gloves, performed hand hygiene. Interview on 11/27/23 at 7:23 a.m., HSKP-A stated COVID-19 rooms were cleaned with bleach. He identified PPE of surgical mask, which he wore daily. Outbreak An observation on 11/28/23 at 2:51 p.m., RN-B performed COVID-19 nasal swab test before shift. No hand hygiene or glove use by RN-B. RN-A took completed swab and placed it on resident dining room table before placing it on the medication cart. RN-A told RN-B that the swab collection tests were very sensitive to positive specimen, so if RN-B were infected, the marker indicating a positive result would be present right away. The testing card was placed in the medication cart trash at 2:55 p.m. The manufacturer's instructions indicated waiting 15 minutes for the test results. Both RN-A and RN-B left the dining room area without disinfecting the table or medication cart. During an interview on 11/28/23 at 3:12 p.m., RN-A stated that because of the outbreak of COVID-19 in the facility, they tested on coming staff members when they arrived for their shift. RN-A stated the expectation was to wait the full 15 minutes to determine results but that he had learned shortcuts about the tests indicating positive results right away. RN-A also stated the expectation for disinfection was to clean the area of testing and they typically test at the medication cart because that was a high-touch surface area RN-A was constantly cleaning with Lysol kept nearby. Facility policy titled Policy/Procedure: Novel Coronavirus (COVID -19) updated 4/01/22 directed staff to begin droplet precautions and implement transmission-based precaution signage, including both droplet and contact precautions, if a resident had confirmed illness. Furthermore, the policy directed staff to wear gloves, isolation gowns, mask and eye protection when entering the room. Also, the policy guided staff on the stoppage of precautions when a resident meets the following criteria: -no further fevers without the use of any fever-reducing medications -improvement in illness signs and symptoms -at least 7 days have passed since symptoms first appeared. Based on observation, interview, and document review, the facility failed to ensure a commode in the first-floor community bathroom was properly cleaned and maintained to prevent the spread of infection in 1 of 2 community bathrooms. This had the potential to affect all 13 residents in the facility. In addition, the facility failed to ensure a risk assessment and a water management program was developed and maintained to help reduce the risk of Legionnaire's Disease (Legionella) bacterial growth and subsequent contamination in the facility's water supply and/or storage. These findings had potential to affect all 13 residents, staff, and visitors within the nursing home. Findings include: Commode During observation on 11/28/23 at 5:08 p.m. a commode was placed over the top of the toilet in the downstairs bathroom which was within approximately 5-6 feet from the nurses' desk and directly visible. The foam cushioned seat was horseshoe shaped with a gap in the front and covered with gray plastic-like material. Several pieces of black, worn duct tape were affixed to the ends of the U shape where a resident's lower bottom and/or uppermost thigh would sit while using the commode. A triangular area of open, uncovered pale gold foam approximately two inches at the base extended out approximately two inches from under the tape on the right side, unprotected by the gray plastic or the black tape. The section of the foam closest to the tape appeared a darker golden color that the outer portion. Numerous other small dots of darker discoloration were evident on the top of the gray seat. R13's quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated [DATE], indicated she was cognitively intact, ambulatory, independent with toilet transfers, and required partial assistance with toileting hygiene. During interview on 11/30/23 at 8:32 a.m., R13 stated she and other residents used the commode in the first-floor bathroom, and she noticed the gray plastic covering broke a while ago and told the facility staff about it. She stated they didn't do anything to fix it, so she covered the open foam area with black duct tape herself because she didn't want to sit in there and get their poop on me and the tape was irritating to the back of her thighs. On 11/29/23 at 10:22 a.m. another resident entered the bathroom, flushed the toilet after a short time, opened the door, and was observed washing their hands at the sink before leaving the room. During interview on 11/29/23 at 10:24 a.m., housekeeper (HSK)-A stated the residents like to use the commode in the first-floor bathroom. He stated it was new several months ago and used to be in good shape, but it was getting old because it was used every day. He stated he did his best and wiped it down every day, but there was no way to keep it clean other than to get a new one since the cover on it was broken and the foam exposed. During interview on 11/29/23 at 10:34 a.m. administrator stated the resident generally used the bathrooms on the floors where they reside, but anyone could use either bathroom. He stated they added the commode over the toilet in the first-floor bathroom at the request of one of the residents in June or July of 2023, and staff wiped it down to keep it clean. Upon viewing the commode, administrator confirmed the commode seat was no longer sealed and needed to be replaced and thought R13 put the black duct tape on it. He identified the surface needed to be cleanable for infection control measures. The Infection Control Policies for Nursing Department dated 7/2019, indicated Shower and commode chairs should be disinfected after each use. An environmental services policy was requested but not provided. Water Management During interview on 11/28/23 at 6:06 p.m. licensed practical nurse (LPN)-A and infection preventionist stated the facility did not have a water management policy. During interview on 11/28/23 at 6:07 p.m. administrator stated the facility had a water management policy but they needed to find it. During subsequent interview at 7:12 p.m., administrator stated the facility did not need a water management policy because the residents were not at risk since they did not have a cooling tower and did not atomize air. He stated they had as much risk as anyone in their own home and were relying on the city for ensuring the water was tested. He confirmed they did have sinks, showers, and an ice machine, but never had any cases of Legionella at the facility. After review of the Developing a Legionella Water Management Program publication dated 6/24/21, (Legionella Toolkit-Version 1.1-June 24, 2021 (cdc.gov)) administrator confirmed since the building was a health care facility which primarily housed residents over the age of 65 they needed to develop a water management program to protect the residents since they could get really sick if they were exposed to Legionella. The Southside Care Center: Legionnaires Disease - Housekeeping policy dated 1/1/2018, indicated direct care staff will disinfect oxygen tubing and CPAP machines (continuous positive airway pressure - a machine used to help keep a airway open often used during sleep). The Southside Care Center Legionella Policy and Procedure (undated) indicated persons at risk are those over the age of 50, smokers, and those with underlying medical conditions. The policy identified the components of a water management system, however lacked procedures for implementation at the facility. Based on observation, interview and document review the facility failed to implement their infection control program and prevent and control the onset and spread of COVID-19 to the highest extent possible when R10 tested positive for COVID-19. Furthermore, the facility failed to ensure transmission-based precautions (TBP) were initiated for 6 of 6 residents (R10, R6, R5, R9, R1, R2) who tested positive for COVID-19. This had the potential to impact all residents who reside in the facility. Findings include: R10's quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated [DATE], indicated R10 was cognitively intact and had diagnoses of schizophrenia and anxiety. R10's nursing progress note dated 11/24/23, indicated R10 tested positive for COVID-19. R6's quarterly MDS dated [DATE], indicated R6 was cognitively intact and had diagnoses of schizophrenia and depression. R5's quarterly MDS dated [DATE], indicated R5 was cognitively intact and had diagnoses of schizophrenia and high blood pressure. R9's quarterly MDS dated [DATE], indicated R9 was cognitively intact and had diagnoses of depression and anxiety. R1's quarterly MDS dated [DATE], indicated R1 was cognitively intact and had diagnoses of traumatic brain injury and anxiety. R2's annual MDS indicated R2 was cognitively intact and had diagnoses of schizophrenia and anxiety. Outbreak Facility documents titled COVID-19 Testing showed the following: -on 11/23/23, no residents or staff were tested. -on 11/24/23, R6 tested positive and R10 remained positive. Registered nurse (RN)-A and activities (ACT)-A tested negative however there was no indication evening and night shift staff were tested. -on 11/25/23, R5 tested positive and R10 and R6 remained positive. Licensed practical nurse (LPN)-A tested negative however there was no indication other staff were tested. -on 11/26/23, no residents or staff were tested. -on 11/27/23, R10, R6 and R5 remained positive. RN-A and ACT-A tested negative however there was no indication other staff were tested. -on 11/28/23, R9 and R1 tested positive and R5 and R6 remained positive while R10 tested negative. All working staff had been tested and were negative. Testing logs for 11/29/23 and 11/30/23 were requested however was not received. An observation upon entrance on 11/27/23 at 6:45 a.m., the facility entrance had a sign that stated, masking required COVID-19 positive. Upon entrance of the facility, the downstairs common area had one bottle of hand sanitizer on the medication cart and there was no other signs of masks, gowns, or goggles. Furthermore, there was no staff or visitor screening in place. When interviewed on 11/27/23 at 9:29 a.m., RN-A stated R10 tested positive for COVID-19 on 11/23/23. R10 was told to stay in her room for quarantine. On Friday, the other residents were tested and R5 was found positive for COVID-19. After R5 was found positive, any staff who were there on the day shift working were tested, and both tested negative for COVID-19. RN-A wasn't sure how R10 was exposed to COVID-19, as they do not leave the facility. However, RN-A was told R10 may have visited a family member in a car at some point. RN-A verified the sign to R10 and R6's room stated mask required and provided staff with no other direction on precautions to take. RN-A also verified there was not any personal protective equipment (PPE) on the floor and explained it was late in the shift when R6 tested positive so PPE and supplies hadn't really been set up. RN-A wasn't sure if staff had used PPE over the weekend. RN-A further stated since everyone was vaccinated, COVID-19 was like a cold and wasn't really a big deal anymore. When interviewed on 11/28/23 at 11:42 a.m., RN-A confirmed R9 was now positive for COVID-19. Furthermore, R1 had refused to test, and had some behaviors of laying on the floor. RN-A stated R1 was sent to the hospital for evaluation as R1 wouldn't get up. RN-A further stated R1 was probably not COVID-19 positive and if R1 was, they would be quarantined. R10 had now tested negative but was going to continue to be in isolation. RN-A stated residents could come off isolation with a negative test. RN-A stated all staff were now going to be tested upon arrival to work and there will be more of a focus on keeping residents distanced or have them stay in their rooms. A follow up interview on 11/28/29, at 1:45 p.m., RN-A stated R1 had tested positive for COVID-19 and would be returning to the facility. When interviewed on 11/30/23 at 12:25 p.m., the infection preventionist (IP) stated when a resident tests positive for COVID-19, if an empty bed was available, the resident was moved and quarantined. The provider is notified so the anti-viral medication was started right away. The resident had to stay in their room and food and medications was taken to them. Staff care for the resident until they are well. Furthermore, the IP stated when the resident tested negative, they could be out of isolation. IP stated he wasn't sure about where R10 had contracted COVID-19 and hadn't been able to determine as COVID-19 was everywhere. Cook-A was the only staff who was positive and was here on Thursday when R10 tested positive, however had not worked the 2-3 days prior. The IP did not think R10 had contacted COVID-19 from him. R10 was the only person with symptoms on Thursday (the day R10 tested positive) and the other residents had no symptoms so testing had not been completed. R10 stayed in their room and staff brought what R10 needed. IP expected staff to wear surgical masks, gloves, and gowns. IP further stated N-95's and face shields were expensive, and the facility had difficulty with obtaining supplies. IP stated some staff had N95 masks, but not everyone and the staff did their best. The current outbreak was mild and R10, R5, and R6 had all tested negative now however acknowledged R15 was now positive. IP further stated the facility had education, but nursing staff should know what to do as anyone could pick up a phone and find out what to do and educate themselves. IP stated staff talk to each other and let each other know what PPE was needed and make sure hand sanitizer was used. IP verified housekeeping didn't do much cleaning in COVID-19 positive rooms and maybe just emptied the garbage. Housekeeping was in and out quickly, so no PPE was needed. IP further stated hand sanitizer and a paper towel was appropriate for cleaning blood pressure equipment between resident use. When testing staff and residents for COVID-19, the IP expected staff to follow the instructions of the test kit and wait the full 15 minutes to read the results and even faint lines were considered positive. IP stated an outbreak was considered when there was more than one resident positive for COVID-19 and implementing outbreak procedures right away was important to minimize the spread of COVID-19 and others getting sick. When interviewed on 11/30/23 at 4:21 p.m., the administrator stated the most critical part was isolating R10 right away. The administrator further stated how dark the COIVD-19 test was indicated how infected the residents were and overall felt the facility was doing a good job. The administrator acknowledged there wasn't PPE out and available for staff use until the state authority (SA) entered. The administrator further acknowledged the facility switched to surgical masks and they did not really use goggles or face shields anymore due to vaccinations and availability of anti-viral medications. Furthermore, the administrator acknowledged there needed to be better communication of what was expected during an outbreak and increase the focus of preventing the spread of COVID-19 to other residents or staff. The facility needs to better understand what was needed to put in place right away to help prevent the spread of COVID-19 throughout the building.
Oct 2022 13 deficiencies
CONCERN (D)

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

Notification of Changes (Tag F0580)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on interview and document review, the facility failed to ensure the provider was notified of a change of condition in a timely manner for 1 of 1 resident (R113) who was sent to the hospital from...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on interview and document review, the facility failed to ensure the provider was notified of a change of condition in a timely manner for 1 of 1 resident (R113) who was sent to the hospital from dialysis for low blood sugar. Findings include: R113's face sheet printed 10/18/22, indicated R113 had diagnoses which included diabetes, end stage renal disease, and required dialysis. R113's nursing progress note dated 10/17/22, no time identified, indicated R113 had been sent to the hospital from dialysis for low blood glucose. R13's hospital after visit summary dated 10/17/22, indicated R113 had been treated in the emergency department for low blood glucose. R113's medical record lacked indication R113's provider had been notified of R113's need for emergent care. When interviewed on 10/19/22, at 12:43 p.m. medical doctor (MD)-A stated R113 was new to the facility and had not yet been seen. MD-A expected the facility to be communicating with the dialysis center about R113 and if there had been concerns the facility should have contacted her. MD-A verified the facility had not notified her of R113's visit to the emergency room from dialysis due to a low blood sugar. When interviewed on 10/19/22, at 4:26 p.m. registered nurse (RN)-A stated he thought the provider had been notified, however was not certain. RN-A indicated R113 had been seen by a doctor in the emergency room and thought that was sufficient. When interviewed on 10/19/22, at 4:53 p.m. the administrator stated he expected providers to be updated when a resident's condition had changed. The administrator indicated the on call provider should have been notified. A facility policy regarding resident change in condition was requested however was not provided.
CONCERN (D)

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

Report Alleged Abuse (Tag F0609)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview and document review, the facility failed to ensure allegations of abuse were immediately reported (no later t...

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 allegations of abuse were immediately reported (no later than 2 hours) to the State Agency (SA) for 1 of 2 residents ( R112) reviewed for allegations of potential abuse. Findings include: R2 R2's admission record dated 10/18/22, indicated R2 was admitted on 2/2002, with diagnosis which included schizophrenia, schizoaffective disorder bipolar type, and anxiety disorder. R2's quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated [DATE], identified R2 had moderate impaired cognition, experienced delusions and displayed physical and verbal behaviors towards others. The MDS identified R2 required supervision with most activities of daily living (ADL) except bed mobility and eating which R2 was independent. R2's care plan dated 4/18/20, indicated R2 had a history of physical aggression towards roommates related to anger, schizophrenia, depression, and poor impulse control with the following interventions: administer medication as ordered and monitor/document side effects; assess and anticipate resident's needs: food, thirst, toileting needs, comfort level, body positioning, and pain; give the resident as many choices as possible about care and activities; monitor/document/report as needed (PRN) any signs and symptoms of resident posing danger to self or others; guide away from source of distress; and engage calmly in conversation. The care plan identified the use of psychotropic medications however lacked a target behavior for aggressive behaviors towards others. The care plan lacked any evidence of new interventions to prevent physical aggression towards other residents. R112 R112 admission record dated 10/18/22, indicated R112 was admitted on 12/2017, with diagnosis which included adjustment disorder with mixed anxiety and depressed mood, and major depressive disorder. R112's discharge MDS dated [DATE], indicated R112 was cognitively intact and displayed verbal behaviors towards others. The MDS identified R112 was independent with all ADL's. R112's care plan dated 8/1/19, indicated R112 was verbally aggressive towards other residents related to ineffective coping skills, mental/emotional illness, and poor impulse control with the following interventions: administer medication as ordered and monitor/document side effects; assess and anticipate resident's needs: food, thirst, toileting needs, comfort level, body positioning, and pain; give the resident as many choices as possible about care and activities; analyze key times, places, circumstances, triggers, what de-escalates behavior, and document. The care plan lacked any evidence of new interventions to prevent verbal aggression towards other residents. The facility's Nursing Home Incident Report (NHIR) dated 9/11/21, indicated R2 and R112's allegation of resident-to-resident physical abuse was reported to the SA on 9/11/21, at 7:27 p.m. However, the staff reported the allegation to the administrator on 9/11/21, at 12:40 p.m. The incident had not been reported to the SA immediately (within 2 hours) of receiving the allegation of abuse. During an interview on 10/19/22, at 5:26 p.m. the administrator stated allegations of resident-to-resident abuse were expected to be reported immediately-within 2 hours. The administrator confirmed he had not reported the allegation of abuse timely to the SA due to not being available to make the report when working at another facility. The facility OHFC-Reportable Events policy dated 7/2010, indicated abuse should have been reported immediately which meant as soon as possible, however not more than 24 hours after discovery of the incident. The policy lacked documentation of the requirement to report abuse immediately/within two hours.
CONCERN (D)

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

Investigate Abuse (Tag F0610)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview and document review, the facility failed to ensure a thorough investigation of an allegation of potential abu...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview and document review, the facility failed to ensure a thorough investigation of an allegation of potential abuse was completed for 1 of 2 residents (R112) reviewed for abuse. In addition, the facility failed to protect residents after an allegation of abuse occurred. Based on interview and document review, the facility failed to thoroughly investigate an allegation of abuse for 2 of 2 residents (R2, R112) reviewed for abuse and failed to provide protection for the other residents residing in the facility. Findings include: R2's admission record dated 10/18/22, indicated R2 was admitted on 2/2002, with diagnosis of schizophrenia, schizoaffective disorder bipolar type, and anxiety disorder. R2's quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated [DATE], indicated R2 was moderately cognitively impaired and displayed physical and verbal behaviors towards others and delusions. The MDS identified R2 required supervision with most activities of daily living (ADL) except bed mobility and eating which R2 was independent. R2's care plan dated 4/18/20, indicated R2 had a history of physical aggression towards roommates related to anger, schizophrenia, depression, and poor impulse control with the following interventions: administer medication as ordered and monitor/document side effects; assess and anticipate resident's needs: food, thirst, toileting needs, comfort level, body positioning, and pain; give the resident as many choices as possible about care and activities; monitor/document/report as needed (PRN) any signs and symptoms of resident posing danger to self or others; guide away from source of distress; and engage calmly in conversation. The care plan identified the use of psychotropic medications however lacked identification of a target behavior for aggressive behaviors towards others. The care plan lacked documentation of new interventions to prevent physical aggression towards other residents. R112 admission record dated 10/18/22, indicated R112 was admitted on 12/2017, with diagnosis of adjustment disorder with mixed anxiety and depressed mood, and major depressive disorder. R112's discharge MDS dated [DATE], indicated R112 was cognitively intact and displayed verbal behaviors towards others. The MDS identified R112 was independent with all ADL's. R112's care plan dated 8/1/19, indicated R112 was verbally aggressive towards other residents related to ineffective coping skills, mental/emotional illness, and poor impulse control with the following interventions: administer medication as ordered and monitor/document side effects; assess and anticipate resident's needs: food, thirst, toileting needs, comfort level, body positioning, and pain; give the resident as many choices as possible about care and activities; analyze key times, places, circumstances, triggers, what de-escalates behavior, and document. The care plan lacked documentation of new interventions to prevent verbal aggression towards other residents. A report to the state agency (SA) dated 9/11/21, indicated R2 and R112 both resided at the facility. The report indicated a verbal disagreement began over money to purchase a soda pop. The report identified R2 and R112 argued for a few minutes and as frustration built during the disagreement R2 hit R112 on top of the head with a closed fist. The report indicated the action to prevent reoccurrence was the facility initiated a room change since R2 and R112 were roommates however the incident happened in the dining room and the report lacked evidence of protection in common areas. Requested the facility's investigation of the allegation of abuse on 10/17/22, however one was not provided. Upon interview on 10/17/22, at 6:53 p.m. the administrator stated since the resident-to-resident physical abuse was witnessed, a thorough investigation had not been completed due to there wasn't a ton of investigative work to do. Further, the administrator verified no interventions were documented for protection of other residents from R2's physical aggression.
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0679 (Tag F0679)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview, and document review the facility failed to ensure meaningful group activities were provided for...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview, and document review the facility failed to ensure meaningful group activities were provided for 2 of 2 residents (R3, R10) reviewed for activities. Findings include: R10 R10's annual Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated [DATE], indicated R10 was cognitively intact and had diagnoses which included schizophrenia. R10's MDS identified it was very important for R10 to have activities and participate in religious activities. R10's activity assessment dated [DATE], indicated R10 enjoyed playing cards and attended group activities when offered. R10's care plan dated 8/28/21, indicated R10 was independent in meeting emotional, physical, and social needs. Interventions included a program of activities which were of interest and empowered R10. Additional interventions included staff to provide an activities calendar and to notify R10 of any changes to the calendar. R10's leisure record dated 10/2022, indicated R10 participated in watching television and going outside to smoke daily. Three room visits were made on 10/7/22, 10/10/22, and 10/14/22. Further, R10's leisure record identified one group activity of music on 10/7/22. Activities calendars for the previous 4 weeks were requested however were not provided. During an observation on 10/17/22, at 4:47 p.m. R10 was seated in the main common area watching television. On the mantel was an activities calendar dated for the week of 10/17/22, and a second dated for the week of 4/8/22-4/10/22. Activities for the day of 10/17/22, included group exercise, news, and cards. When interviewed on 10/17/22, at 12:50 p.m. R10 was laying in his bed watching television. R10 stated all there was to do in the facility was sleep and watch television. R10 stated he requested more activities every year and enjoyed card games, painting, and other group activities if they were offered. R10 explained the facility wanted residents to do activities on their own and had not really offered anything other than Bingo occasionally. When interviewed on 10/17/22, at 5:09 p.m. R10 reviewed the activities calendar dated 10/17/22, and stated he had never seen a calendar like that before. R10 reviewed the activities for 10/17/22, and confirmed those activities had not taken place and they just made that up. R3 R3's quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated [DATE], indicated R3 was cognitively intact and had a diagnosis of depression. In addition, R3's annual MDS dated [DATE], indicated it was very important for R3 to participate in R3's favorite activities such as keeping up with the news and listening to music. R3's therapeutic recreation assessment dated [DATE], identified R3 liked to help others, music, conversing, and social events. The assessment lacked evidence of R3's favorite activity of keeping up with the news. R3's care plan dated 2/18/18, indicated R3 was dependent on staff in meeting emotional, intellectual, physical, and social needs. Interventions included to invite R3 to scheduled activities and to provide an activities calendar and notify resident of any changes to the calendar. R3's leisure record dated 10/2022, indicated R3 participated in watching television and going outside to smoke daily. The record identified five morning visits were made on 10/3/22, 10/4/22, 10/10/22, 10/14/22 and 10/17/22. During observation and interview on 10/17/22, at 12:23 p.m. R3 was seated in the main common area watching television. R3 stated, there's no activities so all I do is watch television and walk around. Further, R3 stated, it's boring and we have to do activities on our own when we want to like board games and cards. The staff don't do any type of arts and crafts or anything like that except bingo on Fridays. During observation on 10/17/22, at 2:23 p.m. R3 was seated in the main common area watching television. During a follow-up interview on 10/17/22, at 5:10 p.m. R3 reviewed the hand written in pencil activities calendar dated 10/17/22, and R3 stated, none of those activities are done and I've never seen that calendar. Review of the activity calendar on 10/18/22, at 10:05 a.m. revealed manicures/nail care was the activity at 10:00 a.m. however no activity was observed to be taking place and the activities director was noted to be out of the building. During a follow-up interview on 10/18/22, at 10:07 a.m. R3 stated she was unaware of the manicure activity and was not aware of where to find the calendar to find out what activities were scheduled. When interviewed on 10/18/22, at 8:34 a.m. the activities director (AD) stated he had made an activities calendar yesterday for the week however had not posted it. AD confirmed he had not consistently developed an activities calendar each week, only on occasion. AD explained the residents were independent and had completed many activities on their own. AD stated it had been challenging to convince residents to show up for group or planned activities unless there was food provided and as a result there had not been many group activities offered. When interviewed on 10/19/22, at 4:52 p.m. the administrator stated he had not been aware of any concerns with activities however acknowledged group activities did not always work for residents who had mental health disorders. The administrator indicated there had not been a current focus on group activities only individual activities. The administrator stated he expected staff to have assessed residents for activity preferences and encourage or coordinate activities which supported their needs. A facility policy for activities was requested however was not provided.
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0692 (Tag F0692)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on observation, interview and document review, the facility failed to provide a therapeutic diet as prescribed for 1 of 1 residents (R113) reviewed for nutrition. Findings include: R113's face...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, interview and document review, the facility failed to provide a therapeutic diet as prescribed for 1 of 1 residents (R113) reviewed for nutrition. Findings include: R113's face sheet printed 10/18/22, indicated R113 had diagnoses which included diabetes, end stage renal disease, and required dialysis. R113's hospital discharge orders dated 10/10/22, indicated R113 required a diabetic and renal diet. R113's treatment assessment record (TAR) dated 10/2022, indicated R113 required a no concentrated sweet diet. R113's care plan dated 10/10/22, indicated R113 required a renal diet and required staff to monitor fluid intake. During an observation on 10/18/22, R113 was eating lunch in the dining area. There was no dietary slip on the tray and the meal consisted of goulash, peas, garlic toast and cranberry juice. When interviewed on 10/18/22, at 11:47 a.m. cook (C)-A stated there were no diet cards or slips used and usually he just knew what the resident wanted. C-A stated most residents were diabetic, so sugar intake was monitored. C-A stated he was not aware of any special diet for R113 and confirmed the facility had been providing R113 a regular diet. C-A indicated he relied on nursing staff to update him with any special diet orders. When interviewed on 10/18/22, at 1:54 p.m. licensed practical nurse (LPN)-A stated the facility had never cared for a resident with a special diet prior to R113 and the facility had been working on determining what she needed. LPN-A verified the registered dietician (RD) was aware and the facility had been waiting for her recommendations related to R113's diet. LPN-A confirmed he was not aware of what a renal diet consisted of and what the restrictions were. When interviewed on 10/18/22, at 12:45 p.m. RD stated she had not yet completed her assessment of R113 and had been focused on working to adjust her insulin regimen as R113 had been running low after dialysis. RD acknowledged the menu currently was not always renal diet friendly and stated the facility had been in the process of working on updating the menus. During that process, RD stated the current menu had to be reviewed to determine what items were okay for R113's renal diet and acknowledged she had not spoken to the cooks or nurses about the requirements of R113's diet. When interviewed on 10/18/22, at 4:26 a.m. the administrator stated he was not aware of R113's need for a renal diet. The administrator indicated staff were expected to be aware of and follow R13's renal diet order. The administrator stated it was important for staff to follow diet orders to avoid possible complications due to R113's diabetes and renal disease. A facility policy for therapeutic diets was requested however one was not provided.
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0698 (Tag F0698)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on interview, and document review, the facility failed to ensure the dialysis access site was consistently monitored and assessed for 1 of 1 resident (R113) reviewed for dialysis. In addition, t...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on interview, and document review, the facility failed to ensure the dialysis access site was consistently monitored and assessed for 1 of 1 resident (R113) reviewed for dialysis. In addition, the facility failed to to ensure coordination of care and communication related to a low blood sugar for 1 of 1 residents (R113) receiving hemodialysis. Further, the facility failed to obtain a written contract with the dialysis provider. This deficient practice had the potential to affect all residents receiving dialysis in the facility. Findings include: R113's face sheet printed 10/18/22, indicated R113 had diagnoses which included diabetes, end stage renal disease, and required dialysis. R113's care plan dated 10/15/22, indicated R113 required dialysis related to renal failure. R113's care plan indicted R113 had dialysis on Monday, Wednesdays, and Fridays. R113 required monitoring of edema, access site, and vital signs post treatment. The provider should have been notified of any changes. R113's medical record lacked indication any post dialysis assessments had been completed. A dialysis contract with Fresenius Dialysis Center was requested however one was not provided. When interviewed on 10/17/22, at 4:57 p.m. licensed practical nurse (LPN)-A stated R113 had not returned from dialysis however LPN-A had heard from R113's significant other R113 had been sent to the hospital from dialysis. LPN-A had not received any notification from the dialysis center and was not aware know why R113 had been sent to the hospital. LPN-A stated it was expected staff check vital signs and blood glucose before and after R113's dialysis run. LPN-A was not certain if R113 had a fistula or a port for dialysis, however indicated the site should have been assessed and monitored. After reviewing R113's medical record, LPN-A verified R113 had no post dialysis assessments completed for R113's dialysis treatments for the previous week (10/12/22, 10/13/22, 10/14/22). When interviewed on 10/17/22, at 5:14 p.m. registered nurse (RN)-A stated R113 was independent and had not been very forthcoming with information about her dialysis runs. RN-A verified there had not been any communication with R113's dialysis center since R113 had been admitted and no information had been sent from the facility with R113 to dialysis this morning. RN-A acknowledged it was important to have ongoing communication between the dialysis center and the facility to ensure R113 received the care she needed. When interviewed on 10/18/22, at 9:56 a.m. dialysis RN-B confirmed R113 received dialysis at Fresenius Dialysis Center and stated she was not aware R113 resided at a nursing facility. RN-B stated R113 received dialysis on her normally scheduled days 10/12/22, and 10/14/22, and had an extra run due to being fluid up on 10/13/22. RN-B verified R113 was sent to the hospital for becoming unresponsive after the dialysis run yesterday and verified the facility had not been notified as the dialysis staff were not aware R113 resided at a facility. RN-B stated she was not aware of any contract with the facility to coordinate cares for R113. When interviewed on 10/19/22. At 8:12 a.m. R113 stated she had not been given any information to provide to dialysis from the facility or to take back from dialysis to provide to the facility until today. R113 further indicated staff were expected to obtain weights before dialysis runs, assess the dialysis site, complete vital signs and blood glucose when she returned from dialysis. When interviewed on 10/19/22, at 4:26 p.m. the administrator stated staff were expected to obtain a weight, vital signs, and blood glucose before and after R113's dialysis treatment. The administrator indicated R113's dialysis fistula should have been monitored post treatment and the assessment should have been documented. The administrator verified there was no facility contract for coordination of care with Fresenius Dialysis Center and acknowledged the facility was not aware of which dialysis facility R113 had received care at until 10/17/22. Further, the administrator stated there had been no communication with the dialysis facility for R113's dialysis treatments from 10/10/22, through 10/17/22. A facility contract for dialysis cares and treatment was requested however was not provided.
CONCERN (E)

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

Deficiency F0883 (Tag F0883)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview and document review, the facility failed to ensure 4 of 5 residents (R1, R2, R8, R10) were offered or receive...

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 4 of 5 residents (R1, R2, R8, R10) were offered or received the pneumococcal pneumonia vaccine in accordance with the Center for Disease Control (CDC) recommendations. Findings include: R1's quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated [DATE], indicated R1 had been admitted to the facility on 10/2014, and indicated the pneumococcal vaccine was not given or up to date. Review of R1's medical record on 10/18/22, lacked evidence of pneumococcal immunization, education, contraindication, and/or documentation of refusal by the resident or resident representative. R2's quarterly MDS dated [DATE], indicated R2 had been admitted to the facility on 2/2021, and indicated the pneumococcal vaccine was up to date however R2's medical record lacked evidence of the pneumococcal vaccine. Review of R2's medical record on 10/18/22, lacked evidence of pneumococcal immunization, education, contraindication, and/or documentation of refusal by the resident or resident representative. R8's quarterly MDS dated [DATE], indicated R8 had been admitted to the facility on 6/2018, and indicated the pneumococcal vaccine was not given or up to date. Review of R8's medical record on 10/18/22, lacked evidence of pneumococcal immunization, education, contraindication, and/or documentation of refusal by the resident or resident representative. R10's annual MDS dated [DATE], indicated R10 had been admitted to the facility on 8/2021, and indicated the pneumococcal vaccine was up to date however R10's medical record lacked evidence of the pneumococcal vaccine. Review of R10's medical record on 10/18/22, lacked evidence of pneumococcal immunization, education, contraindication, and/or documentation of refusal by the resident or resident representative. When interviewed on 10/19/22, at 11:27 a.m. the infection preventionist (IP) stated he was unable to locate pneumococcal vaccines for R1, R2, R8, and R10. The IP verified all four residents should have been offered and administered the vaccine. The IP confirmed their medical records lacked evidence of the pneumococcal immunization, education, contraindication, and/or documentation of refusal by the resident or resident representative. When interviewed on 10/19/22, at 5:10 p.m. the administrator stated he was unaware the pneumococcal vaccines were not offered or administered to R1, R2, R8, and R10. The Southside Care Center Pneumococcal policy undated, indicated the following procedure for the pneumococcal vaccine: 1. Upon admission to the facility (within 5 days), all residents would be assessed for current immunization status and eligibility to receive the pneumococcal vaccine, and within 30 days of admission, would be offered the vaccine, when indicated, unless the resident had already been vaccinated or the vaccine was medically contraindicated. 2. If resident's immunization status was unknown, facility staff would contact resident's physician to determine record of immunization status from resident's permanent clinic record. 3. If the vaccination was medically contraindicated, this would be documented in the resident's medical record. 4. Before receiving a pneumococcal vaccine, the resident or resident representative would receive information and education regarding the benefits and possible side effects of the pneumococcal vaccine. (See current Vaccine Information Statements (VIS) on the CDC website for educational materials.) This education would be documented in the resident's medical record. 5. Pneumococcal vaccination would be administered at own medical clinic, per physician and CDC recommendations, and would be documented in the resident's medical record. 6. Resident/resident's representative had the right to refuse vaccination. If refused, the date of the refusal would be documented in the medical record. 7. Documentation would include the date of the vaccination.
CONCERN (F)

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

Deficiency F0727 (Tag F0727)

Could have caused harm · This affected most or all residents

Based on interview and document review, the facility failed to ensure a registered nurse (RN) was scheduled for a minimum of eight hours per day. In addition, the facility failed to designate a full t...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on interview and document review, the facility failed to ensure a registered nurse (RN) was scheduled for a minimum of eight hours per day. In addition, the facility failed to designate a full time director of nursing (DON). This deficient practice had the potential to affect all 12 residents who resided in the facility. Findings include: RN COVERAGE: During entrance conference on 10/17/22, at 11:44 a.m. the administrator verified the facility had no staffing waivers in place. Review of the facility Staffing Schedules dated 9/1/2022, through 10/17/22, revealed the facility lacked eight hours of RN coverage for the following dates: -9/5/22, 9/7/22, 9/12/22, and 10/5/22. When interviewed on 10/19/22, at 5:00 p.m. the administrator confirmed there had been dates without RN coverage. The administrator stated with no DON in house, RN coverage had become more challenging. FULL TIME DON: During entrance conference on 10/17/22, at 11:44 a.m. the administrator stated the DON had not worked in the facility since July 2022, and further stated I guess I am the DON. Staffing schedules reviewed from 9/1/22, through 10/17/22, lacked DON coverage. When interviewed on 10/17/22, at 3:13 p.m. the program manager (PM) stated the previous DON had not worked since July, 2022. The PM explained the previous DON was expected to return to the DON role at some point, however was not certain when that would happen. PM indicated the administrator was the acting DON until the previous DON returned. PM verified the facility had not been actively recruiting a new DON. When interviewed on 10/18/22, at 1:22 p.m. the administrator confirmed he worked approximately 37 hours a pay period (14 day pay period) which included 10 hours as an administrator, three hours as the minimum data set (MDS) coordinator, and 24 hours scheduled as a nurse. The administrator verified during entrance conference he came to the realization, he would have been considered the DON and DON coverage had not been discussed prior to entrance. A nursing service policy was requested however one was not provided.
CONCERN (F)

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

Administration (Tag F0835)

Could have caused harm · This affected most or all residents

Based on observation, interview and document review, the administration failed to provide adequate resources and guidance for appropriate resident care related to emergency preparedeness, reporting an...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, interview and document review, the administration failed to provide adequate resources and guidance for appropriate resident care related to emergency preparedeness, reporting and investigating allegations of abuse, dialysis care, director of nursing (DON) services, facility assessment and quality assurance and performance improvement. This deficient practice had the potential to affect all 12 residents currently residing in the facility and all potential new residents to the facility. Findings include: The facility job description Administrator, no date, indicated job responsibilities of the facility administrator included: -oversight of the general and overall quality of care for the residents -hire licensed personal -participation in the selection of prospective residents based on nursing care need and nursing personnel competencies available. -establishes strategic goals by identifying and evaluating trends, choosing course of action, and evaluating outcomes When interviewed on 10/19/22, at 5:00 p.m. the administrator confirmed multiple facility policies and plans had not been developed or updated. The administrator stated he was unaware of how many policies/ plans needed to be developed or updated and confirmed there was not a process in place to ensure policies and plans were developed or updated. The administrator confirmed there had not been a DON at the facility since July 2022, and was unaware the program manager (PM) had not been working with corporate to find a replacement. The administrator recognized the higher acuity dialysis needs for R113 and was unaware of those needs before R113 was admitted to the facility. The administrator stated the PM determined the appropriateness of new resident admissions, and the administrator was not involved. The administrator was unaware of what a facility assessment was however verified having one may have helped to determine the resources needed for R113 and other residents. The administrator further confirmed he was not in charge of the facility and stated the facility was managed by the PM. The administrator stated 10 hours a week was not an adequate amount of time to ensure resources and plans were in place to ensure the facility's residents received the proper care. EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS Review of the facility Emergency Preparedness Plan (EPP) last revised on 6/24/21, lacked components regarding the resident populations: the persons at-risk, the type of services the facility has the ability to provide in an emergency, and the continuity of operations, including delegations of authority and succession plans. During interview on 10/19/22, at 5:26 p.m. the administrator confirmed the facility did not have an emergency plan that included the specifics about their resident population, the persons at-risk, the type of services the facility had the ability to provide in an emergency, and the continuity of operations, including delegations of authority and succession plans. Further, the administrator stated he was not aware of a revision of the EPP and verified the EPP had not been reviewed/updated in the past year. REPORTING ALLEGATIONS OF ABUSE The facility's Nursing Home Incident Report (NHIR) dated 9/11/21, indicated R2 and R112's allegation of resident-to-resident physical abuse was reported to the SA on 9/11/21, at 7:27 p.m. However, the staff reported the allegation to the administrator on 9/11/21, at 12:40 p.m. The incident had not been reported to the SA immediately (within 2 hours) of receiving the allegation of abuse. During an interview on 10/19/22, at 5:26 p.m. the administrator stated allegations of resident-to-resident abuse were expected to be reported immediately-within 2 hours. The administrator confirmed he had not reported the allegation of abuse timely to the SA due to not being available to make the report when working at another facility. INVESTIGATING ALLEGATIONS OF ABUSE A report to the state agency (SA) dated 9/11/21, indicated R2 and R112 both resided at the facility. The report indicated a verbal disagreement began over money to purchase a soda pop. Further, the report indicated R2 and R112 argued for a few minutes and as frustration built during the disagreement R2 hit R112 on top of the head with a closed fist. The report indicated the action to prevent reoccurrence was the facility initiated a room change since R2 and R112 were roommates however the incident happened in the dining room and the report lacked evidence of protection in common areas. Requested the facility's investigation of the allegation of abuse on 10/17/22, however one was not provided. Upon interview on 10/17/22, at 6:53 p.m. the administrator stated since the resident-to-resident physical abuse had been witnessed, a thorough investigation had not been completed due to there wasn't a ton of investigative work to do. Further, the administrator verified no interventions were documented for protection of other residents from R2's physical aggression. DIALYSIS R113's face sheet printed 10/18/22, indicated R113 had diagnoses which included diabetes, end stage renal disease, and required dialysis. When interviewed on 10/17/22, at 4:57 p.m. licensed practical nurse (LPN)-A stated R113 had not returned from dialysis however LPN-A had heard from R113's significant other R113 had been sent to the hospital from dialysis. LPN-A had not received any notification from the dialysis center and was not aware why R113 had been sent to the hospital. LPN-A stated it was expected staff check vital signs and blood glucose before and after R113's dialysis run. LPN-A was not certain if R113 had a fistula or a port for dialysis, however indicated the site should have been assessed and monitored. After reviewing R113's medical record, LPN-A verified R113 had no post dialysis assessments completed for R113's dialysis treatments for the previous week (10/12/22, 10/13/22, 10/14/22). When interviewed on 10/19/22, at 4:26 p.m. the administrator stated staff were expected to obtain a weight, vital signs, and blood glucose before and after R113's dialysis treatment. The administrator indicated R113's dialysis fistula should have been monitored post treatment and the assessment should have been documented. The administrator verified there was no facility contract for coordination of care with Fresenius Dialysis Center and acknowledged the facility was not aware of which dialysis facility R113 had received care at until 10/17/22. Further, the administrator stated there had been no communication with the dialysis facility for R113's dialysis treatments from 10/10/22, through 10/17/22. FULL TIME DIRECTOR OF NURSING (DON) During entrance conference on 10/17/22, at 11:44 a.m. the administrator stated the director of nursing (DON) had not worked in the facility since July 2022, and further stated I guess I am the DON. When interviewed on 10/17/22, at 3:13 p.m. the program manager (PM) stated the previous DON had not worked since July 2022. The PM explained the DON was expected to return to the DON role at some point, however, was not certain when that would happen. PM indicated the administrator was the acting DON until the previous DON returned. PM verified the facility had not been actively recruiting a new DON. When interviewed on 10/18/22, at 1:22 p.m. the administrator confirmed he worked approximately 37 hours a pay period (14 day pay period) which included 10 hours as an administrator, three hours as the minimum data set (MDS) coordinator, and 24 hours scheduled as a nurse. FACILITY ASSESSMENT During entrance conference on 10/17/22, at 11:44 a.m. the facility assessment was requested from the administrator. When interviewed on 10/17/22, at 6:42 p.m. the administrator stated he was unsure what a facility assessment was and confirmed the facility did not have one in place. The administrator explained I will just need to complete it in the plan of corrections. QUALITY ASSURANCE AND PERFORMANCE IMPROVEMENT (QAPI) The facility's QAPI plan was requested however was not provided. When interviewed on 10/19/22, at 5:31 p.m. the administrator stated current practice for the QAPI meetings included a review of old business and new business. The administrator indicated the QAPI committee had been working on pharmacy recommendations and communication with the medical director. The administrator stated the meeting agenda was where notes had been transcribed and notes were then placed as action items on his calendar. The administrator verified there was no formal plan for QAPI or tracking of what improvement projects had been completed and how continued success was measured. A facility policy for administration was requested however one was not provided.
MINOR (C)

Minor Issue - procedural, no safety impact

Abuse Prevention Policies (Tag F0607)

Minor procedural issue · This affected most or all residents

Based on interview and document review, the facility failed to develop abuse policies and procedures which identified how protection of the resident during completion of a thorough abuse investigation...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on interview and document review, the facility failed to develop abuse policies and procedures which identified how protection of the resident during completion of a thorough abuse investigation would be accomplished. This deficient practice had the potential to affect all 12 residents residing in the facility. Findings include: Review of facility policy titled Abuse Investigations dated 7/2010, the facility policy lacked guidance on the facility procedure for protection of residents during an abuse investigation. The policy lacked the following requirements for protection: increased supervision of the alleged victim and residents, room or staffing changes if necessary to protect the residents from the alleged perpetrator, protection from retaliation and providing emotional support and counseling to the resident during the investigation. Upon interview on 10/17/22, at 6:53 p.m. the administrator stated, our abuse policy is not updated and I'm working on a new policy. The administrator indicated, I've looked up the Minnesota statutes and realized the abuse policy doesn't have all the components it needs.
MINOR (C)

Minor Issue - procedural, no safety impact

Deficiency F0838 (Tag F0838)

Minor procedural issue · This affected most or all residents

Based on interview and document review, the facility failed to complete a Facility Assessment. This deficient practice had the potential to affect all 12 residents residing in the facility. Findings ...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on interview and document review, the facility failed to complete a Facility Assessment. This deficient practice had the potential to affect all 12 residents residing in the facility. Findings include: During entrance conference on 10/17/22, at 11:44 a.m. the facility assessment was requested from the administrator. When interviewed on 10/17/22, at 6:42 p.m. the administrator stated he was unsure what a facility assessment was and confirmed the facility did not have one in place. The administrator explained, I will just need to complete it in the plan of corrections. A policy on Facility Assessment was requested however one was not provided.
MINOR (C)

Minor Issue - procedural, no safety impact

Deficiency F0865 (Tag F0865)

Minor procedural issue · This affected most or all residents

Based on interview and document review, the facility failed to develop and implement a Quality Assurance and Performance Improvement (QAPI) plan assuring care and services were identified to maintain ...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on interview and document review, the facility failed to develop and implement a Quality Assurance and Performance Improvement (QAPI) plan assuring care and services were identified to maintain acceptable levels of performance and continual improvement. This deficient practice had the potential to affect all 12 residents residing in the facility. Findings include: The facility's QAPI plan was requested however one was not provided. When interviewed on 10/19/22, at 5:31 p.m. the administrator stated current practice for the QAPI meetings included a review of old business and new business. The administrator indicated the QAPI committee had been working on pharmacy recommendations and communication with the medical director. The administrator stated the meeting agenda was where notes had been transcribed and notes were then placed as action items on his calendar. The administrator verified there was no formal plan for QAPI or tracking of what improvement projects had been completed and how continued success was measured. A facility policy titled Quality Assurance Meeting, revised 10/9/2020, directed the QAPI committee to meet quarterly and additionally to meet adhoc as needed. The policy identified it was required for the medical director, director of nursing, and administrator to be present at each meeting.
MINOR (C)

Minor Issue - procedural, no safety impact

Deficiency F0882 (Tag F0882)

Minor procedural issue · This affected most or all residents

Based on interview and document review, the facility failed to ensure the acting infection preventionist (IP) had completed specialized training in infection prevention and control. This deficient pra...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on interview and document review, the facility failed to ensure the acting infection preventionist (IP) had completed specialized training in infection prevention and control. This deficient practice had the potential to affect all 12 residents residing in the facility. Findings include: A facility document titled, Staff and Emergency Contact Information dated 6/24/21, lacked evidence of identifying an infection preventionist (IP). During the entrance conference on 10/17/22, at 11:44 a.m. the administrator identified licensed practical nurse (LPN)-A as the facility's infection preventionist. When interviewed on 10/18/22, at 3:42 p.m. LPN-A confirmed he had no specialized training in infection prevention and control and was not aware the training was a requirement. A policy on IP was requested however was not provided.
Understanding Severity Codes (click to expand)
Life-Threatening (Immediate Jeopardy)
J - Isolated K - Pattern L - Widespread
Actual Harm
G - Isolated H - Pattern I - Widespread
Potential for Harm
D - Isolated E - Pattern F - Widespread
No Harm (Minor)
A - Isolated B - Pattern C - Widespread

Questions to Ask on Your Visit

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

Our Honest Assessment

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

About This Facility

What is Southside Care Center's CMS Rating?

CMS assigns Southside Care Center an overall rating of 2 out of 5 stars, which is considered 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 Southside Care Center Staffed?

CMS rates Southside Care Center's staffing level at 1 out of 5 stars, which is much below average compared to other nursing homes.

What Have Inspectors Found at Southside Care Center?

State health inspectors documented 48 deficiencies at Southside Care Center during 2022 to 2025. These included: 1 that caused actual resident harm, 42 with potential for harm, and 5 minor or isolated issues. Deficiencies causing actual harm indicate documented cases where residents experienced negative health consequences.

Who Owns and Operates Southside Care Center?

Southside Care Center is owned by a for-profit company. For-profit facilities operate as businesses with obligations to shareholders or private owners. The facility operates independently rather than as part of a larger chain. With 17 certified beds and approximately 11 residents (about 65% occupancy), it is a smaller facility located in MINNEAPOLIS, Minnesota.

How Does Southside Care Center Compare to Other Minnesota Nursing Homes?

Compared to the 100 nursing homes in Minnesota, Southside Care Center's overall rating (2 stars) is below the state average of 3.2 and health inspection rating (1 stars) is much below the national benchmark.

What Should Families Ask When Visiting Southside Care Center?

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

Is Southside Care Center Safe?

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

Do Nurses at Southside Care Center Stick Around?

Southside Care Center has not reported staff turnover data to CMS. Staff turnover matters because consistent caregivers learn residents' individual needs, medications, and preferences. When staff frequently change, this institutional knowledge is lost. Families should ask the facility directly about their staff retention rates and average employee tenure.

Was Southside Care Center Ever Fined?

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

Is Southside Care Center on Any Federal Watch List?

Southside 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.