SEASONS HEALTHCARE

303 BROADWAY AVENUE SOUTH, TRIMONT, MN 56176 (507) 639-2381
For profit - Corporation 26 Beds Independent Data: November 2025 1 Immediate Jeopardy citation
Trust Grade
0/100
#316 of 337 in MN
Last Inspection: July 2025

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

Overview

Seasons Healthcare in Trimont, Minnesota, has received a Trust Grade of F, which indicates significant concerns and is considered poor. It ranks #316 out of 337 facilities in Minnesota, placing it in the bottom half, and is the least favorable option in Martin County, ranking #3 out of 3. The facility is worsening, with the number of reported issues increasing from 10 in 2024 to 12 in 2025. Staffing is a major weakness here, with a low staffing rating of 1 out of 5 and a troubling turnover rate of 58%, much higher than the state average of 42%. Additionally, the facility has incurred $238,065 in fines, indicating serious compliance problems. Specific incidents noted by inspectors include a critical failure to prevent the diversion of narcotic medications, leading to an immediate risk to residents, and concerns regarding improper infection control practices in the kitchen. While there may be some strengths, the overall picture suggests significant risks and challenges for potential residents.

Trust Score
F
0/100
In Minnesota
#316/337
Bottom 7%
Safety Record
High Risk
Review needed
Inspections
Getting Worse
10 → 12 violations
Staff Stability
⚠ Watch
58% turnover. Above average. Higher turnover means staff may not know residents' routines.
Penalties
✓ Good
$238,065 in fines. Lower than most Minnesota facilities. Relatively clean record.
Skilled Nurses
○ Average
RN staffing data not reported for this facility.
Violations
⚠ Watch
32 deficiencies on record. Higher than average. Multiple issues found across inspections.
★☆☆☆☆
1.0
Overall Rating
★☆☆☆☆
1.0
Staff Levels
★★☆☆☆
2.0
Care Quality
★☆☆☆☆
1.0
Inspection Score
Stable
2024: 10 issues
2025: 12 issues

The Good

  • Full Sprinkler Coverage · Fire safety systems throughout facility
  • No fines on record

Facility shows strength in fire safety.

The Bad

1-Star Overall Rating

Below Minnesota average (3.2)

Significant quality concerns identified by CMS

Staff Turnover: 58%

11pts above Minnesota avg (46%)

Frequent staff changes - ask about care continuity

Federal Fines: $238,065

Well above median ($33,413)

Significant penalties indicating serious issues

Staff turnover is elevated (58%)

10 points above Minnesota average of 48%

The Ugly 32 deficiencies on record

1 life-threatening
Jul 2025 10 deficiencies
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0676 (Tag F0676)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on observation, interview, and document review, the facility failed to ensure routine personal hygiene and grooming (toenail care) was provided for 1 of 3 residents (R2) reviewed for activities ...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, interview, and document review, the facility failed to ensure routine personal hygiene and grooming (toenail care) was provided for 1 of 3 residents (R2) reviewed for activities of daily living (ADLs) that required staff assistance. Findings include: R15's 5/29/25, quarterly MDS identified her cognition was intact, and she required supervision to limited assistance with ADLs dressing and grooming. R15's diagnoses included osteoarthritis, cellulitis (a bacterial infection that affects the skin's inner layers), of her right lower leg, and type2 diabetes.R15's current undated care plan identified she needed assistance from staff for ADLs due to asthma and osteoarthritis Staff were to assist with dressing of her lower body, assist with putting on and taking off her socks, assist with showers and baths and transfers with pivoting. R15 utilized a wheelchair for mobility and was scheduled to receive a bath/shower on Sundays. Interview on 7/7/25 at 1:40 p.m., with R15 reported her toenails had not been trimmed for at least a month. She stated her daughter had cut her fingernails when she had visited on 7/6/25, because staff had not offered to cut them, but stated her toenails had not been trimmed and they really needed to be cut. She reported she had to ask to have her nails cut, and she was told a doctor had to do it for her. She also reported she was not able to wear a shoe because the length of her great toenail hurt when she tried to wear her shoes.R15's Weekly Bath/Skin Observation sheet dated 7/6/25, 6/29/25, 6/22/25, and 6/15/25 contained checks that fingernails, and toenails had been trimmed. Observation and interview on 7/8/25 at 10:00 a.m., with nursing assistant (NA)-A who removed R15's shoes and socks to allow observation noted her toenails, were long, yellowed, thick and uneven. She identified resident's nails were supposed to be checked and cut or filed when they received their weekly bath or shower. NA-A stated the nurse, or doctor had to cut R15's nails but she was not aware of the reason.Observation and interview with licensed practical nurse (LPN)-A on 7/8/25 at 12:30 p.m., reported R15's was diabetic and nursing staff needed to perform her nail care. The process was following completion of her bath or shower the NA should have contacted the nurse to complete the skin assessment and trim her nails if it needed to be done., She confirmed R15 had received a shower/bath on Sunday, and her nails should have been cut as they were long especially on her right foot.Observation and interview on 7/8/25 at 10:50 a.m. with the director of nursing (DON) voiced agreement that R15's toenails were long and uneven and should have been trimmed and filed by one of the nurses following her bath. She reported she did not know why it had not been done, and R15 stated, it had been over a month since anyone even looked at her nails.Facility policy for ADLs including nail care was requested but not provided by the end of the survey period.
CONCERN (D)

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

ADL Care (Tag F0677)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on observation, interview, and document review, the facility failed to ensure routine personal hygiene and grooming (toenail care) was provided for 1 of 3 residents (R2) reviewed for activities ...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, interview, and document review, the facility failed to ensure routine personal hygiene and grooming (toenail care) was provided for 1 of 3 residents (R2) reviewed for activities of daily living (ADLs) and dependent on staff for care. Findings include: R2's 6/26/25, quarterly, Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment identified her cognition was intact, and she required extensive to total assistance with ADLs. R2's diagnoses included paraplegia, palliative care, pressure ulcers, congestive heart failure (CHF), major depressive disorder, morbid obesity, neurogenic bowel, colostomy, neuromuscular dysfunction of bladder, pain disorder with related psychological factors, restless and agitation, had been admitted to hospice services, and received both scheduled and as needed (PRN) pain and antianxiety medications.R2's current undated care plan, identified she required a Hoyer (sling) lift for transfers and was dependent on 1-2 staff for assistance with ADLS other than eating. She had baths scheduled twice weekly on Monday and Thursdays.R2's Weekly Bath/Skin Observation sheet with dates of 6/5/25, 6/9/25, and 7/4/25, had been marked as completed foot care including trimming nails, soaking feet if showered instead of bath, and cleaning between toes.Review of the 7/7/25 at 3:29 p.m., progress note identified R2 had received a whirlpool bath, but no skin assessment sheet was provided for this bath.Observation and interview on 7/7/25 at 3:53 p.m., with R2 as she sat reclined in her electric wheelchair, reported she had no feeling in her lower body due to paralysis, but was aware her toenails had not been assessed or trimmed for over a month. She had sheepskin boots covering her feet at the time of interview, but reported staff were supposed to be checking and trimming her nails when she received baths. R2 reported she did not always receive her baths as staff would report they ran out of time and were not able to provide her bath.Observation and interview on 7/8/25 at 2:00 p.m., with licensed practical nurse (LPN)-B and the director of nursing (DON) identified R2's toenails were long, edges were sharp, and her second toe on her right foot had a small red area below the base of her nail. The heel of her left foot contained a round reddened area, measured by LPN-B as 1.2 centimeters (cm) (L) x .5CM (W) which the DON reported appeared to be a result of some form of pressure, likely from pressing against the foot pedal of her chair. The DON identified R2's toenails should have been trimmed and filed with her most recent bath, and she was not certain why it had not been completed. DON directed LPN-B to measure the heel area and apply a padded dressing to protect the identified area.Facility policy for ADLs including nail care was requested but not provided by the end of the survey period.
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 comprehensively assess and monitor significant bruising...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview and document review, the facility failed comprehensively assess and monitor significant bruising for 2 of 2 residents (R122, R10) reviewed for non-pressure skin conditions. In addition, the facility failed to perform quality controls on glucometers used to assess resident blood glucose for 1 of 1 resident (R6) reviewed for insulin.Findings include: COMPREHENSIVE SKIN ASSESSMENTR122's face sheet provided by facility on 7/9/25, included aftercare for fracture of left femur and acute embolism (sudden blocking of an artery) and thrombosis (blood clot) of left femoral vein. R122's admission Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE], indicated R122 was cognitively intact, had clear speech, could understand and be understood. R122 was either independent or required partial assistance or supervision with activities of daily living (ADL's). R122 was on an anticoagulant medication.R122's orders dated 6/27/25, included Eliquis (blood thinner) 5 mg tablet, 1 tablet twice a day. Weekly skin assessment on first bath day of the week. R122's care plan did not include R122 being on an anticoagulant (blood thinner) medication, nor did it address potential side effects of being on a blood thinning medication such as monitoring skin for bleeding and/or bruising. R122's admission skin assessment in the electronic medical record (EMR) dated 7/2/25, (six days after admission) indicated: bruises covering arms, legs, abdomen, and face. The assessment did not include specific locations, measurements or characteristics of the bruising.During an interview and observation on 7/7/25 at 3:18 p.m., observed bruising around R122's left eye. R122 stated he got it from rubbing his eye and that he was on a blood thinner. The posterior sides of both hands were entirely covered with dark bruising. R122 stated they were always like that. R122 did not know if staff monitored his skin for bruising, such as taking measurements to determine if the bruises were getting better or worse. Nursing progress note dated 7/2/25 at 2:07 p.m., indicated R122 had many bruises all over his body, two small mostly healed skin tears on arms, and healed ulcers and wounds on his feet where skin is still fragile, and left hip surgical incision. During an interview on 7/8/25 at 12:39 p.m., the director of nursing (DON) stated nursing staff conducted a full skin assessment on all residents upon admission. The DON verified R122's admission skin assessment in the EMR dated 7/2/25, indicated Bruises covering arms, legs, abdomen, and face. The DON acknowledged the assessment did not include specific locations, measurements or characteristics of the bruising. The DON verified this was the only skin assessment conducted on R122. The DON stated staff were to conduct weekly skin checks on bath days but did not know how often non-pressure skin conditions such as bruises should be monitored, and what specifically should be monitored, such as size, location and characteristics of bruises. The DON stated she would need to check their policy. R10's face sheet provided by facility on 7/9/25, included diagnoses atrial fibrillation (irregular heartbeat) and long-term use of anticoagulants.R10's significant change MDS assessment dated [DATE], indicated moderately impaired cognition, clear speech, was understood and could understand. R10 had no skin conditions except for surgical wound. R10 was taking an anticoagulant medication. R10 required substantial assistance with ADL's except eating and oral hygiene. R10 was able to walk 10 feet. R10's physician orders dated 4/14/25, weekly skin assessment on the first bath day of the week. R10's care plan, last review date of 6/18/25, indicated R10 was receiving an anticoagulant medication due to diagnosis of atrial fibrillation, which placed her at an increased risk for bleeding and/or bruising, and staff would monitor for new or increased bruising and document it. Nursing progress note dated 4/12/25 at 1:46 p.m., indicated R10 had numerous bruises on arms and right leg.During record review, only one skin assessment was documented, and it was dated 4/14/25, indicating some bruises on a body illustration. No specific locations were documented, no measurements or characteristics. No further skin assessments were documented after that date (R10 was admitted on [DATE]).Nursing progress note dated 7/3/25 at 3:22 p.m., indicated that at 8:30 a.m., R10 had fainted and was on the floor. Post fall treatment included monitoring status for 72 hours for bruising.Nursing progress note date 7/4/25 at 1:48 p.m., indicated R10 had many bruises all over her body from her fall out of the EZ stand (transfer assist device); her arms, back, bottom, and legs were bruised. During an interview and observation on 7/7/25 at 4:42 p.m., observed bruising on left forearm - various colors. R10 stated she almost fell, and staff grabbed her causing the bruising. During an interview 7/8/25 at 4:18 p.m., the DON admitted a comprehensive skin assessment had not been done when R10 was admitted on [DATE], nor since that time, including after a fall on 7/3/25. The DON stated she expected nursing staff to conduct a full skin assessment on admission and to do weekly skin checks on bath days. The DON stated nursing staff were informed of this upon hire. The DON did not know how often non-pressure skin conditions such as bruises should be monitored, and what specifically should be monitored, such as size, location and characteristics and stated she would need to check their policy. Facility Skin Integrity policy with review date of 11/12/24, addressed primarily skin monitoring for pressure. Related to skin monitoring overall, the policy indicated: upon admission, licensed nursing staff would inspect the resident's skin which would include redness or discoloration. Skin evaluation would be completed by the charge nurse within the first 24 hours following admission/readmission then weekly. The NA would look at the skin daily when doing cares and report any suspicious areas to the charge nurse. Licensed staff were to do a weekly skin evaluation on all residents and document it on the Head-to-Toe Skin Assessment in the EMR. Facility Bruises policy dated 3/1/21, indicated when a bruise was found on a resident, staff would report it to the charge nurse, and she/he would evaluate the size and location. When a bruise was larger than 3 cm (centimeters) the charge nurse would initiate an investigation into the cause. The bruise would be monitored for size, shape, color and healing, weekly for three weeks unless resolved sooner. GLUCOMETER CALIBRATION R6's face sheet provided on 7/9/25, included diagnosis of diabetes.R6's quarterly MDS dated [DATE], indicated R6 had severe cognitive impairment, clear speech, was sometimes understood and could sometimes understand. R6 was dependent on staff for ADL's. R6 received insulin injections seven days a week.R6's physician orders dated 3/16/23, indicated test blood sugar three times a day. R6's care plan dated 11/4/24, indicated R6 was an insulin-dependent diabetic which increased his risk for hypoglycemia and would have blood sugar checks as ordered and needed.Review of finger stick glucose levels from 6/8/25, to 7/8/25, indicated significant variations from 86 to 419 on 6/10/25, and 414 on 6/13/25. Provider progress note dated 6/6/25, indicated A1c (a blood test that provides an average of blood sugar levels over the past 2-3 months) results are trending up. Progress notes dated 6/12/25 at 6:45 p.m., indicated R6 was sent to the emergency room due to a low blood sugar with episode of unresponsiveness. During an interview on 7/9/25 at 11:33 a.m., with DON due to fluctuations in R6's blood sugars, glucometer calibration documentation was requested for R6. The DON stated she did not know if glucometers were being calibrated and would contact a night shift nurse to find out. Via an email dated 7/9/25, at 11:40 a.m., the DON wrote: I just spoke with the nurses and currently there is no glucometer checks being done. I will be putting that into play as that would be my requirement for them.During an interview on 7/9/25 at 1:02 p.m., the DON stated she had not been aware of R6's blood sugars over 400. The DON stated significant fluctuations in a resident's blood sugar would not cause her to look at accuracy of blood sugars. The DON stated that was not something she would think of but expected nursing staff to calibrate glucometers according to manufacturer recommendations. Facility Blood Glucose Monitoring Procedure - Assure Platinum undated, indicated the purpose was to ensure accurate glucose monitoring, quality assurance and staff proficiency. Perform quality control (QC) daily or when prompted by PCS. Use control solution, enter control mode, apply solution. Compare results to vial range and record in QC log. Troubleshoot and recheck if out of range. Maintain a QC log with all control results and actions. Staff must complete competency training annually. The policy included a Blood Glucose Monitor - Daily Quality Control Log with columns for date, time, staff initials, meter serial number, strip lot number, control solution used, result, and within range - Y or N.Manufacturer guidelines: Performing a Control Solution Test, Assure Platinum Preference Manual (undated) indicated: Check meter and test strips using Assure(R) Dose Control Solutions (Normal-Level 1 and High-Level 2) to confirm the meter and test strips are working properly, or to check if testing correctly. Assure Dose Control Solutions contain known amounts of glucose and are used to check that the meter and the test strips are working properly. The test strip vials have Assure Dose Control Solution ranges printed on the labels. Compare the result displayed on the meter to the Assure Dose Control Solution range printed on the test strip vial. Before using a new meter or a new vial of test strips, conduct a control solution test following the procedure with two different levels of control solutions (Normal-Level 1 and High-Level 2).USE CONTROL SOLUTION To test technique. Before testing with the meter for the first time. When open a new bottle of test strips. When suspect the meter or test strips may not be functioning properly. If the test results appear to be abnormally high or low or are not consistent with clinicalsymptoms. When the meter has been dropped or stored below 32 F (0 C) or above 122 F (50 C). The test strip bottle has been left open or has been exposed to light, temperatures below 39 F (4 C) or above 86 F (30 C), or humidity levels above 80%. Each time the batteries are changed.
CONCERN (D)

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

Accident Prevention (Tag F0689)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview and document review, the facility failed to ensure an oxygen concentrator was stored safely 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 an oxygen concentrator was stored safely for 1 of 1 resident (R122) reviewed for accidents. Findings include: R122's face sheet provided by facility on 7/9/25, included aftercare for fracture of left femur, chronic kidney disease and congestive heart failure (CHF).R122's admission Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE], indicated R122 was cognitively intact, had clear speech, could understand and be understood. R122 was either independent or required partial assistance or supervision with activities of daily living.R122's orders dated 6/27/25, included oxygen at 1-4 liters per minute per nasal cannula for chest pain, shortness of breath, comfort, or oxygen saturations are 90% or below and notify physician.R122's care plan dated 6/27/25, did not include oxygen use. During an observation on 7/7/25 at 1:08 p.m., in R122's room, observed an oxygen concentrator setting on top of a dresser next to R122's bed about four feet off floor. There was nothing protecting the oxygen concentrator from falling off the dresser onto the floor.During an observation and interview on 7/7/25 at 1:26 p.m., along with nursing assistant (NA)-D, went to R122's room to view the oxygen concentrator. NA-D admitted that was not a safe location for the oxygen concentrator and stated it could fall and break. NA-D acknowledged it could become a projectile if it fell to the floor due to the compressed air. NA-D stated she did not know who placed it there and that nurses were usually responsible for oxygen. NA-D stated she had oxygen safety education. During an observation and interview on 7/7/25 at 1:42 p.m., along with the director of nursing (DON), went to R122's room to view the oxygen concentrator. The oxygen concentrator was no longer in R122's room. The DON was informed of the earlier observation and stated the oxygen concentrator should not have been placed there - if it fell, it could potentially explode. The DON acknowledged it could have become a projectile if knocked off the dresser due to the compressed air. The DON stated staff had received training on safe use of oxygen. Facility Oxygen Use policy dated 5/20/22, indicated oxygen tanks would be securely anchored when stored or in use. All oxygen used in the nursing home would be from concentrators, liquid cylinders or from oxygen concentrators stationed at the residents beside. Licensed nurses would be in charge of the administration of oxygen.
CONCERN (D) 📢 Someone Reported This

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

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

Deficiency F0692 (Tag F0692)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview and document review, the facility failed to monitor and identify potential inaccuracies in measured weights f...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview and document review, the facility failed to monitor and identify potential inaccuracies in measured weights for 1 of 1 resident (R122) who was reviewed for nutrition. This had the potential to affect all 20 residents who were weighed. Findings include: R122's face sheet provided on 7/9/25, included aftercare for fracture of left femur, chronic kidney disease and congestive heart failure (CHF).R122's admission Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE], indicated R122 was cognitively intact, had clear speech, could understand and be understood. R122 was either independent or required partial assistance or supervision with activities of daily living.R122's orders dated 6/27/25, included daily weight.R122's care plan dated 6/27/25, indicated R122 was at increased risk for nutritional compromise related to recent hospital stay. Staff would obtain weight on admission and to review weight to ensure that wheelchair, casts, braces, etc. were deducted prior to charting weight in vitals (vital signs section of the electronic medical record [EMR]). R122's recorded weights in the EMR indicated between 6/27/25, (date of admission) and 7/8/25, indicated R122 had an approximately 12% weight loss in 12 days:6/27/25 (date of admission) 174.1 lbs. (pounds)6/28/25:177 lbs. at 6:02 a.m., 177 lbs. at 7:58 a.m., and 170.8 at 11:35 a.m.6/29/25: 170.6 lbs.6/30/25: 169.9 lbs.7/1/25: 168.2 lbs.7/2/25: 166.2 lbs.7/3/25: 166.6 lbs.7/4/25: 162.2 lbs.7/5/25: 164.5 lbs.7/6/25: 157.6 lbs.7/7/25: 159.2 lbs.7/8/25: 153.2 lbs.Registered dietician (RD)-F progress notes dated 7/8/25, at 12:57 p.m., (after being informed of possible weight inaccuracies) indicated R122's admission weight was 168# (pounds). R122 was able to consume meals in the dining room and feed himself. R122 was tolerating current diet/texture adequately and had history of CHF which may cause fluid balance issues. R122's weight review shows inaccuracies:7/5/25 - 164.5#7/6/25 - 157.6#7/7/25 - 159.2#7/8/25 - 153.2#Dietician note continued: Nurses notes reviewed and no indication of weight loss or fluid/edema status. R122 is on a diuretic which may cause weight changes, however, anticipate there are errors with 8# loss in 24 hours. He is eating well and no indication of poor appetite. Medications pertinent to nutrition include laxatives, cardiovascular, GI (gastrointestinal) medications, vitamins with calcium/D and the diuretic. Monitor weight and intakes of food/fluids to ensure nutrition needs are being met. DON made aware of weight discrepancies.During an interview on 7/7/25 at 3:16 p.m., R122 stated he had lost a lot of weight, adding he weighed over 209 pounds on admission and now weighs 156 pounds. R122 wasn't sure if the weight loss had been when he was in the hospital prior to admission to the facility, or at the facility. During an interview on 7/8/25 at 12:04 p.m., RD-F stated R122 was on her list for a nutritional assessment that day. RD-F stated it was odd to have weight loss of 8 lbs. in 24 hours, adding, she couldn't explain the weight loss, It doesn't add up.During an interview on 7/8/25 at 12:23 p.m., the director of nursing (DON) who was one of the nurses who documented a weight in R122's EMR, recalled that on 7/6/25, she got an alert when entering R122's weight in the EMR due to weight loss and had staff reweigh him. The DON stated R122's weight was the same (however that re-weigh had not been documented). The DON was not able to account for R122's potential weight loss, adding maybe staff weighed R122 differently .standing, or wheelchair, and the amount of clothing R122 had on. The DON could not explain how nurses could enter R122's weight for multiple days and each time receive an alert and not take action. The DON stated she didn't know, but the alerts should have been addressed with her. The DON stated nursing assistants weighed residents, and the nursing staff documented the weight in the EMR. The DON stated when a weight was entered in the EMR, the print color turned red if there was a significant weight change. The DON did not know what the parameters were that triggered a weight alert in red.During an interview on 07/8/25 at 12:29 p.m., R122 stated he got weighed in his wheelchair, the same wheelchair each day and with clothing on. R122 was informed it appeared he may have had weight loss as he suspected and asked if he knew why. R122 stated he didn't know and that his appetite was good.During an interview and observation on 7/8/25 at 2:17 p.m., together with nursing assistant NA-C, went to the wheelchair scale. NA-C presented a piece of paper on a clipboard with resident wheelchair weights handwritten on it. The form indicated R122's wheelchair weight was 43.4 lbs. NA-C stated each wheelchair had a tag on the side with the resident's name and room number, so wheelchairs shouldn't get mixed up. When informed of R122's weight loss, NA-C stated it was possible a NA calculated the wheelchair weight of the resident written above or below R122. After weighing a resident, NA's gave the weight to the nurse who documented it in the EMR.During an interview on 7/8/25 at 4:27 p.m., after learning about R122's weight variations, the DON stated she talked to staff and learned some staff weighed R122 standing and some used the wheelchair which could account for inaccuracies.During an interview on 7/9/25 at 8:05 a.m., together with licensed practical nurse (LPN)-A looked at R122's weights in the EMR. LPN-A documented R122's weight on 7/8/25, stated it seemed like weights were off for multiple residents, so she had R122 weighed twice: in wheelchair and standing. LPN-A stated his weights were the same within .2 -.3 lbs. During an interview on 7/9/25 at 8:16 a.m., registered nurse (RN)-A who was also the RN case manager, recorded R122's weights on 7/4/25, and 7/5/25, and despite getting a red alert when she entered the weights, she did not question it. RN-A stated she didn't do anything about it because it was a holiday, and a provider wouldn't do anything about it anyway. RN-A stated she didn't think to discuss it with the DON. While looking in R122's EMR, RN-A stated she could now see his weight was trending down. RN-A stated she had not let a provider know, adding that was not something they would typically call a provider about and would instead wait for their weekly visits.During an interview on 7/9/25 at 1:15 p.m., the DON stated R122 was eating, and she didn't know why he was losing weight. The DON stated she needed to look into it and was going to have maintenance look at the scale and that staff should either weigh him standing or in his wheelchair - should be one or the other for consistency. Facility Resident Weight policy dated 4/30/24, indicated the purpose was to minimize the risk or residents gaining or losing unintended weight. Weights flagged in the Matrix Care system (EMR) would initiate a re-weigh and be documented in the medical record. The charge nurse would alert the physician of any significant weight changes. Residents with significant weight changes would be reviewed by the registered dietician.
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0919 (Tag F0919)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation and interview, the facility failed to ensure resident bathroom call light cords were within reach from the ...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation and interview, the facility failed to ensure resident bathroom call light cords were within reach from the bathroom floor for 3 of 3 residents (R19, R17, R8), reviewed for call lights.Findings include: During observation of resident bathrooms, not all call light cords were within reach from the bathroom floor.R19's admission Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE], indicated intact cognition. R19's care plan dated 6/3/25, indicated partial assistance with toileting and toileting hygiene. During an observation on 7/7/25 at 3:35 p.m., in R19's bathroom, the call light cord was approximately 12-18 inches above the floor. R17's quarterly MDS dated [DATE], indicated intact cognition. R17's care plan dated 3/20/25, indicated independence with toileting. During an observation on 7/7/27 at 5:39 p.m., in R17's bathroom, the call light cord was wrapped tightly around the grab bar next to the toilet and approximately 10 inches off the floor. R8's significant change MDS dated [DATE], indicated intact cognition. R8's care plan indicated EZ stand (transfer assist device) with two staff assist for toileting. During an observation on 7/7/25 at 5:46 p.m., in R8's bathroom, observed the call light cord about 18 inches off floor. During an observation and interview on 7/8/25 at 9:41 a.m., environmental service director (ESD)-A was not aware bathroom call light cords needed to be in reach of a resident if a resident were laying on the floor. Together with ESD-A went to R19, R17, and R8's bathrooms. ESD--A verified the call light cords were not within reach of the resident if the resident were laying on the floor. During an interview on 7/8/25 at 5:12 p.m., the administrator was informed of some bathroom call light cords not in reach of a resident if laying on the floor. The administrator stated ESD-A had informed her of that and had ordered parts to address the concern. A blank document titled Environmental Rounds Observations (undated) indicated under a heading titled Call System, that residents would have access to their call light. Facility Call Light policy was requested and not received.
CONCERN (E)

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

Infection Control (Tag F0880)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview and document review, the facility failed to disinfect glucometers according to manufacturer inst...

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 disinfect glucometers according to manufacturer instructions and facility policy for 2 of 2 residents (R12 and R6) reviewed for medication administration. In addition, the facility failed to separate dirty functions from clean functions and clean storage by having an open toilet in a room used for clean storage and a beauty salon. In addition, the facility failed to provide appropriate infection control measures during provision of meal assistance for 2 of 2 residents (R3 and R7) observed for dining.Findings include: GLUCOMETER DISINFECTION R12’s face sheet provided on 7/9/25, included diagnosis of diabetes. R12’s annual Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE], indicated R12 had moderately impaired cognition, clear speech, could understand and be understood. R12 required substantial assistance or was dependent upon staff for activities of daily living (ADL’s). R12 received insulin injections seven days a week. R12’s physician orders dated 5/23/25, indicated confirm glucose readings with a finger stick test if readings are abnormal before making treatment decisions. R12’s care plan dated 6/26/24, indicated R12 was an insulin-dependent diabetic, which may increase his risk for hypoglycemia and the facility would monitor/record/report blood glucose. During an observation on 7/7/25, at 5:05 p.m., observed registered nurse (RN)-B obtain a finger stick glucose reading on R12. Before placing the glucometer back into R12’s individual plastic case, RN-A wiped the glucometer with one alcohol wipe and immediately placed it in the plastic case. R6’s face sheet provided on 7/9/25, included diagnosis of diabetes. R6’s quarterly MDS dated [DATE], indicated R6 had severe cognitive impairment, clear speech, was sometimes understood and could sometimes understand. R6 was dependent on staff for ADL’s. R6 received insulin injections seven days a week. R6’s physician orders dated 3/16/23, indicated test blood sugar three times a day. R6’s care plan dated 11/4/24, indicated R6 was an insulin-dependent diabetic which increased his risk for hypoglycemia and would have blood sugar checks as ordered and needed. During an observation on 7/7/25, at 5:16 p.m., observed registered nurse (RN)-B obtain a finger stick glucose reading on R6. Before placing the glucometer back into R6’s individual plastic case, RN-A wiped the glucometer with one alcohol wipe and immediately placed it in the plastic case. During an observation and interview on 7/0/25 at 9:02 a.m., licensed practical nurse, LPN-A, opened the medication cart to determine the brand of glucometers, which was Assure Platinum. LPN-A stated all residents who received finger stick glucose testing had the same brand, and each had their own individual glucometer. LPN-A stated glucometers were to be disinfected with wipes stored in the medication cart. During an interview on 7/8/25 at 4:32 p.m., the director of nursing (DON) stated after use, glucometers were to be disinfected with disinfectant wipes stored in the medication cart and to remain wet for two minutes before returning the glucometer to the resident's plastic case. The DON was informed of an observation of a nurse cleaning glucometers with one alcohol wipe. The DON stated she expected nurses to clean glucometers with the disinfect wipes provided and according to their policy. The DON stated agency nurses would have been instructed on that during orientation. Review of RN-B’s orientation checklist dated 2/17/25, included the following topics: infection control, nursing policy and procedure manual, blood glucose monitor. The checklist did not specifically include how to disinfect glucometers. Facility Blood Glucose Monitor Procedure – Assure Platinum, undated, indicated the purpose was to ensure accurate monitoring, infection control and quality assurance. The scope applied to all staff performing blood glucose testing using Assure Platinum meters. Cleaning and disinfection instructions included: clean meter with soap and water or approved wipe. Disinfect using EPA (environmental protection agency) approved wipe for Assure Platinum. Ensure dry time before next use. Facility Cleaning Glucometer policy dated 6/13/20, indicated the purpose of the policy was to ensure glucometers were cleaned after used to help prevent the spread of infections. Each resident would have their own glucometer assigned to them. Use a Sani-Cloth (a brand of disinfectant wipes) for each resident's meter; wipe off glucometer – should remain wet for two minutes. MULTIPURPOSE ROOM During an observation and interview on 7/8/25 at 2:17 p.m., accompanied nursing assistant (NA)-C to a room with a sign on the outside of the door indicating BATH. In this fairly large room were a mixture of dirty and clean areas/supplies/equipment. There was a bank of upper and lower cabinets, a sink, a toilet, a beauty salon counter/sink and chair, a wheelchair scale, storage of plastic isolation/PPE (personal protective equipment) units, mechanical lift slings, and folding chairs. NA-C stated the room was not used for baths or showers anymore. The toilet did not have a lid. There was a curtain that could be pulled around the toilet. The toilet was approximately three to four feet from the salon sink and chair. In addition, there had been a mechanical lift in the room, pushed next to the toilet. NA-A stated the toilet was used by residents across the hall who shared a toilet. During an observation and interview on 7/8/25, at 5:12 p.m., together with the administrator, looked in the BATH room and pointed out the clean functions/storage, along with the toilet. The administrator stated the toilet was used by residents across the hall. The administrator acknowledged the set up wasn't visually appealing to residents who used the salon and stated they would need to discuss the purpose of the room and may need to remove the toilet. During an observation and interview on 7/9/25 at 8:44 a.m., together with the DON who was also the infection preventionist, looked in the BATH room. The DON stated from an infection control standpoint, it was not okay to have clean functions and storage with dirty functions, adding, they may need to remove the toilet. During an observation and interview on 7/9/25 at 2:00 p.m., observed hair stylist (HS)-G curling a resident's hair who was seated in the salon chair in the BATH room. The unnamed resident was facing the toilet (the curtain was not pulled). The resident was not able to understand/express herself about having a toilet just feet away from her as she was getting her hair done. HS-G stated the room had always been that way, and it was definitely not the best. HS-G stated she should have closed the curtain. MEAL ASSISTANCE R3’s 5/8/25, significant change MDS assessment identified she had severe cognitive impairment and required partial to moderate assistance with eating. She had diagnoses of non-traumatic brain dysfunction, Alzheimer’s disease, and anxiety disorder. R3 received a modified texture diet and sat at a staff assistance table in the dining room, where staff prompted and assisted her to eat her meals. R7’s 4/24/25, admission MDS identified she had severe cognitive impairment and required total assistance from staff for eating. She had diagnoses of non-traumatic brain dysfunction, renal insufficiency, and dementia. R7 received a regular texture diet with thin liquids and sat at staff assistance table in the dining room for all her meals. Observation on 7/7/25 at 5:55 p.m. both R3 and R7 were seated at table in the dining room with NA-B seated in a chair between them. The residents were served tomato soup and a grilled cheese sandwich. NA-B was observed picking up a spoon from R3’s tray, taking a spoon of soup, blowing on it and then feeding it to R3. NA-B was observed several times blowing on soup. NA-B then turned to R7, picked up her spoon and repeated the process of spooning soup, blowing on it and then placing the spoon into R7’s mouth. NA-B repeated this process between R3 and R7 while offering bites of other food items to both residents. Interview on 7/7/25 at 6:24 p.m., with NA-D identified she had received training on Infection control in her nursing assistant classes and also at the time of hire with the facility. She identified R3 received a pureed texture diet and R7 had a regular texture diet. NA-D reported she was not aware she had blown on the soup before giving the bites to the residents. She reported she had not even thought about it as that was what she did when she was feeding her young children. She identified she should not have done that, as it created an infection control issue. Interview on 7/7/25 at 6:30 p.m. with the DON reported all staff received training on infection control at the time of hire and annually. She identified blowing on food to cool it was not acceptable and she would expect staff to be aware and follow infection control practices when they assisted any resident with eating. An infection control policy addressing assisting residents with eating was requested but not provided by the end of the survey period.
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 and interview the facility failed to ensure metal pans were completely dry and clean before storing to prevent bacterial growth. This had potential to affect all 20 residents who ...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation and interview the facility failed to ensure metal pans were completely dry and clean before storing to prevent bacterial growth. This had potential to affect all 20 residents who resided in the facility.Findings include: Observation and interview on 7/7/25 at 12:30 p.m., with the certified dietary manager (CDM) identified three half steam table pans had been washed in the dishwasher and then stacked for reuse prior to drying. Water droplets were observed on the interior surface of the stacked pans. In addition, one 1/4 steam table pan contained water droplets and particles of food on the interior surface and had been stacked on 3 additional pans identified as ready for reuse. The CDM confirmed infection control practices had not been followed as the pans should have been individually placed on the counter to dry, prior to being stacked. A policy on cleaning and storage of pans was requested but not provided by the end of the survey period.
CONCERN (F)

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

Staffing Data (Tag F0851)

Could have caused harm · This affected most or all residents

Based on interview and document review, the facility failed to submit accurate data for staffing information based on payroll and other verifiable and auditable data during 1 of 1 quarter reviewed- Qu...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on interview and document review, the facility failed to submit accurate data for staffing information based on payroll and other verifiable and auditable data during 1 of 1 quarter reviewed- Quarter 2, 2025, (January to March), to the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS), according to specifications established by CMS.Findings include: The CMS payroll-based journal (PBJ) staffing data report indicated the following infraction dates: Failed to have licensed nursing coverage 24 hours/day on the following dates: 1/8/25, 1/9/25, 1/18/25, 1/19/25, 1/21/25, 2/2/25, 3/15/25, and 3/16/25.During interview on 7/8/25 at 11:04 a.m., staffing coordinator (SC)-C stated she was responsible for staff scheduling, she did not have trouble filling the schedule with nurses, and always had a nurse scheduled 24 hours/day. SC-C was not aware there were days on the PBJ report that indicated lack of 24 hour/day nursing coverage and did not recall any days she was not able to schedule a nurse. Using nursing schedules from 1/1/25 through 3/31/25, for each infraction date, SC-C verified a nurse was scheduled 24 hours/day on each of those triggered days.During interview on 7/8/25 at 12:58 a.m., assistant administrator (AA)-D stated she was responsible for submitting PBJ data, was not aware of any days without a registered nurse and was unsure why the PBJ report would have triggered for nursing coverage 24 hour/day. AA-D further stated she entered necessary data by hand and checked information against schedules and calendars. AA-D stated she would need to talk to regional support to look into the inaccurate data submissions.During interview on 7/9/25 at 9:33 a.m., administrator stated she was not aware the PBJ submission was not always being transmitted accurately and thought she had fixed the submission and transmission problem last year. Administrator further stated the submission needed to be accurate and they would have to figure out what was not working.Facility policy titled Payroll Based Journal Submission dated 5/23/24, stated the following:Employee hours from each department are generated and uploaded into a zip file.The data is then uploaded into Payroll Based Journal.Agency staff and contracted staff hours are manually entered into Payroll Based Journal.Master nursing schedule, agency timesheets and a calendar will be utilized to verify nursing coverage.Data is submitted quarterly to CMS on or before the deadline.Administrator will audit for accuracy of PBJ prior to hitting the submission button.
CONCERN (F)

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

Safe Environment (Tag F0921)

Could have caused harm · This affected most or all residents

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview and document review, the facility failed to ensure 3 of 5 fans in resident hallways and all floo...

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 3 of 5 fans in resident hallways and all flooring in resident hallways and dining room were maintained in a safe, clean and sanitary manner. This had the potential to affect all 20 residents who resided in the facility. Findings include: FANSDuring an observation on 7/7/25 at 11:50 a.m., upon entering facility and while walking to the conference room, observed fans mounted at intervals in resident hallways. The fans were mounted at approximately the same height as the top of door frames and all were in operation. Observed one fan near the nurses' station in the south hallway with fuzzy debris hanging from the front grate of the fan. During an interview and observation on 7/8/25 at 8:44 a.m., housekeeping supervisor (HS)-A stated she was responsible for cleaning the fans in the hallway, adding she was behind on cleaning them. HS-A stated it was important to keep them clean because dust is made of dirt, hair and dead skin and fans blow those particles into the air which could affect residents and staff. HS-A stated her goal was to inspect the fans every couple of weeks and clean them if needed. Together looked at all seven fans blowing air in resident hallways. HS-A shut off each fan as they were inspected for dust. Of the seven fans three had buildup of dust and/or debris: fan by room [ROOM NUMBER], fan near nurse's station facing resident hallway, and one by the director of nursing (DON) office. HS-A stated she would remove those fans and clean them. FLOORING During an observation on 7/7/25 at 5:37 p.m., noted the general condition of flooring in all resident hallways. The flooring in the hallways appeared to be terrazzo flooring. The flooring was discolored, scuffed, scratched, dull, and some areas appeared to have a buildup of wax covering dirt. Some sections of the hallway flooring were cracked from side to side. Tile flooring between the entrance from the kitchen into the dining room had a heavy buildup of black marks and scuffs. During an interview on 7/8/25 at 8:44 a.m., HS-A stated she cleaned the hallway flooring with an electric floor scrubber every two to three days and swept and mopped in between. HS-A stated she had hand-scrubbed the tile flooring in the kitchen that goes into the dining room and not been able to move the scuffs and black marks. HS-A stated maintenance redid the wax on all the flooring two to three times a year. During an interview on 7/8/25 at 9:40 a.m., ESD-A stated the flooring in resident hallways was original terrazzo flooring from 1963. ESD-A acknowledged the flooring in resident hallways was discolored, scuffed and scraped. ESD-A stated they had talked about hiring a professional company to redo the flooring, adding the top layer of wax buildup needed to be removed, but it would be costly to do that. ESD-A stated he was aware maintenance and upkeep of the flooring should be like residents would do in their homes.During an interview and observation on 7/8/25 at 5:12 p.m., together with the administrator, looked at the terrazzo flooring in the north hallway and the tile flooring in the dining room. The following were pointed out: floor discoloration, scuffs, scratches, shallow gouges, stickiness, appearance of wax buildup and overall appearance of a poorly maintained and unclean floor. The administrator stated she agreed with that observation and felt it was due in part to housekeeping not using the electric scrubber every day. The administrator admitted using the scrubber daily would not likely improve the condition of the flooring. The administrator stated they had considered getting a professional opinion to learn what could be done to improve the overall condition and appearance of the floor but had not done so.Facility Environment policy dated 10/20/22, indicated the purpose was to ensure residents were comfortable and felt safe in the facility environment. Housekeeping and maintenance would maintain the resident rooms and facility in a sanitary, orderly and comfortable manner.Facility Assessment with review date of January 2025, indicated there was a process to ensure adequate supply, appropriate maintenance, and replacement of physical resources for buildings and/or other structures.
Mar 2025 2 deficiencies 1 IJ (1 affecting multiple)
CRITICAL (K) 📢 Someone Reported This

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

Immediate Jeopardy (IJ) - the most serious Medicare violation

Deficiency F0602 (Tag F0602)

Someone could have died · 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 system was in place to prevent narcotic drug ...

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 system was in place to prevent narcotic drug diversion (misappropriation of resident property) of 577 tramadol, 96 half tablets of oxycodone, 45 tablets of clonazepam, 19 tablets of hydromorphone, 83 tablets of hydrocodone, and liquid lorazepam that were diverted between 11/23/23 and 3/12/25 for 20 of 20 residents (R1, R2, R3, R4, R5, R6, R7, R8, R9, R10, R11, R12, R13, R14, R15, R16, R17, R18, R19, R20) resulting in an immediate jeopardy (IJ). In addtional, registered nurse (RN)-A was observed consuming R1's narcotic pain medication used to treat his discomfort related to cancer. The immediate jeopardy (IJ) began on 2/19/25 when registered nurse (RN)-A was witnessed swallowing R1's Tramadol instead of administering this to R1 resulting in R1 pain during cares. The facility did not have a secure system to prevent diversion of medication that was susceptable for misapproprition of property. The administrator and director of nursing (DON) were notified of the IJ on 3/11/25, at 5:00 p.m. The IJ was removed on 3/12/25 at 4:15 p.m. but non-compliance remained at the lower scope and severity of E, no actual harm with potential for more than minimal harm, that is not immediate jeopardy. Findings Include: During an interview on 3/6/25 at 1:15 p.m., the hospice nurse indicated R1 was receiving hospice services for brain cancer with metastasis and had been experiencing more non-verbal signs of pain with movement. During her visit on 2/19/25, the hospice nurse requested registered nurse (RN)-A administer a PRN tramadol 50 mg tablet to R1 prior to providing cares to decrease R1's discomfort during the care and procedures that would be completed. The hospice nurse stated she was approximately five feet from RN-A when she observed RN-A unlock the med cart, unlock the narcotic drawer, remove a tramadol, put it into a clear med cup, fill a second clear med cup with applesauce, put the tramadol into her mouth, shook her head back (in a swallowing motion), get a cup of water from the water fountain, throw the med cup with the applesauce away, grabbed some gloves, stated she was ready to do R1's cares, and gathered urinary catheter supplies. The hospice nurse indicated RN-A did not administer any medications to R1. Hospice nurse stated she was shocked and in disbelief, did not know what to do. The hospice nurse and RN-A completed R1's catheter flush and repositioning but noted R1 to have facial grimacing indicating discomfort and pain. The hospice nurse further indicated because R1 was having more difficulty swallowing pills, she received a physician order to discontinue the tramadol 50 mg and start dilaudid liquid for pain control on 2/19/25. This information was relayed to RN-A, she left the facility and contacted her supervisors regarding her observations. R1's admission minimum data set (MDS) dated [DATE], indicated R1 had severe cognitive impairment and included diagnoses of malignant melanoma of scalp/neck, and traumatic brain injury. R1 received hospice services at the facility. R1's Physician Order dated 2/10/25, indicated R1 received tramadol 50 milligram (mg), one tablet twice daily for pain and one tablet every four hours as needed for pain. R1's Pain Observation dated 2/13/25, indicated R1 received PRN (as needed) pain medication within last five days. R1 denied pain at the time of that observation. R1's Medication Administration Record (MAR) indicated R1 received PRN (as needed) tramadol on 2/11, 2/13, 2/14, 2/15, 2/16 but did not receive PRN tramadol on 2/19 and indicated the order had been discontinued. R1's Individual Narcotic Record identified on 2/19/25, RN-A withdrew one tramadol 50 mg tablet at 8:00 a.m. and one tablet of tramadol 50 mg at 5:00 p.m. which left 49 tablets remaining. R1's Certificate of the Inventory and Destruction of Controlled Medications indicated on 2/19/25, RN-A destroyed 49-50 milligram (mg) tablets of tramadol into the MedSafe receptacle. The form identified the initials of RN-A and an unidentified RN. The Police Department Complaint Report indicated they received notification of a potential diversion on 2/20/25 at 1333 (1:33 p.m.). The report further identified after a full inventory of discarded medications in the MedSafe, the discarded drugs that were missing were as follows: 577 tramadol pills, 96 half tablets of oxycodone, 45 clonazepam pills, 19 hydromorphone pills, and 53 hydrocodone pills. RN-A was found to have 28 tramadol 50 mg tablets at her home and admitted to taking only the tramadol from the facility. The report also noted that RN-A had signed the Certificate of Inventory and Destruction of Controlled Substances form indicating that she had destroyed 452 tramadol, 96 half tablets of oxycodone, 45 clonazepam, 19 hydromorphone, and 30 hydrocodone pills into the MedSafe. Criminal charges were filed. The facilities Victim Impact Statement dated 3/6/25, identified the facility is to meet the resident's physical, emotional, and social needs. Taking a resident's pain medication and leaving the resident in pain is cruel. The facilities Proof of Receipt and Treatment from the company that removes the contents of the MedSafe indicated the last time the contents of the MedSafe were removed was on 11/6/23. The following resident medications were identified as destroyed per the destruction logs and deposited into the MedSafe, however were not located in the MedSafe on 2/20/25. R2's Certificate of Inventory and Destruction of Controlled Substances indicated 23 tablets of hydroco/APAP (narcotic pain medication) 5-325mg were destroyed in MedSafe on 11/13/24. R3's Certificate of Inventory and Destruction of Controlled Substances indicated 8.5 tablets of oxycodone 5mg tablets were destroyed in MedSafe on 10/2/24 and 56 one-half tablets were destroyed into the MedSafe. R4's Certificate of Inventory and Destruction of Controlled Substances indicated 29 tablets of clonazepam 2mg tablets were destroyed in the MedSafe on 10/7/24. R5's Certificate of Inventory and Destruction of Controlled Substances indicated 60 tablets of tramadol were destroyed in MedSafe on 9/4/24. R6's Certificate of Inventory and Destruction of Controlled Substances indicated 31 one-half tablets of oxycodone were destroyed on 7/6/24, and 24 [one-half] tablets of oxycodone were destroyed in MedSafe on 1/12/25. R7's Certificate of Inventory and Destruction of Controlled Substances indicated 150 tablets of tramadol were destroyed in MedSafe on 7/28/24 and another 66 tablets of tramadol were destroyed in MedSafe on 8/25/24. R8's Certificate of Inventory and Destruction of Controlled Substances indicated 17 tablets of oxycodone 5mg were destroyed into MedSafe on 12/12/24. R9's Certificate of Inventory and Destruction of Controlled Substances indicated sixty tablets of tramadol were destroyed into MedSafe on 8/20/24. R10's Certificate of Inventory and Destruction of Controlled Substances indicated 90 tablets of tramadol were destroyed into MedSafe on 8/21/24 and 15 tablets of tramadol were destroyed into MedSafe on 8/25/24. R11's Certificate of Inventory and Destruction of Controlled Substances indicated two tablets of oxycodone 5mg were destroyed into MedSafe on 7/28/24 and two tablets of tramadol 50 mg tablets were destroyed into MedSafe on 10/8/24. R12's Certificate of Inventory and Destruction of Controlled Substances indicated 45.5 [ml] of hydromorphone liquid 1mg/ml was destroyed in MedSafe on 2/10/25. R13 Certificate of Inventory and Destruction of Controlled Substances indicated 19 hydromorphone 2mg tablets were destroyed into MedSafe on 2/10/25. R14's Certificate of Inventory and Destruction of Controlled Substances indicated 30 tablets of hydrocodone-acetaminophen 5-325mg were destroyed to MedSafe on 1/31/25. R15's Certificate of Inventory and Destruction of Controlled Substances indicated 45 clonazepam 5 mg tablets were destroyed in MedSafe on 1/19/25. R16's Certificate of Inventory and Destruction of Controlled Substances indicated 26 tablets of oxycodone 5mg tablets were destroyed in MedSafe on 12/24/24. R17's Certificate of Inventory and Destruction of Controlled Substances indicated five oxycodone tablets were destroyed in MedSafe on 7/28/24. R18's Certificate of Inventory and Destruction of Controlled Substances indicated 66 tablets of oxycodone 5mg tablets were destroyed in MedSafe on 9/13/24. R19's Certificate of Inventory and Destruction of Controlled Substances indicated 27 tablets of oxycodone 5mg tablets were destroyed in MedSafe on 10/11/24. R20's Certificate of Inventory and Destruction of Controlled Substances indicated 74 tablets of tramadol 50mg was destroyed in MedSafe on 7/29/24. During an interview on 3/10/25 at 9:30 a.m., the facility's contracted pharmacist indicated she participated in auditing the MedSafe receptacle for controlled substance medications that were documented as destroyed by placing in the MedSafe. The pharmacist further indicated the MedSafe receptacle was last emptied on 11/23/23 so the diversion of the medication could have occurred between 11/23/23 and 2/19/25. The meds identified as unaccounted for were hydrocodone/acetaminophen tablets, tramadol, clonazepam, oxycodone, and hydromorphone but did not have the exact numbers. During an interview on 3/10/25 at 11:35 a.m., the administrator identified did not know exact number of medications that were unaccounted for but thought approximately 400 tablets. They cannot identify who the unaccounted medications belonged to because the names and identifying information were removed but approximately 20 discharged and current residents had controlled substances disposed of in the MedSafe between 11/23/23 and 2/20/25. Further stated they only looked at the pill form and did not reconcile the controlled liquid medications or patches. The administrator indicated two nurses were always supposed to reconcile the controlled substance, witness the medications being placed in the MedSafe, and both sign the destruction form but that must not have happened. If the nurses followed the process, the diversion would not have happened. During an interview on 3/10/25 at 1:05 p.m., the chief of police indicated he assisted with the investigation and noted 577 tramadol, 96 one-half tablets of oxycodone, 45 tablets of clonazepam, 19 tablets of hydromorphone, and 83 tablets of hydrocodone were all unaccounted for. The chief of police further stated, they should have all been in the MedSafe according to the destruction logs and were not. During an interview on 3/13/25 at 9:00 a.m., RN-A stated she was an agency nurse but had worked at the facility since 2022. RN-A denied taking any controlled substances from the residents and denied every destroying medication without a second nurse present and co-signing for the destruction. During a follow-up interview on 3/13/25 at 9:42 a.m., RN-A indicated the tramadol that the police found on her person was her own but that on 2/19/25, she did destroy R1's tramadol independently without another nurse present. RN-A indicated she had forgotten to discontinue the tramadol order. RN-A did not address the second set of initials on the Certificate of Inventory and Destruction of Controlled Substances that indicated a second nurse was present during the destruction. During an interview on 3/11/25 at 11:40 a.m., the regional clinical quality director (RCQD) indicated she assisted with the investigation into the missing narcotic medications. The RCQD indicated it is the expectation that two licensed staff destroy the controlled substances into the locked MedSafe and witness the entire destruction process, both sign their names that they witnessed the destruction. During an interview on 3/12/25 at 1:40 p.m., the medical director indicated the facility notified her of the discrepancy in the narcotic counts and stated, the facility needs to come up with better processes on how they do the controlled medication destruction. Liquid and Emergency Kit narcotic accounting. The facilities undated, Emergency Medication Kit Usage Form indicated it contained the following controlled substances: hydrocodone/APAP (Norco) 5/325mg tablets; morphine 20 mg/ml oral solution; oxycodone 5mg tablets; tramadol 50 mg tabs; lorazepam 0.5mg tablets; and lorazepam 2mg/ml injection. During an observation on 3/10/25, at 2:00 p.m. The Daily E Kit Sign Off Forms reviewed between 2/11/25 and 3/10/25 identified no accounting/reconciliation of the E Kit on 2/12/25, 2/23/25, 2/24/25, and 3/3/25 through 3/9/25. R12's Individual Narcotic Record identified a prescription recorded for Ativan 0.25ml four times a day PRN sublingual. R12's last documented dose given was on 3/10/25 at 3:00 a.m. with amount remaining in bottle documented as 22.75 (ml). R12's bottle contained 16 ml in the bottle which is a discrepancy of 6.75 ml equal to 27 individual doses for R12. Additionally, the medication emergency kit (E-kit) was observed to have intact security tags that secured the contents of the box. R12's quarterly MDS dated [DATE], indicated R12 had intact cognition with diagnoses of Alzheimer's Disease, generalized abdominal pain, and anxiety disorder. R12 received hospice care in the facility. R12's Prescription Order dated 10/9/24, identified R12 received an order for lorazepam [Ativan] concentrate; 2mg/ml and amount to give is 0.25ml to equal 0.5mg every four hours PRN for anxiety/nausea. During an observation and interview On 3/10/25 at 2:05 p.m., RN-B and RN-C were observed doing shift to shift narcotic count verification. RN-B indicated R12's refrigerated lorazepam bottle had 16 milliliters (ml) of liquid in the bottle; RN-C identified the Individual Narcotic Record indicated it should contain 22.75 ml. RN-B indicated the the discrepancy was because sometimes the bottle spills, liquids are hard to count. Both RN-B and RN-C signed the Controlled Drugs Count Record, put the medication back in the fridge, and left the medication room. Neither RN reconciled the discrepancy in the Narcotic record nor reported the discrepancy to the director of nursing (DON). Also observed RN-B and RN-C took the E-kit out of the cupboard and verify the security tag number was the same as previously documented and both signed to verify. RN-B indicated that she was an agency nurse and not sure what the facility policy was for reconciling the narcotics but typically the E-kit security tag was checked between shifts to assure the E-kit was intact and with all the narcotics in it. RN-B looked at the E-Kit signature sheets and stated, does not look like they [this facility] do it everyday and indicated the last time the E-kit had been verified was eight days prior. During an interview on 3/11/25 at 11:40 a.m., the RCQD indicated she would have to check the facility policy regarding R12's liquid lorazepam discrepancy but, it would be her expectation that any amount of discrepancy of a controlled substance would be reported immediately to the DON for investigation. During an interview on 3/11/25 at 4:15 p.m., the contracted pharmacist addressed the liquid lorazepam discrepancy of 6.75 ml noted on 3/10/25, indicated a small amount of spillage may occur but not several ml. The pharmacist then indicated any losses of controlled substances should be reported to the DEA (Drug Enforcement Administration) because it was the law and felt 6.75 ml of a controlled substance was significant enough to be reported. The pharmacist further identified the E-kit contains oxycodone, morphine, lorazepam, tramadol, hydrocodone/acetaminophen and was unsure of the other controlled substances were in it. The E-kit is secured with a numbered tag and the pharmacy audits it monthly but not sure what the facility policy was to assure the E-kits security. During an interview on 3/12/25 12:14 p.m., the pharmacy consultant indicated if there was a discrepancy with a controlled substance count, the DON should be contacted and an investigation completed. The pharmacy consultant further indicated if a resident is only getting 0.25 ml of liquid lorazepam and there is a loss of 6.75 ml, she would consider that a significant discrepancy. Further identified that every controlled substance in the facility needs to be counting and checking to make sure that they have is secured. The pharmacy consultant stated it was her expectation that the E-kit should be checked at least daily. During an interview on 3/12/25 at 1:40 p.m., the medical director indicated the discrepancy in R12's liquid lorazepam was a significant discrepancy should have been reported to the DON for further investigation. During an interview on 3/11/24 at 2:50 p.m., the director of nursing (DON) verified R12's refrigerated Ativan bottle contained 16 ml of liquid and the count record indicated the remaining liquid should be 22.75 ml. The DON indicated she had not been notified of the discrepancy and would have expected to have been notified for any discrepancy with a narcotic. The DON further verified three nurses had the opportunity to report the discrepancy in the past 24 hours but had not. During an interview on 3/10/25 at 2:33 p.m., the facilities pharmacy consultant indicated she was not informed about the controlled substance discrepancies. The pharmacy consultant identified she does random audits of the narcotic counts and reviews the narcotic count books for missing signatures but cannot verify the validity of the signatures because there is not a master signature log, and the facility uses many different agency nurses. The pharmacy consultant further questioned why the facility nurses started to remove the identifiers from the medication cards prior to putting them into the MedSafe, stating, they do not need to do that. The immediate jeopardy that began on 2/19/25, was removed and the deficient practice corrected on 3/12/25, when the facility completed the following: -Updated current policies and developed a Controlled Drug Count/I-Kit Policy and Procedure and Discrepancies, Loss and/or Diversion of Medications Policy and Procedure. -The nurse on duty completed education and policy review and put a plan in place for nurses to complete the policy review and education prior to working their shift. The education was followed by a knowledge test. -The pharmacy consultant to set up an in-person education. -E-Kit contents verified secure by tag number with the pharmacy. -Controlled substance counts completed and reconciled. The facility policy titled, MedSafe Receptacle last updated on 3/3/25, indicates upon disposition the LTCF (long term care facility) must document the medications name, strength, prescription number, quantity, date, resident name, and the name of the staff performing the disposition. One supervisor level employee at the LTCF designated by the authorized collector may assist in changing the collection receptacle inner liner under the supervision of one employee of the authorized dealer. Accepted medications include prescription medications schedule II-V controlled substances and non-controlled substances; over the counter medications; liquid medications in the original bottle, if possible, up to 4 oz (ounces); powdered medication. The policy was revised on 3/3/25 to reflect the MedSafe is to be checked with Pharmacist quarterly visit to check amount in box and pull as needed. The facility policy titled, Narcotic Counting last updated 4/8/24, indicates controlled substance count verification should be done every shift by two (2) nurses (one from the previous shift and one from the oncoming shift). Your signature means that the narcotic count is accurate. If the count is incorrect, notify the director of nursing for immediate follow-up. E-kit needs to be signed off on every shift. E-kit needs to be signed and documented each time a medication is taken from the kit. Documentation of exchanging of E-Kits need to be recorded with new number each time an exchange is made. For discontinue/destruction: Chart on the Disposal of med form in the narcotic book and the narcotic destruction book with two (2) nurses. Signatures, the controlled substance, the amount, and the Rx number and dispose of it in the med safe by two nurses destroying the medication. If a small amount of the substance is left in the vial or container after the narcotic book shows none left, estimate amount remaining and alert the DON. Two nurses must verify and sign the Individual Narcotic Record page and place in double lock cabinet in locked med room to destroy. Med destruction of controlled substances is done by two licensed nurses.
CONCERN (D) 📢 Someone Reported This

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

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

Report Alleged Abuse (Tag F0609)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on interview and document review the facility failed to report an allegation of misappropriation of resident property timely to the administrator and State Agency for 1 of 1 resident (R1) review...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on interview and document review the facility failed to report an allegation of misappropriation of resident property timely to the administrator and State Agency for 1 of 1 resident (R1) reviewed for allegations of neglect. Findings include: A Facility Reported Incident (FRI) submitted to the State Agency on 2/20/25 at 10:58 a.m., alleged on 3/19/25 at approximately 12:38 p.m. a hospice nurse observed registered nurse (RN)-A take R1's pain medication. The report indicates the administrator was notified of the incident on 2/20/25 at 9:15 a.m. During an interview on 3/6/25 at 1:14 p.m., the hospice nurse indicated on 3/19/25, she had requested a tramadol (controlled substance pain medication) for R1 prior to completing cares. The hospice nurse identified that RN-A then removed the tramadol from the medication cart and swallowed the medication in direct line of sight of the hospice nurse. RN-A and the hospice nurse then proceeded to R1's room and provided repositioning, changing of incontinent brief, and a catheter flush without R1 receiving the medication for pain. The hospice nurse indicated R1 did exhibit signs of pain during cares by facial grimacing. The hospice nurse stated she was uncomfortable, shocked, in disbelief, and did not know what to do. She then left the facility and called her supervisor, and the hospice regional director went to the facility the next day (2/20/25) and told the director of nursing (DON). During an interview on 3/6/25 at 1:45 p.m., the administrator stated she was notified on 3/20/25, of the alleged medication diversion and misappropriation of property that occurred on 3/19/25. The administrator also indicated she should have been notified immediately and if she would have been notified, the diversion of an additional 49 tramadol could have been avoided. The facility reported it to the SA immediately once she was notified but the hospice nurse that reported it was not a facility staff nurse and trust the hospice agencies educate their staff. The facility policy titled, Prohibition & Prevention of Abuse Plan and The Elder Justice Act last reviewed/revised 12/4/24, indicates all staff must report all alleged violations involving abuse, neglect, exploitation or mistreatment, including injuries of unknown source and misappropriation of resident property are reported immediately, but no later than 2 hours after the allegation is made, if the event that cause the allegation involve abuse or result in serious bodily injury, or not later than 24 hours if the events that case the allegation do not involve abuse and do not result in serious bodily injury to the administrator, director of nursing, or social service designee. All staff are required to report a suspicious incident. The date and time of your awareness of the incident or suspicion of incident must be reported. All incidents must be reported immediately. Crimes against residents are directly reported to law enforcement. All staff members are mandated to report when they: witness physical or mental abuse or neglectful acts toward a resident; have a reasonable cause to suspect abuse or neglect has occurred; detect that a resident has any belongings missing.
Dec 2024 1 deficiency
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

Report Alleged Abuse (Tag F0609)

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 immediately report an allegation of abuse to the administrator and...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview and document review the facility failed to immediately report an allegation of abuse to the administrator and State Agency (SA) immediately, but not later than two hours after the allegation was made for 5 of 5 residents (R1, R2, R3, R4, R5) reviewed for allegations of abuse. Findings include: A Nursing Home Incident Report submitted to the State Agency on 11/27/24 at 5:39 p.m., alleged nursing assistant (NA)-A observed NA-B abused and violated the rights of R1 on 11/26/24 at approximately 10:00 p.m. R1's Quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated [DATE], indicated R1 had moderately impaired cognition and included diagnoses of traumatic brain injury, anxiety disorder, and kidney disease. R1's care plan last revised on 12/2/24, indicated R1 was at risk for potential abuse/neglect and altered dignity due to required staff assistance with cares. R1 required staff assistance with transferring, toileting, and hygiene. A Nursing Home Incident Report submitted to the State Agency on 11/27/24 at 5:32 p.m , alleged nursing assistant (NA)-A observed NA-B abuse and violate the rights of R2 on 11/26/24 at approximately 5:00 p.m. R2's Quarterly MDS dated [DATE], indicated R2 had intact cognition and included the diagnoses of diabetes, history of falling, and epilepsy. R2's Care Plan last revised 12/2/24, indicated R2 was at risk for potential abuse and neglect. R2 required staff assist for showers and was independent with all other activity of daily living (ADL) cares. A Nursing Home Incident Report submitted to the State Agency on 11/27/24 at 5:21 p.m , alleged NA-A observed NA-B abuse and violate the rights of R3, R4, and R5 on 11/26/24 at approximately 5:00 p.m., R3's Quarterly MDS dated [DATE], indicated R1 had moderately impaired cognition and identified R1 required staff assist with dressing, toileting, transferring, and bathing. R1's diagnoses included diabetes, osteoporosis, and history of falling. R3's Care Plan last updated 12/2/24, identified R3 was at risk for abuse, neglect, and altered dignity due to required staff assistance. R4's quarterly MDS dated [DATE], indicated R4 was cognitively intact and required staff assist with bathing, dressing, toileting, transferring, and personal hygiene. R4's diagnoses included paranoid schizophrenia, polyosteoarthritis, and morbid obesity. R4's Care Plan last updated 12/2/24, identified R4 was at risk for abuse and neglect. R5's quarterly MDS dated [DATE], indicated cognitive function was not assessed as R5 is not able to respond. The MDS also identified R5 was dependent on staff for all cares. R5's diagnoses included dementia, aphasia (not being able to talk), and anxiety disorder. R5's Care Plan updated 12/2/24, identified R5 was at risk for abuse, neglect, and altered dignity related to required assistance from staff for all cares. During an interview on 12/3/24 at 2:35 p.m., NA-A indicated during the evening shift on 11/26/24, she witnessed NA-B lying on top of R5 and kissing; making rude and sexual comments to R3; and, inappropriately touching, and speaking to R4; making inappropriate comments to R1; and making rude comments to R2. NA-A further identified she did not report the allegations to the facility administrator but did call the staffing agency representative the following day in the morning sometime and the staffing agency representative would notify the facility administrator. NA-A stated she thought she had up to 24 hours to report the allegations and was not aware of the required immediate notification. During an interview on 12/3/24 at 1:25 p.m., registered nurse (RN)-A identified working the evening of 11/26/24 and was aware of NA-A's allegations but thought the person that directly witnessed the incident was to report it [to the SA] so had directed NA-A to report the allegations online but RN-A was not sure if NA-A did report the allegation. RN-A denied notifying the administrator of the allegations and did not report the incident to the SA. During an interview on 12/3/24 at 4:10 p.m., the administrator identified that on 11/27/24 at approximately 2:30 p.m., she received an email notification of the multiple allegations that occurred on the evening shift of 11/26/24. The administrator further indicated that the allegations should have been reported to her on 11/26/24 and verified the reporting requirements were not met because of the delay in her notification of the allegations. The facility's policy titled, Prohibition& Prevention of Abuse Plan and the Elder Justice Act, last reviewed 5/19/24, indicates all staff are mandatory reporters and the initial report [to the SA] can be submitted by the director of nursing, social service designee, administrator, or charge nurse. The procedure includes 1) ensure the resident(s) are safe. 2) Report the incident to the charge nurse immediately. 3) charge nurse report to the director of nursing, social service designee, or administrator. If they are not available, the charge nurse should make the report. 4) All staff must report all alleged violations involving abuse, neglect, exploitation, or mistreatment, including injuries of unknown source and misappropriation of resident property, are reported immediately, but no later than 2 (two) hours after the allegation is made, if the event that caused the allegation involve abuse or result in serious bodily injury.
Oct 2024 1 deficiency
CONCERN (D) 📢 Someone Reported This

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

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

Accident Prevention (Tag F0689)

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 on-call physician was notified timely of a change in co...

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 on-call physician was notified timely of a change in condition, and later the primary care physician during normal business hours of suspicion of unauthorized narcotic medication (Oxycodone) ingestion, and investigate potential suicidal ideation for 1 of 1 resident (R1) and put safety measures immediately into place after ingestion of narcotic pain medication was likely. Findings include: Review of the National Capital Poison Center, Poison Control current guidelines, located at https://www.poison.org/articles/treating-and-preventing-opioid-overdose-182, identified signs of an opioid overdose can include the following: 1) Not waking up or not responding to voice or touch 2) Skin is pale, gray, and clammy 3) Lips and fingernails turning blue or purple 4) Breathing is very slow, irregular, or has stopped 5) Slow heartbeat or low blood pressure 6) Pinpoint pupils (the center circle of the eye is very small) It is important to know that not all of these signs will necessarily be present. Review of the Cleveland Clinic, Opioid Overdose current guidelines, located at, https://my.clevelandclinic.org/health/diseases/24583-opioid-overdose, identified an opioid overdose happens when opioids excessively stimulate the part of your brain that regulates breathing. This leads to respiratory depression (ineffective breathing) and can cause death if it isn't treated in time. An opioid overdose can happen when a person takes too much of an opioid or a combination of opioids and other substances, such as alcohol, sedatives or stimulants. Too much varies from person to person depending on their opioid tolerance and the potency (strength) of the opioid they're using. An opioid overdose is a medical emergency. People experiencing an opioid overdose need naloxone (commonly known by the brand name Narcan®). Naloxone can reverse the effects of an overdose if it ' s given to the person quickly. The person will still need medical attention after the administration of naloxone. R1's, 10/13/24, 5-day Minimum Data Set (MDS) identified R1 had an admission date of October, 2024. with diagnoses of chronic kidney disease,heart attack, and peripheral vascular disease (decreased blood flow to extremities). R1 was cognitively intact and had no behaviors. R1's Medication Administration Record (MAR) identified MD-A was documented as being R1's primary care physician. R1's 10/23/24, progress notes identified at: 1) 6:51 a.m., registered nurse (RN)-C wrote and end of shift note. During her shift, R1 had been awake most of the night. He had his eyes open when staff entered his room. R1 was slow to respond, did not speak and only nodded slightly when asked questions. His respiratory rate was noted to be within normal limits at 18 respirations per minute, but his oxygen was slightly lower at 92% (normal is 95% to 100%). R1's arms and hands appeared slightly trembly. RN-C noted she found 10 pink pills lying on a Kleenex at his bedside table. She questioned R1 about what they were and where they came from. R1 did not respond verbally and only nodded his head toward the nightstand. She did not see any tablets or bottle in his nightstand and removed the pills she found from his room. There was no mention RN-C identified the potential overdose symptoms and called the on-call after hours provider immediately upon assessing R1 and identifying his abnormalities noted above. It was also not noted when this occurred. 2) 11:05 a.m., the director of nursing (DON) noted she and RN-B went to R1's room and discussed the pills that were found in his room. The DON asked R1 if he knew what they were. R1 stated Well I imagine they are oxycodone. R1 denied having any other pills in his room. The DON and RN-B searched R1's room. No other pills were found. The DON and RN-B advised R1 his risk of overdose as he was already prescribed oxycodone for pain. The DON reiterated staff did not want R1 to overdose, however, it was not clear in the note if the DON or RN-B had attempted to find out why R1 took the medication or if MD-A had been notified of R1's condition if not on-call. 3) 11: 41 a.m., it was noted a care conference was held, however nursing staff did not enter any note. 3) 3:45 p.m., staff noted R1 had multiple episodes of vomiting during the shift. There was no mention the on-call provider was notified of the changes in R1's health. Interview on 10/29/24 at 10:56 a.m., with R1 identified he had brought in a bottle of 10 milligram (mg) oxycodone pills from home and could not remember how many pills were in the bottle before bringing it into the nursing home. He had taken 7 pills at one time, stating he used them to attempt to kill himself. The pills made him sick and had experience vomiting during the day. He attempted to transfer himself to the bathroom in the morning after ingesting the pills, when the urge to vomit came over him and he had fallen on the floor near the bathroom. He vomited on the floor and the staff had cleaned him up and assisted him back to bed. Staff found his oxycodone pills on his bed and collected the medications and asked if he had any more medications, to which he stated, no. He did not inform staff that he wanted to kill himself and would not talk about it with staff until I am ready. R1 had no current desire to kill himself. R1's 10/24/24, progress notes identified at: 1) 7:07 a.m., R1 was found sitting on the floor in front of his wheelchair. R1 stated he got up from his bed and slipped trying to get dressed. R1 stated he forgot to use his call light. 2) 8:22 a.m., RN-B noted she spoke with R1's family member about the pills discovered the previous day. R1 was reported to call the family member on 10/23/24, around 7:30 p.m., stating he had been self transferring that day and almost slipped in the bathroom. The family member noted R1 must have gotten the pills from home on [DATE]. Staff reported to the family member they also found a nicotine vape pen and a pocket knife in his possession. RN-B noted on 10/23/24, R1 was receiving cares. A nursing assistant noted R1 was swallowing his mouth wash. RN-B noted R1 will be placed on 30 minute safety checks and will suggest a detox/rehab facility to better assist resident for possible withdrawals. It is unknown why R1 was not placed on any safety checks after suspicion of oxycodone overdose had occurred, or if an investigation had been done to identify R1's potential of suicidal ideation when it was discovered R1 also had a knife in his room. It is also unclear if staff notified R1's provider of a knife. R1's documented Safety Checks identified they began on 10/24/24 at 8:30 a.m There was no indication staff had identified the need for safety checks put into place immediately at the time after the oxycodone and/or knife was found. Review of R1's 10/25/24, progress notes identified at: 1) 9:19 a.m., R1 was noted to be confused that day. He was found by staff packing his room and thought he was going home with family due to insurance coverage. R1's lab results were noted to be abnormal. The nurse practitioner (NP) was seeing R1 that day. 2) 11:38 a.m., R1 was noted to be only alert and oriented (A/O) x 1 (normal is 3- person, place, or time). 3) 7:18 p.m., staff noted the NP signed telephone orders for grab bars, monitor R1's respirations, and push fluids due to emesis [vomiting] after possible OD [overdose] oxy [oxycodone]. Staff were to check vitals every 2 hrs and throughout the night. The NP was noted to sign a paper accepting him as her patient. It is unknown if R1's primary physician MD-A had been notified of R1's oxycodone ingestion and/or symptoms of potential overdose. Interview on 10/29/24 at 12:42 p.m., with family member (FM)-A identified R1 have voiced concerns about killing himself before he was admitted to the nursing home. She had visited R1 on one or more occasions and he would say to her that he did not want to live and had voiced wanting to die while he was at the nursing home. FM-A did not share the information to the nursing staff at the facility. Interview on 10/30/24 at 8:01 a.m., with nurse practitioner (NP)-A identified she was aware R1 had a fall and was informed R1 had oxycodone pills in his room, however she could not recall staff informing her of their assessment identifying R1 as having ingested the pills. She was not aware that R1 wanted to kill himself and stated she had visited R1 on 10/25/24 at the facility. R1 did not voice concerns of wanting to kill himself to NP-A. She would expect the facility to follow their policy and protocols related to notification to the provider for a resident change of condition and ensure staff gave all information so the need for further medical assessment if warranted, could be determined. Interview on 10/30/24 at 10:12 a.m., with the director of nursing (DON) identified she was informed R1 pills were confiscated and locked up. The on-call provider was contacted of R1's oxycodone being found, and stated the facility did not receive orders to send the R1 to the ER. She was informed by RN-C that R1 had fallen and was not aware that R1 had talked of suicide contemplation. In addition, she was not aware if RN-C had accurately assessed the reason for R1 taking the oxycodone tablets when found and would expect R1 be sent to the ER (emergency room) for further medical evaluation when oxycodone was found in his room on 10/23/24, to identify if ingestion had occurred. Interview on 10/30/24 at 10:39 a.m., with the administrator had identified the facility nursing department needed improvementt and confirmed R1's situation was not an acceptable nursing practice. Interview on 10/30/24 at 11:08 a.m., with registered nurse (RN)-A stated the situation occurred sometime during the overnight shift on 10/23/24 with R1's oxycodone being found in his room. Upon becoming aware from the off-going nurse, she contacted the on-call provider, who then informed her to monitor R1 for changes in his condition. During her conversation with R1, she had assessed him and determined R1 appeared normal to her. R1 had mentioned to her that he had taken some oxycodone but did not know when or how many he had took. She was unable to recall if she reported R1 had advised her he ingested it to the on-call provider. She did not receive an order from the provider to transfer R 1 to the ER for evaluation as was facility policy to get an order to send a resident to the ER vs using nursing judgment based off best practice. Nurses were to contact the on-call and/or primary provider before sending any resident out to the ER for medical evaluation and facility policy directed staff were required to get an order of transfer from the provider. She agreed R1 should have been transferred to the ER for further medical evaluation of ingestion of oxycodone and during her assessment, and try and identify the cause behind the ingestion and ensure safety measures were placed. Interview on 10/30/24 at 11:45 a.m., with RN-B identified R1's behavior to her appeared strange on 10/23/24. She could not identify the reason. She was aware R1 would visit his sister outside of the facility during the day and appeared to look weak and had slowed speech when he arrived back to the facility on [DATE]. She had received on shift report from RN-C that R1 had pills found in his room. At that time, RN-B and RN-C then used the online Google search engine to look up the pills and verified they were oxycodone. She had informed the administrator and DON of R1's pills approximately at 7:30 a.m., on 10/23/24. In addition, R1 had 4 episodes of vomiting, and she had called on-call provider for assistance and had received orders to manage R1's withdrawal symptoms. She had contacted the nurse practitioner and had not received an order to transfer R1 to the ER. Interview on 10/30/24 at 12:26 p.m., with the medical director stated the facility had informed her pills were found in R1's room and the facility had received orders to monitor for R1 withdrawals. If R1 had taken pills (narcotics) and had found out that R1 had used them to attempt suicide, she would expect nurses to send R1 to the ER for emergent evaluation and the appropriate physician's be notified. Interview on 10/31/24 at 1:58 p.m., with RN-A identified she arrived at the facility between 7:45 a.m. and 8:00 a.m., on 10/23/24. She was approached by RN-B who appeared shocked and had informed her during shift change that RN-C had discovered R1 had pills in his room and they were now locked in the medication room. She had observed R1 in the dining room during breakfast that morning and had assessed his interaction with other residents. She had no concerns of his behavior or mood during breakfast. She did not call the overnight nurse to gather additional information of R1's pills and had relied on the progress note RN-C had put into Point Click Care (PCC), (medical record system). She called the on-call contact number and was transferred to an available on-call provider approximately at 9:30 a.m. The on-call provider had given orders to search R1's room and provide education. She had the conversation with R1 approximately at 11 a.m., with RN-B as her witness in his room. R1 had admitted to her that the pills were oxycodone and agreed to have her and RN-B search his room. She confirmed they did not find a pill bottle or other pills in R1's room after the search. Interview on 10/31/24 at 3:41 p.m. with RN-C stated she had worked the overnight shift on 10/22/24 along with an agency nursing assistant who had informed her she had seen pills on R1's dresser. On 10/23/24 at approximately 1:00 a.m., RN-C had entered R1's room and found 10 small pink pills on his dresser. She had question R1 of the pills and did not receive a response from him. R1 appeared to look at her and had not speak but had nodded his head she had questioned R1. She informed R1 she would take his pills and had stored them in the medication room. She stated she had checked on R1 during her shift and had initiated a progress note, approximately after 6:00 a.m. She did not contact the on-call provider, administrator, or the DON of R1's pills and should have. She had informed RN-B during shift change later that morning and had left the facility. She did not investigate the reason R1 took the pills, or assessed R1 for safety. Interview on 10/31/24 at 4:09 p.m. with administrator agreed the nursing staff should have notified the provider, immediately when narcotics were discovered in R1's room. Review of 8/12/22 Change of condition policy identified in the event of an acute condition that would require immediate attention, the charge nurse was to contact the resident representative and primary physician and/or acting physician for direction. The resident was to be sent to the hospital of choice based on the physician's order and resident choice. There is no indication in the policy the facility advises staff of preventative measures to put into place if an incident like an overdose is suspected, what safety measures staff needed to put into place, or that staff can follow standards of practice and identify an emergent or potentially emergent situation and send a resident for medical evaluation to the ED. Review of 3/28/22 Physician Care in Emergency policy identified the charge nurse would notify emergency medical services (EMS) and have the resident transferred to the emergency room for immediate care as deemed necessary.
Aug 2024 3 deficiencies
CONCERN (D) 📢 Someone Reported This

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

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

Deficiency F0691 (Tag F0691)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on observation, interviews, and document review the facility failed to ensure a physician order for treatment of an ostomy was appropriately documented and followed for 1 of 1 resident (R2) iden...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, interviews, and document review the facility failed to ensure a physician order for treatment of an ostomy was appropriately documented and followed for 1 of 1 resident (R2) identified with an ostomy. Findings include: Review of the 7/31/24, State Agency (SA) report identified R2 had not had his ostomy bags changed for 21 days. R2 was reported to have had significant skin damage and feces on R2's abdominal area. R2's 7/9/24, annual Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment identified R1's cognition was moderately impaired, he had a diagnosis of colostomy (an opening for the colon through the abdomen). R2 was independent with transfers, he required extensive assist from one staff with lower body dressing, and independent after set up with hygiene. Observation and interview on 8/19/24 at 1:58 p.m., with R2 identified he was well kempt, had a understanding of his treatment, and was able to articulate a general summary of the ostomy orders and how his skin had been damaged, and was found to be an accurate historian. He identified his ostomy appliance does not get changed often enough. When that happens, it starts to leak and the drainage from the stoma sits on the skin and gets sore. Last month the skin around his stoma was pretty bad. He recalled waiting up to a month between appliance changes. It caused the skin around the stoma to break down. It really stung, burned, and itched . It has been better lately since the wound care nurse changed the order to 3 times weekly. They still do not change it 3 times a week . they [staff]maybe change it once a week. R2 lifted his shirt to show the ostomy during the interview. The ostomy appliance in place was not dated and had several pieces of surgical tape around the edges. The adhesive edging of the appliance appeared to be lifting and no longer adhering to the skin. R2 identified it had been put on last week on Thursday around 1:30 a.m. R2's current, undated care plan identified he had an ostomy bag to his right lower right abdominal quadrant. Nursing staff were to monitor R2 for signs or symptoms of red irritated skin around the ostomy site. Nursing was to encourage and monitor him while he changed his ostomy bag, but staff were responsible for changing the appliance that attached to his abdominal wall. R2 preferred to have his ostomy bag changed on shower days. Other days staff were to assist R2 with his ostomy change, .therefore be on Tuesdays and Saturday. There was no mention of when staff were to replace the appliance connected to R2's abdomen. Review of R2's current physician (MD) order for ileostomy Bag identified the appliance was to be changed 3 times a week on Mondays, Wednesdays, and Fridays following these steps: 1. Use the adhesive remover spray to decrease pain with removal. 2. Clean skin with plain water. 3. Apply acetic acid 0.25% moistened gauze to the red skin as a compress with each pouch change. 4. Leave the compress on the skin for 10 minutes while you are gathering supplies. 5. Prepare the new pouch before you take off the old pouch. 6. Remove back of wafer, completely unwrap paste ring and stretch it to fit around the opening. Fold the white tape tabs and set aside. 7. Remove the compresses and dab skin dry. 8. Re-clean skin if soiled again. 9. Apply 50/50 miconazole 2% antifungal powder and stoma powder to the moist red skin directly around the stoma and to any rashes under the wafer. Rub in gently. Brush off extra powder. (It is okay if the powder gets on the stoma). 10. Repeat no sting barrier wipe, repeat powder. This is called the crusting technique. 11. Apply the prepared pouch to the skin by rubbing gently for 1 minute to create a seal. 12. Close the end of the pouch. 13. Remove the white tape tabs and smooth the borders down. It is okay if the tap is on the healed incision. 14. Apply barrier extenders, ½ on the skin and ½ on the wafer. 15. Empty pouch when 1/3 to ½ full of stool or gas. Okay to use wet wipes to clean the skin but must rinse the soap or cleanser out of the wipe. If you must use soap, rinse very well so the new pouch sticks. R2's July 2024, Treatment Administration Record (TAR) identified staff put in a corresponding treatment order to change the ostomy pouch 2x per week on Tuesdays and Fridays. The TAR noted the appliance was to be changed as well. Staff recorded they had changed the ostomy pouch and appliance per the physician order, however the appliance was not observed to be dated, causing it to be impossible to confirm that it had actually been changed. There was no evidence the appliance had not been changed as the complaint noted. Observation on 8/19/24 at 4:14 p.m., with licensed practical nurse (LPN)-A removed a bin from beneath a chair on the floor in R2's room. LPN-A then placed the bin on an over-bed table without disinfecting the over-bed table first. She washed her hands and reviewed the order. LPN-A ensured R2 was in a comfortable position and put on (donned) gloves and retrieved gauze and vinegar from the bin. She was unable to locate a scissor in the bin. At that time, R2 pulled a scissor out from between a stack of papers on his nightstand and gave them to LPN-A. LPN-A then proceeded to use the scissors to cut a section of gauze without disinfecting the scissors or retrieving a new clean scissors before continuing with the dressing change. LPN-A then poured the vinegar into a cup and soaked the sterile gauze. LPN-A removed the old appliance from R2 skin and discarded that in the garbage. R2's skin directly surrounding the stoma was open, red, and appeared moist. She then picked up a package of wipes from the floor under R2's bed and with those same gloves, opened the wipes and cleansed the skin directly around the ostomy with her contaminated gloves. She placed the soaked gauze on the skin around the stoma. LPN-A then began preparing the new appliance. While LPN-A was preparing the new appliance, R2 removed the acidic acid-soaked gauze from the stoma with his bare hands (it had been on the stoma approximately 3 minutes vs the ordered 10 minutes). The stoma started leaking at that time. With his bare hands, R2 used the soaked gauze to clean the area. LPN-A turned around after approximately 4 minutes and assisted R2 with cleaning the area around the stoma with a wipe. LPN-A wiped the area around the stoma with a water-soaked piece of gauze, then applied the adhesive ring around the stoma. With her contaminated gloves, she then placed the sterile appliance on R2's skin. She attempted to attach the pouch to the appliance, however she noted it was the incorrect size. She turned away from R2 again to find the correct pouch. The stoma was leaking during this time, R2 was observed using his bare fingers to wipe the leakage from his abdomen. Several minutes later the nurse found the correct pouch and applied it to the appliance without first re-cleansing the site. She disposed of the soiled wipes, removed her contaminated gloves, and washed her hands. She assisted R2 to change the clothing that had been soiled from the leakage, removed the garbage, and left the room. Interview on 8/20/24 at 4:00 p.m., with LPN-A identified that she did not follow the physician order and she was concerned when she realized the bin of supplies was on the floor. She agreed that she should not have used the wipes that had been laying on the floor under R2's bed and she also agreed that the physician order specifically said to rinse the detergent from the wipe before using it on the skin. She agreed she should have changed gloves between clean and dirty tasks, should not have used an unclean scissor to cut the gauze, had not ensured the vinegar soak was in place for 10 minutes, and agreed she failed to follow physician's orders to use the no-sting barrier wipe and 50/50 miconazole 2% antifungal powder and stoma powder to the moist red skin directly around the stoma as the physician directed. In regard to the appliance not having been changed (per the complaint) LPN-A stated appliances were changed and signed off by staff as having been performed. LPN-A did state it would be hard to identify if the appliances had been changed as no date as ever marked on the appliance itself to notify staff it had been changed. Interview on 8/20/24 at 12:49 p.m., with the director of nursing (DON) identified that she would expect nursing to follow the physician orders and perform appropriate infection control technique during dressing changes. She would have expected R2's ostomy supplies to be kept in a bin up in the closet in R2's room and she would not expect wipes to be stored on the floor. She identified that using a scissor for a ostomy change that may have been used by the resident for personal use was an infection control concern and would have expect the nurse to retrieve a clean scissor for the treatment. She agreed R2 had increased risk for complications due to improper infection control technique used during wound care. She noted she had not completed any training, competencies, or audits on staff to ensure nursing staff was competent with ostomy appliance changes. She also agreed not dating the appliance itself would put residents at increased risk as the TAR order did not have a specific mention for the appliance change on its own. Interview on 8/21/24 at 9:57 a.m., with nurse practitioner (NP)-A identified R2 had expressed to her that his appliance was not being changed regularly. R2's skin around their ostomy had broken down and this could be caused by not following the order correctly, not using appropriate infection control practices, or not changing the appliance often enough. Not following the treatment could potentially lead to infection and/or cause the ostomy appliance to no longer adhere to the skin making it impossible to attach a pouch to protect the surrounding skin from fecal drainage. Review of the 5/15/22, Ostomy/Ileostomy policy identified all residents with an ostomy/ileostomy pouch have the right to proper cleaning and changing of the pouch and cleaning of the stoma along with ensuring that the pouch is emptied to prevent leakage. If the resident experiences skin breakdown or other concerns the nurse should consult a wound care specialist for guidance.
CONCERN (D) 📢 Someone Reported This

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

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

Infection Control (Tag F0880)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on observation, interview, and document review, the facility failed to follow appropriate infection control technique and ensure appropriate storage of dressing materials during 1 of 1 dressing ...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, interview, and document review, the facility failed to follow appropriate infection control technique and ensure appropriate storage of dressing materials during 1 of 1 dressing change for 1 of 1 resident (R2) and care of an ostomy (opening in skin where intestines empty directly into a bag). Findings include: Review of the 7/31/24, State Agency (SA) report identified R2 had not had his ostomy bags changed for 21 days. R2 was reported to have had significant skin damage and feces on R2's abdominal area. R2's 7/9/24, annual Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment identified R1's cognition was moderately impaired, he had a diagnosis of colostomy (an opening for the colon through the abdomen). R2 was independent with transfers, he required extensive assist from one staff with lower body dressing, and independent after set up with hygiene. Observation and interview on 8/19/24 at 1:58 p.m., with R2 identified he was well kempt, had a understanding of his treatment, and was able to articulate a general summary of the ostomy orders and how his skin had been damaged, and was found to be an accurate historian. He identified his ostomy appliance does not get changed often enough. When that happens, it starts to leak and the drainage from the stoma sits on the skin and gets sore. Last month the skin around his stoma was pretty bad. He recalled waiting up to a month between appliance changes. It caused the skin around the stoma to break down. It really stung, burned, and itched . It has been better lately since the wound care nurse changed the order to 3 times weekly. They still do not change it 3 times a week . they [staff]maybe change it once a week. R2 lifted his shirt to show the ostomy during the interview. The ostomy appliance in place was not dated and had several pieces of surgical tape around the edges. The adhesive edging of the appliance appeared to be lifting and no longer adhering to the skin. R2 identified it had been put on last week on Thursday around 1:30 a.m. R2's current, undated care plan identified he had an ostomy bag to his right lower right abdominal quadrant. Nursing staff were to monitor R2 for signs or symptoms of red irritated skin around the ostomy site. Nursing was to encourage and monitor him while he changed his ostomy bag, but staff were responsible for changing the appliance that attached to his abdominal wall. R2 preferred to have his ostomy bag changed on shower days. Other days staff were to assist R2 with his ostomy change, .therefore be on Tuesdays and Saturday. There was no mention of when staff were to replace the appliance connected to R2's abdomen. Review of R2's current physician (MD) order for ileostomy Bag identified the appliance was to be changed 3 times a week on Mondays, Wednesdays, and Fridays following these steps: 1. Use the adhesive remover spray to decrease pain with removal. 2. Clean skin with plain water. 3. Apply acetic acid 0.25% moistened gauze to the red skin as a compress with each pouch change. 4. Leave the compress on the skin for 10 minutes while you are gathering supplies. 5. Prepare the new pouch before you take off the old pouch. 6. Remove back of wafer, completely unwrap paste ring and stretch it to fit around the opening. Fold the white tape tabs and set aside. 7. Remove the compresses and dab skin dry. 8. Re-clean skin if soiled again. 9. Apply 50/50 miconazole 2% antifungal powder and stoma powder to the moist red skin directly around the stoma and to any rashes under the wafer. Rub in gently. Brush off extra powder. (It is okay if the powder gets on the stoma). 10. Repeat no sting barrier wipe, repeat powder. This is called the crusting technique. 11. Apply the prepared pouch to the skin by rubbing gently for 1 minute to create a seal. 12. Close the end of the pouch. 13. Remove the white tape tabs and smooth the borders down. It is okay if the tap is on the healed incision. 14. Apply barrier extenders, ½ on the skin and ½ on the wafer. 15. Empty pouch when 1/3 to ½ full of stool or gas. Okay to use wet wipes to clean the skin but must rinse the soap or cleanser out of the wipe. If you must use soap, rinse very well so the new pouch sticks. R2's July 2024, Treatment Administration Record (TAR) identified staff put in a corresponding treatment order to change the ostomy pouch 2x per week on Tuesdays and Fridays. The TAR noted the appliance was to be changed as well. Staff recorded they had changed the ostomy pouch and appliance per the physician order, however the appliance was not observed to be dated, causing it to be impossible to confirm that it had actually been changed. There was no evidence the appliance had not been changed as the complaint noted. Observation on 8/19/24 at 4:14 p.m., with licensed practical nurse (LPN)-A removed a bin from beneath a chair on the floor in R2's room. LPN-A then placed the bin on an over-bed table without disinfecting the over-bed table first. She washed her hands and reviewed the order. LPN-A ensured R2 was in a comfortable position and put on (donned) gloves and retrieved gauze and vinegar from the bin. She was unable to locate a scissor in the bin. At that time, R2 pulled a scissor out from between a stack of papers on his nightstand and gave them to LPN-A. LPN-A then proceeded to use the scissors to cut a section of gauze without disinfecting the scissors or retrieving a new clean scissors before continuing with the dressing change. LPN-A then poured the vinegar into a cup and soaked the sterile gauze. LPN-A removed the old appliance from R2 skin and discarded that in the garbage. R2's skin directly surrounding the stoma was open, red, and appeared moist. She then picked up a package of wipes from the floor under R2's bed and with those same gloves, opened the wipes and cleansed the skin directly around the ostomy with her contaminated gloves. She placed the soaked gauze on the skin around the stoma. LPN-A then began preparing the new appliance. While LPN-A was preparing the new appliance, R2 removed the acidic acid-soaked gauze from the stoma with his bare hands (it had been on the stoma approximately 3 minutes vs the ordered 10 minutes). The stoma started leaking at that time. With his bare hands, R2 used the soaked gauze to clean the area. LPN-A turned around after approximately 4 minutes and assisted R2 with cleaning the area around the stoma with a wipe. LPN-A wiped the area around the stoma with a water-soaked piece of gauze, then applied the adhesive ring around the stoma. With her contaminated gloves, she then placed the sterile appliance on R2's skin. She attempted to attach the pouch to the appliance, however she noted it was the incorrect size. She turned away from R2 again to find the correct pouch. The stoma was leaking during this time, R2 was observed using his bare fingers to wipe the leakage from his abdomen. Several minutes later the nurse found the correct pouch and applied it to the appliance without first re-cleansing the site. She disposed of the soiled wipes, removed her contaminated gloves, and washed her hands. She assisted R2 to change the clothing that had been soiled from the leakage, removed the garbage, and left the room. Interview on 8/20/24 at 4:00 p.m., with LPN-A identified that she did not follow the physician order and she was concerned when she realized the bin of supplies was on the floor. She agreed that she should not have used the wipes that had been laying on the floor under R2's bed and she also agreed that the physician order specifically said to rinse the detergent from the wipe before using it on the skin. She agreed she should have changed gloves between clean and dirty tasks, should not have used an unclean scissor to cut the gauze, and should have ensured staff had not stored supplies on a bin on the floor. Interview on 8/20/24 at 12:49 p.m., with the director of nursing (DON) identified that she would expect nursing to follow the physician orders and perform appropriate infection control technique during dressing changes. She would have expected R2's ostomy supplies to be kept in a bin up in the closet in R2's room and she would not expect wipes to be stored on the floor. She identified that using a scissor for a ostomy change that may have been used by the resident for personal use was an infection control concern and would have expect the nurse to retrieve a clean scissor for the treatment. She agreed R2 had increased risk for complications due to improper infection control technique used during wound care. She noted she had not completed any training, competencies, or audits on staff to ensure nursing staff was competent with ostomy appliance changes. Interview on 8/21/24 at 9:57 a.m., with nurse practitioner (NP)-A identified R2 had expressed to her that his appliance was not being changed regularly. R2's skin around their ostomy had broken down and this could be caused by not following the order correctly, not using appropriate infection control practices, or not changing the appliance often enough. Not following the treatment could potentially lead to infection and/or cause the ostomy appliance to no longer adhere to the skin making it impossible to attach a pouch to protect the surrounding skin from fecal drainage. Review of the 5/15/22, Ostomy/Ileostomy policy identified all residents with an ostomy/ileostomy pouch have the right to proper cleaning and changing of the pouch and cleaning of the stoma along with ensuring that the pouch is emptied to prevent leakage. If the resident experiences skin breakdown or other concerns the nurse should consult a wound care specialist for guidance. An infection control policy was requested and not provided by the end of the survey.
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

Deficiency F0726 (Tag F0726)

Could have caused harm · This affected most or all residents

Based on observation, interviews, and document review the facility failed to ensure 5 of 5 nursing staff registered nurses (RN)-A, RN-B, RN-C, RN-D, and 1 of 1 licensed practical nurse (LPN)-A were de...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, interviews, and document review the facility failed to ensure 5 of 5 nursing staff registered nurses (RN)-A, RN-B, RN-C, RN-D, and 1 of 1 licensed practical nurse (LPN)-A were deemed competent to provide ostomy care for 1 of 1 resident (R2) identified with an ostomy. Findings include: Review of the 7/31/24, State Agency (SA) report identified R2 had not had his ostomy bags changed for 21 days. R2 was reported to have had significant skin damage and feces on R2's abdominal area. R2's 7/9/24, annual Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment identified R1's cognition was moderately impaired, he had a diagnosis of colostomy (an opening for the colon through the abdomen). R2 was independent with transfers, he required extensive assist from one staff with lower body dressing, and independent after set up with hygiene. Observation and interview on 8/19/24 at 1:58 p.m., with R2 identified he was well kempt, had a understanding of his treatment, and was able to articulate a general summary of the ostomy orders and how his skin had been damaged, and was found to be an accurate historian. He identified his ostomy appliance does not get changed often enough. When that happens, it starts to leak and the drainage from the stoma sits on the skin and gets sore. Last month the skin around his stoma was pretty bad. He recalled waiting up to a month between appliance changes. It caused the skin around the stoma to break down. It really stung, burned, and itched . It has been better lately since the wound care nurse changed the order to 3 times weekly. They still do not change it 3 times a week . they [staff]maybe change it once a week. R2 lifted his shirt to show the ostomy during the interview. The ostomy appliance in place was not dated and had several pieces of surgical tape around the edges. The adhesive edging of the appliance appeared to be lifting and no longer adhering to the skin. R2 identified it had been put on last week on Thursday around 1:30 a.m. R2's current, undated care plan identified he had an ostomy bag to his right lower right abdominal quadrant. Nursing staff were to monitor R2 for signs or symptoms of red irritated skin around the ostomy site. Nursing was to encourage and monitor him while he changed his ostomy bag, but staff were responsible for changing the appliance that attached to his abdominal wall. R2 preferred to have his ostomy bag changed on shower days. Other days staff were to assist R2 with his ostomy change, .therefore be on Tuesdays and Saturday. There was no mention of when staff were to replace the appliance connected to R2's abdomen. Review of R2's current physician (MD) order for ileostomy Bag identified the appliance was to be changed 3 times a week on Mondays, Wednesdays, and Fridays following these steps: 1. Use the adhesive remover spray to decrease pain with removal. 2. Clean skin with plain water. 3. Apply acetic acid 0.25% moistened gauze to the red skin as a compress with each pouch change. 4. Leave the compress on the skin for 10 minutes while you are gathering supplies. 5. Prepare the new pouch before you take off the old pouch. 6. Remove back of wafer, completely unwrap paste ring and stretch it to fit around the opening. Fold the white tape tabs and set aside. 7. Remove the compresses and dab skin dry. 8. Re-clean skin if soiled again. 9. Apply 50/50 miconazole 2% antifungal powder and stoma powder to the moist red skin directly around the stoma and to any rashes under the wafer. Rub in gently. Brush off extra powder. (It is okay if the powder gets on the stoma). 10. Repeat no sting barrier wipe, repeat powder. This is called the crusting technique. 11. Apply the prepared pouch to the skin by rubbing gently for 1 minute to create a seal. 12. Close the end of the pouch. 13. Remove the white tape tabs and smooth the borders down. It is okay if the tap is on the healed incision. 14. Apply barrier extenders, ½ on the skin and ½ on the wafer. 15. Empty pouch when 1/3 to ½ full of stool or gas. Okay to use wet wipes to clean the skin but must rinse the soap or cleanser out of the wipe. If you must use soap, rinse very well so the new pouch sticks. R2's July 2024, Treatment Administration Record (TAR) identified staff put in a corresponding treatment order to change the ostomy pouch 2x per week on Tuesdays and Fridays. The TAR noted the appliance was to be changed as well. Staff recorded they had changed the ostomy pouch and appliance per the physician order, however the appliance was not observed to be dated, causing it to be impossible to confirm that it had actually been changed. There was no evidence the appliance had not been changed as the complaint noted. Observation on 8/19/24 at 4:14 p.m., with licensed practical nurse (LPN)-A removed a bin from beneath a chair on the floor in R2's room. LPN-A then placed the bin on an over-bed table without disinfecting the over-bed table first. She washed her hands and reviewed the order. LPN-A ensured R2 was in a comfortable position and put on (donned) gloves and retrieved gauze and vinegar from the bin. She was unable to locate a scissor in the bin. At that time, R2 pulled a scissor out from between a stack of papers on his nightstand and gave them to LPN-A. LPN-A then proceeded to use the scissors to cut a section of gauze without disinfecting the scissors or retrieving a new clean scissors before continuing with the dressing change. LPN-A then poured the vinegar into a cup and soaked the sterile gauze. LPN-A removed the old appliance from R2 skin and discarded that in the garbage. R2's skin directly surrounding the stoma was open, red, and appeared moist. She then picked up a package of wipes from the floor under R2's bed and with those same gloves, opened the wipes and cleansed the skin directly around the ostomy with her contaminated gloves. She placed the soaked gauze on the skin around the stoma. LPN-A then began preparing the new appliance. While LPN-A was preparing the new appliance, R2 removed the acidic acid-soaked gauze from the stoma with his bare hands (it had been on the stoma approximately 3 minutes vs the ordered 10 minutes). The stoma started leaking at that time. With his bare hands, R2 used the soaked gauze to clean the area. LPN-A turned around after approximately 4 minutes and assisted R2 with cleaning the area around the stoma with a wipe. LPN-A wiped the area around the stoma with a water-soaked piece of gauze, then applied the adhesive ring around the stoma. With her contaminated gloves, she then placed the sterile appliance on R2's skin. She attempted to attach the pouch to the appliance, however she noted it was the incorrect size. She turned away from R2 again to find the correct pouch. The stoma was leaking during this time, R2 was observed using his bare fingers to wipe the leakage from his abdomen. Several minutes later the nurse found the correct pouch and applied it to the appliance without first re-cleansing the site. She disposed of the soiled wipes, removed her contaminated gloves, and washed her hands. She assisted R2 to change the clothing that had been soiled from the leakage, removed the garbage, and left the room. Interview on 8/20/24 at 4:00 p.m., with LPN-A identified that she did not follow the physician order and she was concerned when she realized the bin of supplies was on the floor. She agreed that she should not have used the wipes that had been laying on the floor under R2's bed and she also agreed that the physician order specifically said to rinse the detergent from the wipe before using it on the skin. She agreed she should have changed gloves between clean and dirty tasks, should not have used an unclean scissor to cut the gauze, had not ensured the vinegar soak was in place for 10 minutes, and agreed she failed to follow physician's orders to use the no-sting barrier wipe and 50/50 miconazole 2% antifungal powder and stoma powder to the moist red skin directly around the stoma as the physician directed. In regard to the appliance not having been changed (per the complaint) LPN-A stated appliances were changed and signed off by staff as having been performed. LPN-A did state it would be hard to identify if the appliances had been changed as no date as ever marked on the appliance itself to notify staff it had been changed. Interview on 8/20/24 at 12:49 p.m., with the director of nursing (DON) identified that she would expect nursing to follow the physician orders and perform appropriate infection control technique during dressing changes. She would have expected R2's ostomy supplies to be kept in a bin up in the closet in R2's room and she would not expect wipes to be stored on the floor. She identified that using a scissor for a ostomy change that may have been used by the resident for personal use was an infection control concern and would have expect the nurse to retrieve a clean scissor for the treatment. She agreed R2 had increased risk for complications due to improper infection control technique used during wound care. She noted she had not completed any training, competencies, or audits on staff to ensure nursing staff was competent with ostomy appliance changes. She also agreed not dating the appliance itself would put residents at increased risk as the TAR order did not have a specific mention for the appliance change on its own. Interview on 8/21/24 at 9:57 a.m., with nurse practitioner (NP)-A identified R2 had expressed to her that his appliance was not being changed regularly. R2's skin around their ostomy had broken down and this could be caused by not following the order correctly, not using appropriate infection control practices, or not changing the appliance often enough. Not following the treatment could potentially lead to infection and/or cause the ostomy appliance to no longer adhere to the skin making it impossible to attach a pouch to protect the surrounding skin from fecal drainage. There was no policy related to staff competencies provided by the end of the survey.
May 2024 5 deficiencies
CONCERN (D)

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

Pressure Ulcer Prevention (Tag F0686)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

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

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, monitor and document pressure injuries weekly for 1 of 2 residents (R14) identified with pressure-induced deep tissue damage (DTPI) (A serious type of pressure injury that occurs when soft tissue is compressed between a bony prominence and an external surface for a long time. DTPI can be invisible for up to 48 hours before rapidly progressing to full-thickness skin and soft tissue loss). Findings include: Review of the documentation included on weekly bath/skin assessments, progress notes, and treatment records identified inconsistent assessment, monitoring and documentation of R14's wounds. The facility failed to follow the policy for assessment and documentation on a weekly basis 14 of 25 weeks from his admission on [DATE] through May 19, 2024. Documentation failed to consistently include date of observation, location, measurements of length x width x depth, appearance, any discharge, surrounding tissue appearance and if pain was present. R14's 2/15/24, significant change Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment identified intact cognition, and required assistance for most activities of daily living (ADLs). R14 had an indwelling Foley catheter to promote wound healing and was incontinent of BMs. R14's skin section identified he had 1 stage 2 pressure ulcer (PU) and 2 unstageable ulcers that were present on admission. R14's face sheet , included 11/17/23, identified primary diagnoses of pressure induced deep tissue damage of buttocks, high blood pressure, renal insufficiency, arthritis, anxiety disorder, and depression, R14's current 2/26/24, care plan identified he was admitted with wound care orders for treatment to his scrotum and pressure ulcers (PU) to his buttocks. Staff were to provide assistance to reposition frequently (every 2-3 hours) throughout the shift. Pain medication was to be administered as needed for wound care/discomfort and he was identified as at risk of further skin breakdown. R14's heels were to be floated with a pillow when in bed for pressure relief, but there was no identification of weekly assessment, monitoring, and documentation of R14's identified pressure wounds. Over the course of 25 weeks (admission [DATE] to 5/21/24), according to wound data collection documents provided by the director of nursing (DON), R14's PU were treated by a nurse or provider and 14/25 weeks lacked a comprehensive assessment to include measurements, wound characteristics and staging. R14's 12/23/23, physician orders identified Arginade (supplement to promote wound healing) 1 packet daily. 4/3/24, Paint the abrasion on side of left foot with Betadine daily. 4/23/24, AFO boot at all times to left foot. 12/25/23, Boost nutritional supplement daily. 4/3/24, wound care orders identified - left heel-cleanse, pat dry, calcium alginate AG to wound bed, cover with foam dressing and change every 3rd day. 4/23/24- 1.) Left hip-clean with acetic acid, pat dry, calcium alginate AG cut 4x4 sheet in half, lay into wound bed and tuck into undermining. Fill in the rest of the space with kerlix and cover with foam dressing or ABD. change daily. 2.) Right hip- cleanse area, pat dry, apply non-sting skin prep over entire area including wound bed, fan dry two times daily (BID). 3/20/24- Left lateral foot-half moon abrasion-paint area with Betadine daily and protect feet when using chair. Observation on 5/20/24 at 3:04 p.m., as licensed practical nurse (LPN)- A performed dressing changes to R14's wounds: 1.) Right buttock -1.5 centimeters (cm) depth (D) x 2.0 cm width (W) x 4.0 cm length (L). The wound bed was bright red, with purple discoloration surrounding the wound and small amount of sanguineous drainage was noted from the base of the wound, which LPN-A reported occurred when R14 moved in his wheelchair. 2.) Left buttock extending from the area of the hip bone to the scrotal area. There were three distinct areas of the buttock wound. The upper most portion of the wound was round and had tunneling (opening underneath the surface of the skin) 3.5 cm (tunneling) x 2.5 cm(D), x 3.0 cm (W). The wound bed appeared red with the wound edges curled. The lower area- extended to the scrotum and measured 14.0 cm (L) x 3.0 cm (W) at the center area and 1.5 cm (W), at the bottom of that area The base of the wound extended to the scrotal area and was 2.0 cm (W) at that area. 3.) Left heel - LPN-A reported the area was mushy on the medial aspect and firmer toward the lateral aspect. There was dark red/purple discoloration surrounding the base of the heel. The heel pad had a white yellow appearance which measured 7.0 cm (L) x 1.5 (W) with one area measuring 4.0 cm (W) at the widest point. A small open area that had serosanguinous drainage measured .5 cm (D) x 2.0 cm (W) x 1.0 cm (L). Interview on 5/20/24 at 3:30 p.m., with R14 reported he initially needed pain medication prior to the dressing changes and had some discomfort with dressing changes on the buttock wounds, but none with his heel wound. He reported he didn't need to have pain medication before the dressing changes most of the time, but it was provided if he needed it. He reported staff came and performed his dressing changes and the wound nurse came at times, but he was not aware of the wounds being measured but was told they were getting better. Interview on 5/20/24 at 9:16 a.m., registered nurse (RN)- B reported R14's wound dressings were to be changed daily and as needed according to the signed physician orders. She reported measurements were to be completed weekly with dressing changes, and documented, but she was not aware of why documentation was not consistent on the medical record. She reported the wound nurse practionier (NP) came and assessed R14's wounds, and documented on her notes, but she did not visit and assess them weekly. Interview on 5/20/24 at 10:13 a.m., with RN-A reported wounds were supposed to be assessed and monitored including measurements weekly. Upon review of R14's medical record she reported measurements of R14's wounds had not been recorded since 3/18/24. She provided the treatment record showing the treatments had completed, but there was no documented assessments or measurements according to the facility policy. Interview on 5/20/24 at 3:56 p.m., with the DON reported skin assessments were to be completed weekly and were to include wound measurements. assessment, any drainage and treatment that was provided. She reported she was not aware complete wound assessments were not being completed and documented weekly according to the facility policy. The facility Skin Issue/Wounds policy dated 5/1/24, identified all skin issues/wounds were to be identified and treated appropriately. Wounds were to be added into Wound Management on Matrix (a cloud based Electronic Medical Record (EMR) software). Licensed nurses were to measure wounds/skin areas weekly and document progression and treatments in Wound Management in Matrix and in the nurse's notes.
CONCERN (D)

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

Infection Control (Tag F0880)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on observation, interview, and document review, the facility failed to use appropriate infection control technique for 1 of 1 resident (R14) during the provision of personal care. Findings incl...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, interview, and document review, the facility failed to use appropriate infection control technique for 1 of 1 resident (R14) during the provision of personal care. Findings include: During observation on 5/19/24 a 2:03 p.m., nursing assistants (NA)- A and NA-D checked and changed R14 as they prepared to transfer him from his bed to his wheelchair. R14 was identified as on contact precautions due to his indwelling Foley catheter. Both NA's washed their hands and applied gowns and gloves, prior to beginning resident cares. R14 was assisted to turn from side to side as the old brief was removed and he was positioned on his back. NA-D wearing same gloves, obtained new wet wipes and cleansed R14's peri area and around the insertion site of the Foley catheter. R14 was then assisted to turn onto his right side, and NA-D used wipes to clean his buttocks and picked up a new disposable brief and positioned under him. Without changing her gloves NA-D picked up the urinary drainage bag and placed it on the bed, arranged the blankets, and picked up the lift sling and assisted to position under R14 as she and NA-A turned R14 back and forth to position the sling under him. NA-D arranged R14's gown over him and assisted to connect the sling to the mechanical lift using her same gloved hands. R14 was transferred from the bed into his electric wheelchair, with NA-D positioning the wheelchair, and sling to allow R14 to be lowered into the chair. NA-D then positioned R14's feet onto the wheelchair pedals, assisted to unhook the lift straps and tucked into chair beside R14. NA-D picked up a blanket and tucked around R14's lower body still wearing same gloves with which she had provided peri care to R14. NA-D then went over to the bed and removed the bedding placing it into a plastic bag and bagged the trash. She then removed her gloves and washed her hands before taking the trash and bedding to the bins located in the hall. NA-A reported she was going to wipe down the mechanical lift with Sani-cloth wipes which was the procedure after use. Interview on 5/20/24 at 1:30 p.m., with NA-D reported she should have changed her gloves following providing pericares, and she did not realize she had not done so until questioned. When it was identified she had touched multiple items on both resident and in the room without changing her gloves she reported she should have changed her gloves immediately after providing personal cares. Interview on 5/21/24 at 11:55 a.m. with the director of nursing (DON) identified her expectation for all staff was to perform hand hygiene according to infection control policies and procedures. DON reported she expected staff to perform glove changes and hand hygiene between clean and dirty areas when performing personal cares and especially after performing pericares. The DON identified all staff had received education annually on infection control measures, which she expected them to follow. The facility Hand Washing policy dated 10/07/20, identified guidelines for employees to perform appropriate hand hygiene procedures and applied to all staff. hand washing was to be performed: 1.) When hands were soiled, 2.) After prolonged contact with a resident, 3.) After contact with bare human body parts, blood, body fluids, secretions, excretions, mucous membranes, or broken skin. 4.) After handling items potentially contaminated with a resident's blood, body fluids, excretions, or secretions. 5.) Whenever in doubt of hand cleanliness or after engaging other activities that contaminate hands.
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0883 (Tag F0883)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview and document review, the facility failed to ensure 1 of 5 residents (R128) were offered pneumococcal PCV-15 o...

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 1 of 5 residents (R128) were offered pneumococcal PCV-15 or PCV-20 vaccination or declination form, per Centers for Disease Control (CDC) recommendations, reviewed for vaccinations. Findings include: A CDC Pneumococcal Vaccine Timing for Adults feature, dated 3/2023, identified various tables when each (or all) of the pneumococcal vaccinations should be obtained. This identified when an adult over [AGE] years old had received the complete series (i.e., PPSV23 and PCV13; see below) then the patient and provider may choose to administer Pneumococcal 20-valent Conjugate Vaccine (PCV20) for patients who had received Pneumococcal 13-valent Conjugate Vaccine (PCV13) at any age and Pneumococcal Polysaccharide Vaccine 23 (PPSV23) at or after [AGE] years old. R128's, 5/14/24 admission Minimal Data Set (MDS) identified R128 was [AGE] years old. R128's MDS under Section O- Special Treatments and Programs indicated his pneumococcal vaccinations were not up to date. The MatrixCare (online electronic health record) lacked documentation to support if R128 had been offered or declined the PCV-15 or PCV-20 to ensure he was up to date the current CDC guidelines. Interview on 5/20/24 at 1:53 p.m., with registered nurse (RN)-A stated that facility had not started the process of obtaining facility wide consents for PCV 15 or PCV-20 vaccinations. She stated R128 had refused vaccinations but could not provide documentation to support R128's declination of the PCV-15 or PCV-20 vaccines. Interview on 5/20/24 at 2:02 p.m., with the director of nursing (DON) stated the facility would collaborate with the local pharmacy to facilitate PCV-15 or PCV-20 vaccines at the facility for resident who would want the vaccine. She stated her expectations would be for all residents to be offered the vaccine and for the facility to comply with the Center of Disease Control (CDC) for vaccinations. The facility Pneumococcal and Prevnar 20 vaccinations policy and procedure dated 5/01/24, identified the facility would assess residents' immunization status upon admit. The facility would provide education for the vaccines and would vaccinate residents unless there was medical contraindication for the vaccine, refusal of vaccine or the resident received it outside of the facility. Lastly, the facility would document refusals on the Matrix (online) electronic medical record.
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 1 of 1 dietary personnel (cook (C)-A) followed appropriate infection control technique while preparing and serving f...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, interview, and document review, the facility failed to ensure 1 of 1 dietary personnel (cook (C)-A) followed appropriate infection control technique while preparing and serving food during 1 of 1 meal service observations. This had the potential to affect all 24 residents who were served food from the kitchen. Findings include: During observation on 5/19/24 beginning at 12:26 p.m. through 12:46 p.m., as C-A was serving the noon meal of pork roast, mashed potatoes with gravy, stewed tomatoes, dinner roll and apple pie. C-A applied gloves and dished food onto plates, then used her left gloved hand to pick up a dinner roll from the tray, tear it open and while holding with her left hand picked up a knife and applied butter to the roll. C-A then placed roll onto the plate of food. This process continued as she prepared several plates and placed covers over the food for delivery to residents in their rooms. At 12:30 p.m. C-A prepared a plate of food, added the buttered dinner roll, walked over to the side counter where she picked up a glass, picked up a gallon jug of milk, opened and poured a glass, and returned to the steam table to pick up the prepared plate, and carried it and the glass of milk to a resident seated in the dining room. C-A placed the plate and milk on the table, then placed her left hand on resident's shoulder and right hand on the table as she leaned and spoke with the resident and then returned to the kitchen. At 12:31 p.m. C-A wearing the same unchanged gloved, returned to the steam table, where she prepared another plate of food, picked up a bottle of ketchup, opened the top and squirted ketchup onto the meat, and returned the bottle to the side tray, picked up the plate of food and delivered to another resident in the dining room. Upon returning to the kitchen, no glove change or hand hygiene was performed, went to the steam table, and picked up a tongs used for the meat, which was dropped, she then went to the side kitchen counter, opened a drawer with her gloved hand and retrieved a new set of tongs, and returned to the steam table, where she continued dishing plates of food, picking up buns with her gloved hands, tearing open and buttering and then placing on the plate of food., then took the plate of food into the dining room and served to a resident. She continued this process with no glove changes, or hand hygiene. At 12:40 p.m. the dietary manager (DM) arrived and began taking plates of food from C-A to serve to residents in the dining room. At 12:38 p.m. the DM mentioned residents had not received their pie, and C-A turned from the steam table, walked across the kitchen to open a cabinet, and retrieve a tray, placed plated pieces of pie onto the tray and took into the dining room to serve to the residents. She returned to the kitchen placed more plates of pie on the tray and served to residents in the dining room. and was observed pushing up her glasses with her gloved right hand. She finished serving the pie to the residents and at 12:45 p.m. C-A returned to the kitchen, removed her gloves, and stated she was out of silverware and needed to wash some before dishing another room tray. C-A proceeded to rinse dishes and place onto the dishwasher rack with her ungloved hands, placed into the dishwasher, washed her hands, and applied new gloves. She then returned to the steam table where she dished a plate of food, picked up the ketchup bottle with her gloved hands, opened it and squeezed ketchup onto the meat. She then covered the plate with a piece of foil and covered. C-A using same gloved hands poured juice and milk into glasses and opened chest cooler to place tray inside. She then went to cabinet, opened with gloved hands, retrieved glass covers and returned to cooler to place on glasses on tray. C-A then removed her gloves and stated she was finished serving the noon meal. Interview on 5/20/24 at 12:59 p.m., with food service manager identified C -A was aware that gloves or utensils should be used when handling food for consumption. She confirmed staff should never be touching resident food and it was her expectation that staff either used gloves or utensils during preparation of a meal plate. She further reported that if the cook served a meal to a resident, they needed to change their gloves prior to resuming serving food. Interview on 5/21/24 at 10:30 a.m., with the administrator reported her expectation that infection control procedures were followed for preparing and serving of food to residents. The facility Hand Washing policy dated 10/07/20, identified hand washing as a critical element for infection prevention. Hand washing was to be performed after handling soiled equipment or utensils, after food preparations, as often as necessary to remove soil or contamination and to prevent cross-contamination of tasks. A specific policy for hand hygiene in the dietary department was requested but not provided.
CONCERN (F)

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

Staffing Data (Tag F0851)

Could have caused harm · This affected most or all residents

Based on interview and document review, the facility failed to submit accurate and/or complete data for staffing information, including information for agency licensed nursing staff, based on payroll ...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on interview and document review, the facility failed to submit accurate and/or complete data for staffing information, including information for agency licensed nursing staff, based on payroll and other verifiable and auditable data during 1 of 1 quarter reviewed - Quarter 1, 2024, (October 1 - December 1), to the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS), according to specifications established by CMS. Findings include: The CMS payroll-based journal (PBJ) staffing data report indicated the following infraction dates: Failed to have licensed nursing coverage 24 hours/day on the following dates: 10/1/23, 10/3/24, 10/7/23, 10/8/23, 10/21/23, 11/4/23, 11/26/23, 12/17/23, 12/21/23. During an interview on 5/20/24 at 9:16 a.m., staffing coordinator (SC)-D, stated she was responsible for creating nursing staff schedules, and stated there were licensed nursing staff scheduled each shift (days, evenings, and nights), every day. Utilizing nursing staff schedules from 2023, and for each infraction date, SC-D identified a licensed nurse by name and title, and whether the licensed nurse was employed by the facility or was agency staff. For a total of 27 possible shifts for the nine infraction dates, an agency nurse was scheduled 18 shifts and an employed nurse was scheduled nine shifts. During an interview on 5/20/24 at 10:20 a.m., administrative assistant (AD)-C stated she was responsible for submitting PBJ data to CMS. Timecard and agency billing information was requested for each of the licensed nursing staff identified by SC-D as being scheduled on the infraction dates. Review of the documentation verified each of the licensed nursing staff worked on the dates they were scheduled. During an interview on 5/20/24 at 12:23 p.m., with the administrator and AD-C, AD-C explained she was accustomed to taking PBJ data provided by agencies and inserting that data into the PBJ report, but now realized that data was not always accurate. Going forward, AD-C stated she would ensure accuracy by entering the data herself and utilizing staff schedules and agency information for further verification of accuracy. The facility Payroll Based Journal Submission policy dated 12/1/17, indicate the system [PBJ] was auditable to ensure accuracy. Agency staff and contracted staff hours were manually entered in to PBJ. If agency staff hours were available in a generated XML zip file that is compatible for upload and submission into PBJ, hours will then be tracked that way.
Jul 2023 9 deficiencies
CONCERN (D)

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

Comprehensive Care Plan (Tag F0656)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

R20's face sheet, printed on 7/19/23, indicated diagnoses to include, congestive heart failure (CHF), lymphedema (swelling/fluid retention of lymphatic vessels), xerosis cutis (dry, scaling, cracked s...

Read full inspector narrative →
R20's face sheet, printed on 7/19/23, indicated diagnoses to include, congestive heart failure (CHF), lymphedema (swelling/fluid retention of lymphatic vessels), xerosis cutis (dry, scaling, cracked skin), morbid obesity, and type 2 diabetes mellitus (Type 2 DM- abnormal blood sugar disorder), R20's admission MDS assessment, dated 5/17/23, indicated R20 had intact cognition, required extensive assist of 2 staff for transfers, extensive assist of 1 staff for hygiene and locomotion on/off unit, and limited assist of 1 staff for dressing. R20's physician order report, printed on 7/19/23, indicated start date orders for PT/OT to evaluate and treat on 5/10/23, administering furosemide (diuretic medication) 60mg daily for CHF on 5/10/23, monitoring of daily weights on 5/17/23, and applying compression wraps to legs for lymphedema on 5/25/23. R20's admission skin assessment, dated 5/10/23, indicated moderate to severe swelling to BLEs. Provider's visit note, dated 5/16/23, indicated R20 was evaluated for new admission visit/new admission to facility, had diagnosis including lymphedema and plan to initiate lymphedema therapy. During an observation and interview, on 7/17/23 at 1:44 p.m., R20 was observed sitting in recliner chair in room watching TV, bilateral lower extremities (BLEs) had blisters present to skin of upper inner thighs, ace bandages securely wrapped from bilateral knee extending down towards foot. R20's BLEs observed as very edematous (swollen), bilateral foot was covered by gripper socks, resting on floor. R20 indicated was admitted to facility approximately 2 months ago following hospitalization for respiratory infection and swelling to legs, came to facility for strengthening of BLEs and planned to return home after therapy goals met. R20 further indicated for edema to BLEs, staff were wrapping BLEs with ace wraps, administering a diuretic medication, and monitoring her weight daily. R20's care plan reviewed/revised on 5/24/23, failed to identify edema as a focus area. As a result, the care plan lacked interventions/tasks related to providing comprehensive care for management of edema and measures to take to reduce and/or maintain the edema. During an interview and observation, on 7/19/23 at 8:26 a.m., nursing assistant (NA)-C indicated awareness R20 had edema with blisters to BLEs, stated NAs were not responsible for R20's edema cares, only licensed nursing staff were to apply ace wraps to BLEs and administer fluid pill. NA-C indicated NAs provided lotion to R20's BLEs with routine cares. NA-C stated resident cares to be reviewed and/or provided per NAs could be found in the electronic medical record (EMR) system, MatrixCare, under the specific resident profile tab, approaches tab, care plan tab, and diagnosis tab. NA-C observed to review R20's profile tab, approaches tab, care plan tab, and diagnosis tab, stated edema was present under diagnosis tab for R20, confirmed R20 did not have any cares to be completed per NAs to manage edema. While interviewed, on 7/19/23 at 10:04 a.m., NA-F indicated awareness R20 had edema and blisters to BLEs since time of admission, unaware of any cares assigned to NAs to complete for R20's edema other than weighing R20 daily. NA-F reported awareness licensed nursing staff were applying ace wraps to R20's BLEs daily for edema, indicated when she worked, she would encourage R20 to elevate BLEs when in room sitting in recliner chair. During an interview, on 7/19/23 at 11:11 a.m., registered nurse (RN)-B, indicated was an agency nurse, today was first day working at facility. RN-B stated awareness of edema to R20's BLEs and blistering to bilateral inner thighs. RN-B indicated nursing management for R20's edema included application of ace wraps to BLEs, administration of diuretic medications, and monitoring weight daily. RN-B stated R20's medical information and cares to be completed were found in MatrixCare under orders, medication administration record (MAR), task administration record (TAR), and in care plan. RN-B indicated unawareness if cares to be completed for edema management were noted in R20's care plan, would need to check further into that. While interviewed, on 7/19/23 at 11:12 a.m., the director of nursing (DON) stated R20 had been admitted to facility on 5/10/23, following hospitalization for respiratory infection, lymphedema, and cellulitis. The DON indicated process for developing resident's care plan started at time of admission, charge nurse reviewed resident discharge paperwork received from previous entity and completed a head-to-toe nursing assessment upon resident arrival to facility. The DON stated charge nurse completed a 48-hour care plan, written in paper form, to include in care plan anything pertaining to physician admission orders received; diagnosis, medications, treatments, functional status, resident preferences, dietary orders, mood/behaviors, therapy services. The DON indicated once charge nurse completed 48-hour care plan, it was reviewed, revised as needed per the DON or MDS coordinator, the DON or MDS coordinator would input resident information into the EMR system to create resident's comprehensive care plan. The DON indicated the process for developing and implementing care plans had been challenging, confirmed resident care plans developed and initiated had many errors. The DON stated a charge nurse who had completed many of the residents' admission assessments and created the 48-hour care plans, had inaccurately assessed residents, and forgot to put pertinent resident information into the 48-hour care plans, created inaccuracies when completing comprehensive care plans, charge nurse no longer working at facility. Furthermore, the DON reported facility hired a new MDS coordinator a few months ago, MDS coordinator just recently completed MDS classes, MDS coordinator was still learning how to develop more personalized centered care plans for residents, resident care plans in place at time were not comprehensive and personalized as should be care planned for. The DON reviewed R20's care plan, verified based on R20's hospital discharge orders and medical diagnosis, R20's care plan should have included focus area and interventions for edema. The facility Care Planning Process policy dated 5/3/23, indicated: Purpose: to ensure a comprehensive approach to meeting the care needs of the resident. Procedure: 1. The facility will develop a comprehensive care plan for each resident that includes measurable goals and timetables to meet a resident's medical, nursing, mental and psychosocial needs that are identified in the comprehensive assessment and provider notes. 2. Care plans must be person centered and reflect the residents' goals and desired outcomes. A comprehensive plan must be: a. developed within 7 days after the completion of the comprehensive assessment. b. prepared by an interdisciplinary team, that includes the physician, a RN with the responsibility for the resident, and other appropriate staff in disciplines as determined by the resident's needs, and to the extent practical the participation of the resident and/or resident's legal representative and c. periodically reviewed and revised by a team of qualified persons after each assessment. 4. Resident goal set the expectations for the care and services the resident wishes to receive. Resident's preferences need to be addressed. The comprehensive care plan must list measurable objectives and timetables to meet the residents long and short-term goals for medical, nursing, mental, psychosocial needs that are identified in the comprehensive resident assessment, including any trauma. The comprehensive care plan must include the individual abuse prevention plan. 5. A comprehensive plan of care must be available used by all personnel involved in the care of the resident The facility Edema and Weight Monitoring policy reviewed 2/3/20, consisted of, to ensure residents with diagnosis that may cause edema is monitored and treated in a timely manner, responsibility of RN/licensed practical nurses (LPNs), DON, dietary. Purpose to assess residents for fluid retention, evaluate effect of diuretics, evaluate client adherence to prescribed medications, diet, and activity. Procedure included, address any changes needed in the care plan immediately. Based on observation, interview and document review the facility failed to ensure a comprehensive care plan was developed and maintained for 2 of 2 residents reviewed, (R3) who required assistance with activities of daily living (ADL) and incontinence of bowel and bladder, and (R20) with edema. Findings include: R3's admission Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated 6/2823, indicated R3 was cognitively intact, required 2 person physical assist with bed mobility, transfer, dressing, toilet use, and personal hygiene, utilized a wheelchair, occasionally incontinent of bowel and bladder, diagnoses included neurological conditions, heart failure, hypertension (high blood pressure), and long-term current use of anticoagulants (blood thinner). R3's document titled healthcare 48 hour resident care plan undated, identified alert/cognitively intact, glasses, own teeth-missing a lot, did not walk, assist x2 Hoyer, grooming total assist, physical therapy (PT), occupation therapy (OT), speech therapy (ST), transfers assist x2 mechanical lift, diet order 200 mg sodium restriction, 2000 ml fluid restriction, meal set up independent and assist, set up oral hygiene, continent bladder assist x2, toileting plan urine, bedpan, and was signed by registered nurse (RN)-A. R3's Care Area Assessment (CAA) dated 6/28/23, indicated R3 triggered for urinary incontinent due to needing assistance toileting and incontinence, contributing factors include the resident's recent hospitalization/weakness, co-morbidities, and baseline status of needing to use Hoyer lift for transfers, risk factors include skin break downs. The CAA further indicated will proceed to care plan to help prevent any further skin breakdown/moisture associated skin break down; and location of the information POC (point of care), nursing note. R3's CAA for ADL's triggered due to the resident needing assistance with mobility and balance, contributing factors R3 at baseline requires this assistance with mobility and balance, co-morbidities; risk factors include being at risk for skin breakdown and pressure injuries, will proceed to care plan to help prevent complications associated with needing staff assistance with mobility, transferring and balance. R3's care plan reviewed 7/3/23, indicated problem: urinary incontinence R3 experiences bladder incontinence and goal indicated R3 will maintain current level of bladder continence and will not have any further moisture, associated/incontinence associated skin breakdown through the next review, and approach indicated provide incontinence care after each incontinent episode. The care plan indicated R3 required ADL assistance and tasks should be broken down into subtasks, be allowed rest breaks to prevent fatigue, R3 will assist with ADL completion as best he can and staff will provide ADL assistance that R3 is not able to complete on his own, the approach indicated provide adequate rest periods between activities. The care plan lacked any interventions related to specific toileting needs, specific ADL care, lacked ADL care required for urinary incontinence, bowel incontinence, showering, and required assistance needed. CNA (certified nursing assistant) assignment sheet document dated 7/17/23, indicated R3: 2 assist with use of Hoyer, use a power wheelchair, daily weight. On 7/17/23 at 6:34 p.m nursing assistant (NA)-B stated she would toilet resident when he pushed his call light and stated R3 required assistance with toileting, and stated she was not sure how the resident toileted and used the CNA assignment sheet. On 7/17/23 at 7:17 p.m., licensed practical nurse (LPN)-A stated R3 required an assist of two with toileting, preferred to lay down in bed during urination, used the urinal, and used a bariatric sized bed pan with bowel movements. LPN-A confirmed the information was not on the care plan and expected the information to be available in the care plan. On 7/18/23 at 9:02 a.m., NA-B stated she was an agency staff, and used the care plan to know how a resident was toileted and specific information related to the residents need with ADL care. On 7/18/23 at 8:28 a.m., NA-C stated R3 required assistance with morning ADL cares and provided peri care, washed face and hands, and combed hair. NA-C stated R3 was occasionally incontinent of bowel and urine and required assist of two staff to assist with toileting, and resident was provided a urinal per request. On 7/18/23 at 8:57 a.m., the director of nursing (DON) stated the care plan was expected to indicate the cares the resident required for ADL care and toileting. The DON stated the staff used the care plan for resident interventions. On 7/18/23 at 3:19 p.m., registered nurse (RN)-A stated would expect the care plans to include specific information related to the residents and would expect how the resident toileted, assistive devices used for toileting, and showering included on the care plan. RN-A stated any nurse was responsible for adding information to the care plan. RN-A stated she completed R3's admission MDS assessments and added information to the care plan the CAA triggers. RN-A stated the information from R3's baseline care plan was expected to have been included on the comprehensive care plan. RN-A further stated she was new to the role.
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0688 (Tag F0688)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview and document review, the facility failed to provide exercises to maintain strength and mobility ...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview and document review, the facility failed to provide exercises to maintain strength and mobility for 1 of 3 residents (R14) reviewed for range of motion (ROM). Findings include: R14's quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE], indicated moderate cognitive impairment, no rejection of care, required one person physical assist with bed mobility, transfer, dressing, eating, personal hygiene; two person physical assist with toilet use; upper and lower extremity impairment on one side, used wheelchair; zero days when restorative programs was performed with passive/active range of motion; diagnoses included hemiplegia and hemiparesis (paralysis and weakness) of total body function on one side of the body, following cerebral infarction (stroke) affecting left dominant side. R14's care plan dated 4/24/23, indicated weakness to left upper extremity, staff will assist R14 to do his dowel exercises (exercises to improve arm movement and strength) after passive range of motion to left upper extremity 3 to 5 times a week; contractures of the lt (left) hand d/t (due to) CVA recommendation from restorative: please provide a 1 # dowel with 2# leg weight wrapped in middle, will need assistance placing hands on dowel, then will need hand over hand assist completing the exercise on net page 3 times weekly reps 10 times each. Restorative care program document dated 3/22/23, indicated R14 goals were maintain strength of LE (left extremities) and maintain transfers with 2WW (wheeled walker), recommendations included 3-5/week complete supine LE exercises sheet for exercises, 3-5x/week have R14 complete static standing 3-4x with 2WW and stance time varies to his tolerance, left side neglect will need verbal and tactile cues to complete. Restorative nursing progress notes documented indicated weekly written progress notes for R14 on 3/5/23, 3/12/23, 3/26/23, 4/2/23, 6/11/23. There was no weekly progress note documentation indicated for 5/14/23, 5/21/23, 5/28/23, 6/4/23, and the last weekly progress note was 6/11/23. R14's untitled document that staff used to document ROM indicated R14 received ROM exercises on 4/5/23, 4/9/23, and 6/10/23. On 7/17/23 at 4:35 p.m., R14 stated staff did not complete or assist with exercises related to range of motion, on the upper or lower body. On 7/18/23 at 8:31 a.m., nursing assistant (NA)-C stated R14 was expected to have exercises completed 3-5 times per week and was the responsibility of the bath aide. NA-C stated she was the bath aide and was responsible for resident's ROM and restorative cares; and further stated resident's ROM was completed very infrequently due to staffing and stated the residents were expected to have ROM 3-5 times per week. NA-C stated therapy provided the resident's orders, the orders were placed in the binder, and she made a list herself which indicated what residents had exercises and how many days a week the resident needed to complete the exercises. NA-C confirmed R14 only had ROM completed once last month and stated she charted on the ROM in the restorative binder located at the nursing station and was expected to let PT (physical therapy) know if ROM was not being done and had not made PT aware. NA-C stated last week she had communicated to the DON the ROM was not being done and was instructed by the DON to let PT know when ROM was not completed. On 7/18/23 at 8:37 a.m., Occupational Therapy Assistant (OTA)-C and stated restorative care and range of motion is the responsibility of the nursing staff at the facility. On 7/18/23 at 11:24 a.m., NA-E stated the bath aid was responsible for resident's ROM responsible for the ROM, and NA's help when able, and further stated the EMR will show if staff needed to complete ROM. On 7/18/23 at 11:49 a.m., licensed practical nurse (LPN)-A stated an order for ROM came from PT or OT as a hard copy, the nurse entered the order into the computer and a copy of the order was placed in the hall book binder. LPN-A was observed to look for R14's ROM order in the binder and stated she could not find the order but would expect the order in the hallway binder. LPN-A further stated the bath aide was expected to complete the resident's ROM. On 7/18/23 4:35 p.m., the director of rehabilitation (DOR) stated she met with NA-C last week and discussed ROM education and ROM not completed was not communicated. The DOR stated residents ROM recommendations were expected followed and completed. On 7/20/23 at 9:00 a.m., the director of nursing (DON) stated ROM was the responsibility of the bath aide. The DON stated she was not aware residents had not received ROM as ordered and confirmed R14's ROM had not been completed as ordered. The facility Range of Motion policy dated 11/10/21, indicated. Policy: exercise is a basic physical need. Residents are unable to do active exercise by themselves need to be exercised by the staff of Seasons Healthcare through range of motion to avoid a decrease in their range of motion in the possible development of contractures. It is the responsibility of each member of the health care team to recognize risks for contracture formation and implement preventive therapy. Purpose: to provide an effective method of identifying and providing a residence identified at risk for decreased range of motion and/or contracture development and to set up a program of rehabilitation goals and interventions to avoid deterioration up their range of motion (ROM) Procedure: 1. Staff to identify residents at risk for ROM using the Seasons Health Care facility indicators or based on personal knowledge of the individual resident. 2. Once identified staff need to obtain a written order for physical therapy and/or occupational therapy. 3. When orders are returned the therapy staff will do an assessment to identify the ROM exercises the resident needs to do to avoid deterioration in his/her ROM. 4. The assessment will be given to the DON the MDS coordinator. 5. The PT & OT staff will put instructions in writing for the NAR's what exercises need to be done each day with AM and PM cares and the number of repetitions necessary to avoid further deterioration of their residents ROM. this information will always be made available to the NAR's and will be placed in the hall books (labeled north and south) 6. The MDS coordinator and/or director of nursing will review the personal exercise programs on quarterly basis coinciding with quarterly MDS reviews and care plan development process to determine the appropriateness of the plan.
CONCERN (D)

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

Incontinence Care (Tag F0690)

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 management and routine care was ...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview, and document review, the facility failed to ensure appropriate management and routine care was provided for 1 of 1 resident (R2) who had an indwelling urinary catheter. Findings include: R2's face sheet, received on 7/19/23, included diagnoses of congestive heart failure (CHF), obesity, cerebrovascular disease (stroke), Type 2 diabetes mellitus (Type 2 DM, (blood sugar disorder)), obstructive and reflux uropathy (urinary disorder), acute kidney failure, benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH) with lower urinary tract symptoms (prostate disorder causing urinary abnormal urinary symptoms), retention of urine, weakness, and edema. R2's quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE], indicated R2 was cognitively intact, had visual impairment and wore glasses, had minimal difficulty hearing, had clear speech, was able to make self-understood and could understand others. R2 was mainly independent with activities of daily living (ADLs), required extensive assist of 1 staff for toileting and limited assist of 1 staff for hygiene cares. Furthermore, the MDS indicated R2 had an indwelling urinary catheter. R2's physician order report, received on 7/19/23, included to change Foley catheter, 16 Fr and 10cc saline in balloon every month for retention of urine, to complete on the 13th day of each month. R2's care plan, received on 7/19/23, indicated R2 had an indwelling catheter and instructed staff to assess the urinary drainage each shift- record amount, type, color, odor, observe for leakage; change collection bag once weekly and as needed (PRN)- during the week rinse collection bag once daily with vinegar, change measuring graduate once weekly and PRN, provide catheter care each shift and PRN, report signs of urinary tract infection (UTI), use large collection bag only due to (D/T) wraps on bilateral lower legs (BLEs)- store collection bag inside protective dignity pouch, do not allow tubing or any part of drainage system to touch the floor, position catheter bag below level of bladder, maintain hygiene, staff will ensure needs are met and care plans are being followed. Care plan did not identify use of catheter holder. During an observation and interview, on 7/17/23 at 2:26 p.m., R2 was observed sitting in recliner chair in room, urinary bag visualized in protective dignity pouch and secured in place to R2's walker off flooring, walker positioned in front of R2 and recliner chair. A urinary catheter holder to secure urinary tubing was observed on R2's bed. R2 indicated he did not like catheter holder used, stated catheter holder loosened and fell towards foot on multiple occasions throughout the day when worn daily. R2 indicated he had reported to staff that catheter holder does not fit securely to his leg, staff continue to use same type of catheter holder despite R2's concerns. R2 stated had bladder and genital pain from Foley catheter pulling downwards only when urine bag became too full, indicated staff were emptying drainage bag frequently throughout the day to prevent Foley catheter from pulling downwards causing pain. During an observation and interview of clean catheter care procedure, on 7/19/23 at 8:47 a.m., nursing assistant (NA)-G was observed to cleanse hands with hand sanitizer upon entering R2's room, grabbed R2's basin and put water in basin from R2's bathroom sink. NA-G placed wash cloth in R2's water basin, wrung wash cloth out in basin, began to cleanse Foley catheter tubing, (only visualized portions of Foley catheter located on outside of R2's brief), and urinary drainage tubing, performing in downward fashion. NA-G then placed wash cloth in basin, grabbed clean towel and dried Foley catheter tubing and urinary bag tubing. NA-G discarded gloves, was about to leave R2's room when asked by surveyor if peri-care had been completed, NA-G stated R2 always refused staff to provide peri-care, R2 stated no staff had ever asked him to provide peri-care, R2 indicated would allow staff to perform peri-care. NA-G observed to sanitize hands and apply clean gloves, asked R2 to stand up and pull pants/brief down to provide peri-care. R2 stood up and removed pants/brief, surveyor visualized loose catheter holder resting upon R2's ankle, NA-G proceeded to perform peri-care,dried areas with clean towel, reapplied R2's catheter holder to upper right thigh ensuring catheter holder fit snug in place. NA-G informed R2 he could pull brief/pants back up. NA-G then discarded supplies, hand sanitized and left R2's room. NA-G was asked if aware of R2's catheter holder loose and concerns of always falling towards foot. NA-G stated she did hear about concerns with R2's catheter holder being loose and falling towards foot from other staff, was not informed of any further interventions to try. NA-G indicated worked for agency, did not work at facility often enough to know all resident care needs, including R2's care needs. During an interview, on 7/19/23 at 10:01 a.m., NA-F indicated awareness of R2's catheter holder being loose and slipping below knee, stated typically occurs when urinary drainage bag was full of urine, staff checked urine in drainage bag frequently throughout shift and emptied when full. NA-F stated she had reported concerns of R2's catheter holder not fitting appropriately to licensed nursing staff in past, indicated R2 would report pain to catheter insertion site when leg strap loosened and slid down, staff had encouraged R2 to use a new catheter holder, but R2 refused. During interview on 7/19/23 at 10:49 a.m., the director of nursing (DON) indicated was aware of R2's catheter holder not fitting properly, was loose and slid down leg, stated was informed of issue a few months ago per staff. DON indicated had advised nursing staff of R2's available catheter supplies and to try a new catheter holder. DON stated was unaware concern still persisted, would have expected staff to notify her if catheter holder was still not fitting appropriately in order for DON to order a new type of device. The facility Catheter Care: Draining a catheter policy reviewed 10/22/22, indicated purpose to maintain aseptic technique while managing and/or draining catheter leg/drainage bags. The facility Foley Catheter Care and UTI Monitoring policy revised 10/22/22, indicated purpose to assure that residents, who have a long-term Foley catheter in place receive appropriate treatment. Policy further indicated Foley catheter care must be done AM and PM and PRN- again risk UTI and good hygiene practice. The facility Pool Agency Orientation policy revised 5/6/21, indicated Seasons Healthcare strives to provide its own staff as available to care for its residents, however, there are occasions when agency personnel are needed to provide adequate safe staffing. Purpose to provide proper orientation for all employees working in the facility, applies to employees of the facility and temporary agency staff that work at the facility through an outside agency, orientation will allow the employee to function in a safe and respectful manner while providing care for residents, orientation checklist will be renewed if the pool agency staff member has not worked in the facility in the past 6 months since initial orientation to the facility. Procedure: Temporary agency staff will be oriented to the following areas by the supervising nurse or designee before allowing working on the floor and included, facility policy manuals, ADL data collection/charting, care plans, infection control, reporting information to nurses/supervisors, and who to report to. Upon completion of the orientation, temporary staff will be expected to fulfill their responsibility as a staff member including compliance with all state and federal regulations and facility policies.
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0699 (Tag F0699)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

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

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview, and document review, the facility failed to comprehensively assess past trauma and implement care plan interventions utilizing a trauma-informed approach for 1 of 1 resident (R18), reviewed who had post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD). Findings include: R18's quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE], indicated R18 had intact cognition, exhibited symptoms of mild depression, and took an antidepressant medication, had no behaviors, and was mainly independent with activities of daily living (ADLs), but did require limited assistance by 1 staff for toileting and bathing cares. The MDS further indicated R18's diagnoses included depression (mood disorder), anxiety, and post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), (a mental disorder caused by a terrifying event). R18's care plan, last reviewed/revised on 5/10/23, failed to identify PTSD/trauma as a focus area. As a result, the care plan lacked individualized trauma-informed approaches or interventions and lacked identification of triggers to avoid potential re-traumatization related to PTSD. During an interview, on 7/18/23 at 8:20 a.m., R18 indicated growing up in a household consisting of physical/mental abuse, suffered sexual molestation during preschool years, lacked friendship and socialization throughout life thereafter. R18 stated he had never discussed his feelings or traumatic events of childhood until facility admission, spoke with social worker and provider regarding his PTSD. R18 indicated he was considering counseling recommended per physician, stated mood at time of interview was stable with medication regimen prescribed. While interviewed, on 7/18/23 at 8:48 a.m., nursing assistant (NA)-C indicated unawareness R18 had PTSD, stated awareness R18 had depression. NA-C reported on days when R18 appeared more down in mood, staff increased supervision, tried to involve R18 in activities, provided 1:1 conversation. NA-C indicated if R18's mood continued to be down or worsening, would report to charge nurse right away. During an interview, on 7/18/23 at 9:56 a.m., social services (SS)-A indicated awareness of R18's PTSD, discussed at time of admission on [DATE], confirmed she had not care planned for R18's PTSD, stated was unsure how much detail to provide staff regarding R18's trauma history, did not want staff reviewing PTSD/trauma information R18 had provided only for curiosity. SS-A indicated awareness R18 exhibited symptoms of depression related to PTSD, R18 would display occasional mood behaviors including, low mood and isolation, stated when R18 displayed mood behaviors, staff would attempt to increase social interaction with R18 and provide increased supervision while in room. SS-A indicated offering R18 counseling services for PTSD management, R18 refused services, R18 stated he didn't want to be placed on more medication. While interviewed, on 7/18/23 at 10:57 a.m., licensed practical nurse (LPN)-A indicated was aware R18 had PTSD, PTSD was listed on R18's diagnosis list, stated an incident occurred shortly after R18's facility admission, LPN-A was scheduled to provide pain medication to R18, LPN-A asked R18 if he was having pain prior to pain medication administration per facility protocol, R18 became upset and stated was in pain all the time, had been suffering since childhood. LPN-A indicated awareness the word pain was a trigger for R18, stated avoided the word pain since event when conducting R18's pain assessment. LPN-A indicated was unaware if other staff knew R18 had PTSD, verified R18's care plan did not include PTSD and should have for staff awareness to avoid triggers. During an interview, on 7/18/23 at 11:11 a.m., the director of nursing (DON) indicated awareness R18 had PTSD, stated was on diagnosis list and was screened for symptoms at time of facility admission, although unable to provide documentation of R18's PTSD/trauma screen upon request. The DON confirmed PTSD was not in R18's care plan and should have been for staff awareness, avoidance of triggers, implementation of appropriate interventions, and provision of additional resources if needed. Upon request of R18's medical record, observed R18's care plan had been updated on 7/18/23 to include PTSD. The facility Trauma Informed Care policy dated 2/1/23, consisted of ensuring residents who are trauma survivors receive culturally competent, trauma-informed care in accordance with professional standards of practice, as well as residents' preferences and experiences, to provide treatment and services to attain the highest practicable level of mental and psychosocial wellbeing, ensure that an individualized resident centered care plan is developed for the resident that has experienced a traumatic event.
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0761 (Tag F0761)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on observation and interview, the facility failed to ensure doses of controlled substances were stored in a manner to reduce the risk of theft and/or diversion in 1 of 1 refrigerator observed in...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation and interview, the facility failed to ensure doses of controlled substances were stored in a manner to reduce the risk of theft and/or diversion in 1 of 1 refrigerator observed in use for medication storage. This had potential to affect 2 of 2 residents (R6, R8) who received controlled medications. Findings include: On 7/17/23 at 6:37 p.m., a tour of the medication storage room was conducted with licensed practical nurse (LPN)-A. Medication storage room door was locked, upon entering the medication room, a portable (moveable) refrigerator was observed sitting on top of medication counter. LPN-A unlocked portable refrigerator door, observed a small clear locked E-kit container. E-Kit container visualized and consisted of 2 small vials of injectable lorazepam (an anti-anxiety medication/controlled substance) on shelving rack, a bottle of diazepam (an anti-anxiety/sedative medication/controlled substance) prescribed for R6, and a bottle of lorazepam prescribed to R8 was in rack of portable refrigerator side door. Although, the medications were double locked, the refrigerator was not permanently affixed. During an interview, on 7/17/23 at 6:53 p.m., LPN-A indicated awareness that controlled substance medications needed to be stored in an area providing 2 separately locked compartments, stated was not aware controlled substance medications needed to be locked in a permanently affixed compartment. LPN-A indicated she thought controlled substance medications stored in facility portable refrigerator, ensuring portable refrigerator was always locked unless in use, was sufficient for storage. While interviewed, on 7/17/23 at 7:01 p.m., the director of nursing (DON) indicated awareness that controlled substance medications needed to be stored in an area providing 2 separately locked compartments, stated was not aware controlled substance medications needed to be locked in a permanently affixed compartment. The DON indicated controlled substance medications were kept in facility locked medication storage room, within a locked portable refrigerator, stated she thought process used for controlled medication substance storage was sufficient at time, would ensure process for controlled medication storage was corrected immediately. The faility Medication Storage policy dated 4/21/20, indicated a process for ensuring medications were stored in a safe, secure, and orderly manner, and was the responsibility of licensed nursing staff. The policy further indicated compartments containing medications were locked when not in use, (compartments included, but were not limited to drawers, cabinets, rooms, refrigerators, carts, and boxes), all drugs requiring refrigeration shall be stored separately in a refrigerator that is locked and in a locked room that is used exclusively for medications and medication adjunct, all controlled drugs were stored under double-lock and key.
CONCERN (E)

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

Safe Environment (Tag F0584)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

R2's quarterly MDS assessment, dated 6/22/23, indicated R2 had intact cognition and required limited assistance of 1 staff to meet activities of daily living (ADL) needs. R2's MDS preferences for cus...

Read full inspector narrative →
R2's quarterly MDS assessment, dated 6/22/23, indicated R2 had intact cognition and required limited assistance of 1 staff to meet activities of daily living (ADL) needs. R2's MDS preferences for customary routine and activities assessment, dated 3/26/23, indicated, R2's preferences to have personal things taken care of was very important to him. R2's care plan, last reviewed on 6/27/23, indicated R2's needs would be met, dignity always promoted, and wishes would be followed. R8's significant change in status MDS assessment, dated 6/1/23, indicated R8 had severely impaired cognition and required total assistance by 1-2 staff to meet ADL needs. The MDS further indicated R8's preferences for personal things to be taken care of was very important to her. R8's care plan, last reviewed on 6/9/23, indicated R8's needs would be met, dignity always promoted, and wishes would be followed. R19's significant change in status MDS assessment, dated 5/9/23, indicated R19 had intact cognition and required extensive assist of 1 staff to meet ADL needs. The MDS further indicated R19's preferences for personal things to be taken care of was very important to her. R19's care plan, last reviewed on 5/9/23, indicated R19's needs would be met, dignity always promoted, and wishes would be followed. During an observation and interview, on 7/17/23 at 2:22 p.m., R2's room ceiling lighting fixture observed to have a large amount of dried dead bugs and debris. R2 indicated unawareness of bugs to ceiling lighting fixture, stated he liked room to be clean and of sanitary condition. While observed, on 7/17/23 at 5:39 p.m., R8's room ceiling lighting fixture observed to have a moderate amount of dried dead bugs and debris, unable to interview due to non-verbal status. During an observation and interview, on 7/17/23 at 5:40 p.m., R19's room ceiling lighting fixture observed to have a moderate amount of dried dead bugs and debris. R19 indicated unawareness of bugs to ceiling lighting fixture, stated she liked room to be clean and of sanitary condition. While interviewed, on 7/19/23 at 7:34 a.m., nursing assistant (NA)-D indicated unawareness of dead bugs to resident room ceiling lighting fixtures, stated housekeeping or maintenance staff were responsible for ensuring cleanliness and sanitation of all resident room ceiling lighting fixtures. During observation and interview, on 7/19/23 at 7:37 a.m., maintenace (M)-A indicated was responsible for checking and cleaning all resident room ceiling lighting fixtures monthly, was unaware of any environmental concerns with dried dead bugs and debris to resident room ceiling lighting fixtures. M-A indicated task for cleaning and sanitization of ceiling lighting fixtures to all resident rooms was documented on facility's environmental rounds observation form and had completed task monthly, although had not documented completion of task on facility form, as forgot. M-A was shown R2, R3, R8, and R19's room ceiling lighting fixtures, M-A confirmed ceiling lighting fixtures contained dried dead bugs and debris and should have been cleaned/sanitized per the assigned facility monthly environmental rounds observation form. M-A indicated would clean and sanitize resident room ceiling lighting fixtures today. While interviewed, on 7/19/23 at 10:46 a.m., the administrator indicated unawareness of any environmental concerns with dried dead bugs and debris to resident room ceiling lighting fixtures, would expect staff to report any environmental concerns right away for maintenance to follow-up on. The administrator indicated maintenance should be inspecting, cleaning/sanitizing resident room ceiling lighting fixtures monthly and as needed. The facility Environment policy dated 10/20/22, indicated to promote an environment that residents feel safe and at home in, housekeeping and maintenance will maintain the resident room and facility in a sanitary, orderly, and comfortable manner. Based on observation, interview, and document review, the facility failed to ensure a clean, home-like environment to provide routine sanitation of resident room lighting fixtures for 4 of 4 residents (R2, R3, R8, R19), reviewed for environmental concerns. Findings include: R3's admission, Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated 6/2823, indicated R3 was cognitively intact, required 2 person physical assist with bed mobility, transfer, dressing, toilet use, and personal hygiene, utilized a wheelchair, diagnoses included neurological conditions, heart failure, hypertension (high blood pressure), and long-term current use of anticoagulants (blood thinner). During an observation and interview, on 7/17/23 at 1:06 p.m., R3's room ceiling lighting fixture observed to have a large amount of dried dead bugs and debris. R2 indicated unawareness of bugs to ceiling lighting fixture, and confirmed the bugs in his lights, and voiced the lights need to be cleaned.
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 document review, the facility failed to label, date opened containers of food stored, ensur...

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 label, date opened containers of food stored, ensure expired food was identified and removed from two stand-up refrigerators, and stand-up freezers. This had the potential to affect all 25 residents who were served food and beverages from the facility kitchen. Findings include During observation and interview of facility kitchen, on 7/17/23 at 11:41 p.m., with certified food protection manager (CFPM)-A, observed food items in two stand-up refrigerators, and two stand-up freezers, that was not dated or marked and/or were expired. The following items were observed during tour: Double door, stand-up refrigerator: 1.Great value prune juice-approximately (approx) ¼ full, unmarked/undated, expired (exp) date 426/24 2. Facility pour pitcher (2- 1 gallon), crystal light fruit punch, both containers approx. ½ full, exp. date labeled 7/6/23, observed to have sedimentation, white discoloration at bottom of pitchers 3.[NAME] light sour cream, 1 gallon container, approx. 1/4 full, unmarked/undated, exp. date 7/4/23, small amount of clear liquid present to top surface of sour cream 4. Harvest value whipped salad dressing, 1 gallon container, approx. ¾ full, opened date 5/5/23, no exp. date 5. Premium green seedless grapes in plastic bag, approx. ¾ full, white discoloration with fuzzy growth observed on bottom grape, no exp. date 6. Great value cottage cheese-small curd- 4% milkfat, 48 oz. container, approx. ½ full, unmarked/undated, exp. date 8/1/23 Single door, stand-up refrigerator: 1.Low-moisture part-skim mozzarella cheese, 5lb bag, approx. 1/4 left full, unmarked/undated, no exp. date 2. Mrs. Gerry's fresh coleslaw, 5lb. container, approx. ¼ full, unmarked/undated, exp. date on container 7/24/23, watery in appearance 3. Bongard's shredded cheese, 5lb bag, approx. ½ full, unmarked/undated, no exp. date 4. Mrs. Gerry's country style potato salad, 5lb. container, unopened, exp date 7/11/23 5. Molly's kitchen ham salad, 5lb container, approx. ½ full, opened date 5/16/23, exp. date on container 7/31/23 Masterbilt 3-door stand-up freezer: 1.Classic vegetables cauliflower, 2lb. bag, approx. 1/4 full, unmarked/undated, exp. date 4/20/22. 2.Classic vegetables cauliflower (5 bags), 2lb. bag, unopened, exp. date 4/20/22 Beverage-air 3-door stand-up freezer: 1.Frozen meatballs in large plastic bag, approx.1/4 full, unmarked/undated, no exp date on bag, freezer burned 2. Frozen diced ham cubes in large plastic bag, approx. ½ full, unmarked/undated, no exp. date on bag, freezer burned 3. Ready bread cod in facility ziplock bag, dated 3/24/23, no exp. date on bag, bag unsealed, freezer burned 4. BBQ ribs in facility container, approx. ½ full, dated 4/7/23, no exp. date on container, freezer burned 5. Ribs in facility container, approx. ¼ full, dated 8/26/22, no exp. date on container, freezer burned 6. Taco meat in facility container, approx. 1/4 full, dated 12/15/22, no exp. date, freezer burned During an interview, on 7/17/23 at 12:07 p.m., CFPM-A indicated in discussion of unmarked/undated and expired/damaged food items, all dietary staff were responsible to go through all kitchen room refrigerators and freezers to check food items and remove all food items noted to be unmarked/undated and/or expired/damaged daily. CFPM-A indicated all left-over food and beverage items were used and discarded within 5 days from preparation, opened containers of salad dressings were used within 21 days of date opened, prepared frozen foods were used and discarded within 3 months of date prepared, and any damaged containers of food noted per dietary staff were sent back to food vendor, US Foods. The facility Food Storage policy reviewed 4/17/23, consisted of; to provide sufficient storage to keep food safe, wholesome, and appetizing; date marking will be visible on all high risk food to indicate the date by which is ready-to-eat, all containers must be legible and accurately labeled and dated, leftover food will be stored in covered containers or wrapped carefully and securely, each item will be clearly labeled and dated before being refrigerated, leftover food is used within 7 days or discarded.
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 interview and document review, the facility failed to ensure the infection control program included ongoing surveillance, trending and analysis of resident infections. This deficient practice...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on interview and document review, the facility failed to ensure the infection control program included ongoing surveillance, trending and analysis of resident infections. This deficient practice had the potential to affect all 25 residents currently residing in the facility. Findings include: Review of the facility's resident illness not requiring antibiotic therapy dated 4/23, 5/23, 6/23 included the following information: date, resident name, room number, signs/symptoms, treatment. The logs lacked information regarding location of resident, infection date, type of infection, diagnosis, medications. Review of facility documentation indicated the antibiotic medication report for 4/23, 5/23, 6/23, and 7/23, included the resident name, start and end date, order description, ordered by, diagnosis, and category. The report lacked documentation related to the date of onset of infection, date cultures taken, organisms noted from culture obtained, if resistant to antibiotic, how organism was acquired, isolation precautions, communication with physician of resident status while on antibiotic therapy. Review of monthly surveillance control logs dated 1/23, 2/23, 3/23, 4/23, 5/23, 6/23, included floor plan of facility. Surveillance included resident room numbers listed, and key at bottom of floor plan had COVID (yellow mark), loose BM (bowel movement) (purple mark), cough (yellow mark), boils, and GI upset (blue mark). The floor plan did not include any information related to infection such as, type of infection, symptoms, date infection was first noted, culture and results, antibiotic order, resolution date and outcome. The logs lacked ongoing surveillance and trending of all infections which included food-borne illness, and other illnesses caused by other viruses or infections. On 7/18/23 at 2:05 p.m., the director of nursing (DON) stated she was responsible for the infection control program, including infection surveillance. DON confirmed education completion of infection control/prevention and antibiotic stewardship program. The DON stated awareness of any resident infections, new symptoms or residents placed on antibiotics was discussed during daily stand-up meetings to keep up with resident status. The DON stated the residents who were not prescribed an antibiotic were listed on a monthly resident illness report with date, signs/symptoms, and treatment. The DON confirmed she had not been tracking and trending all infections in the facility. The DON was not aware, and did not have a current list of reportable communicable diseases, and did not know where to find the list of communicable reportable diseases. The DON confirmed ongoing surveillance had not been completed with incidence of infections determined or analyzed, and the infection control program had room for improvement. The facility Infection Control Resident Surveillance policy dated 12/1/17, indicated Purpose: Surveillance date will be used to: Plan infection control activities Educational programs Prevent infectious transmission to others Detect infections that need treatment improve outcomes and processes To have knowledge of resident infection so appropriate actions/follow up may be done To guide prevention activities Procedure: 1. the matrix system will be used to track infectious diseases/antimicrobial usage 2. The infection control nurse and/or director of nursing will analyze the collected data and the incidence of infections will be determined on a monthly or as needed basis they will use the following sources of information: matrix system, infection summary/monthly control logs, lab, X-ray and other diagnostic reports, nurses notes, physician progress notes, clinical observation, staff concerns and reports, prescribed antibiotics, 3. Data collected will be on the monthly infection log and infection summary 4. Monthly data will be reviewed by the infection control nurse and the director of nursing 5. Analysis of infection control data will also occur quarterly. This is reported to the QA committee members at their quarterly meeting. 6. Control measures won't be instituted as appropriate to identify problems including sentinel events 7. Antimicrobial tracking will also be used to monitor trends/frequency.
CONCERN (F)

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

Antibiotic Stewardship (Tag F0881)

Could have caused harm · This affected most or all residents

Based on interview and document review, the facility failed to implement a process for antibiotic review to determine appropriate indications, dosage, duration, trends of antibiotic use and resistance...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on interview and document review, the facility failed to implement a process for antibiotic review to determine appropriate indications, dosage, duration, trends of antibiotic use and resistance. This had the potential to affect any of the 25 residents who resided in the facility who might use antibiotics. Findings include: Review of facility documentation indicated the antibiotic medication report for 4/23, 5/23, 6/23, and 7/23, included the resident name, start and end date, order description, ordered by, diagnosis, and category. The report lacked documentation related to the date of onset of infection, date cultures taken, organisms noted from culture obtained, if resistant to antibiotic, how organism was acquired, isolation precautions, communication with physician of resident status while on antibiotic therapy. Review of monthly surveillance control logs dated 1/23, 2/23, 3/23, 4/23, 5/23, 6/23, included floor plan of facility. Surveillance included resident room numbers listed, and key at bottom of floor plan had COVID (yellow mark), loose BM (bowel movement) (purple mark), cough (yellow mark), boils, and GI upset (blue mark). The floor plan did not include any information related to infection such as, type of infection, symptoms, date infection was first noted, culture and results, antibiotic order, resolution date and outcome. On 7/18/23 at 2:05 p.m., the director of nursing (DON) stated she was responsible for the infection control program, including antibiotic stewardship. DON confirmed education completion of infection control/prevention and antibiotic stewardship program. The DON stated awareness of any resident infections, new symptoms or residents placed on antibiotics was discussed during daily stand-up meetings to keep up with resident status. The DON stated the residents who were not prescribed an antibiotic were listed on a monthly resident illness report with date, signs/symptoms, and treatment. DON confirmed a tracking and monitoring process for residents placed on an antibiotic included the use of the electronic medical record (EMR) antibiotic medication report, and included the resident name, start and end date, order description, ordered by, diagnosis, and category. The DON stated she reviewed the antibiotic orders and information, but had not set up a program to include the requirements for Antibiotic Stewardship and confirmed the antibiotics were not tracked for cultures, source, location of infection, symptoms when placed on antibiotic. The DON stated she does not review or track culture results to ensure proper antibiotics were prescribed or have a tracking log. The facility Antibiotic Stewardship Program (ASP) policy dated 10/20/22, indicated: Purpose: Antibiotic stewardship programs (ASPs) are designed to minimize the harmful effects of inappropriate antibiotic use. The most serious concern with antibiotic resistance is that some bacteria have become resistant to some of the easily available antibiotics (Multi-Drug Resistant Organisms or MDROs), these bacteria can cause serious disease, and this is a major public health problem. Utilizing stewardship actions such as measuring a facility's antibiotic use promotes prudent use and management of antimicrobial agents, reduces antibiotic resistance, and increase optimal patient outcomes. Procedure: D. Actions: Review of current antimicrobial use Observations of trends of antimicrobial use, Communication with providers in selecting antimicrobial therapy based on evidence based practices. Review of culture and sensitivity reports Education for nursing staff regarding monitoring residents with an infection including response to antimicrobial therapy, plan of care for the resident with an infection Facility wide surveillance of all diagnosed infections Tracking and Reporting DON and licensed nurses track all prescribed antimicrobials by prescriber, resident, indication, and antibiotic. Additional information to be tracked: Resident information Infection Culture results Antimicrobial Duration Symptoms Other information (transmission based precautions/symptom resolution. Data is collected weekly and logged. Data is reported to the ASP team monthly and at Quarterly QA meetings.
Feb 2023 1 deficiency
CONCERN (D) 📢 Someone Reported This

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

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

Quality of Care (Tag F0684)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview and document review, the facility failed to obtain timely therapy services as ordered by physician for 1 of 3...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview and document review, the facility failed to obtain timely therapy services as ordered by physician for 1 of 3 residents (R1) reviewed. Findings include: R1's significant change in status Minimal Data Set (MDS) dated [DATE], indicated R1 had diagnoses which included Huntington's Disease, schizophrenia, and anxiety disorder. R1 required staff assistance with activities of daily living (ADLs) such as transfers, dressing, toileting, and eating. Review of R1's Progress Note by nurse practitioner (NP)-A dated 2/7/23, indicated nursing staff at facility requested therapy to evaluate and treat related to R1's weight loss and generalized weakness she experienced over the recent months. R1's Referral Form dated 2/7/23, indicated physical therapy and occupational therapy to evaluate and treat related to increased weakness. During an observation on 2/24/23, at 8:34 a.m. R1 was laying in her bed and appeared to be sleeping comfortably. During an interview on 2/28/23, at 8:01 a.m. family member (FM)-A indicated R1 had a decline in condition and ADL abilities around the end of 2022 due to Huntington's Disease progression, weight loss, and other life events that occurred. FM-A stated R1 had recently received orders from NP-A to begin working with therapies to regain some of those abilities that were lost. FM-A was unaware if R1 had started therapy yet but stated R1 needed to as soon as possible. During an interview on 2/28/23, at 10:46 a.m. nursing assistant (NA)-A indicated R1's ADL abilities had declined and was requiring more assistance with all ADLs. During an interview on 2/28/23, at 11:11 a.m. licensed practical nurse (LPN)-A indicated R1 had a decline in ADL ability and requires assistance by staff for all ADLs. Further, LPN-A indicated R1 was not currently working with therapy. During an interview on 2/28/23, at 1:26 a.m. interim director of nursing (DON) and administration assistant (AA)-A indicated on 2/7/22, the therapy department received R1's order for a therapy evaluation due to increased weakness. During an interdisciplinary team (IDT) meeting on 2/13/23, therapy reported they were going to evaluate R1 soon and has been delayed due to shortage on therapy staff. AA-A indicated R1 was evaluated by therapy on 2/27/23. In addition, AA-A and DON indicated therapy would be expected to complete an evaluation within 48-hours upon receiving the order. On 2/28/23, at 3:09 p.m. attempted interview with director of therapy (DOT) was unsuccessful. Review of facility policy titled Medication/Treatment Orders/ Transcription dated 12/1/17, indicated the purpose of policy was to ensure accurate delivery of medications and treatments to all residents. However, policy lacked evidence of staff direction related to therapy orders.
Understanding Severity Codes (click to expand)
Life-Threatening (Immediate Jeopardy)
J - Isolated K - Pattern L - Widespread
Actual Harm
G - Isolated H - Pattern I - Widespread
Potential for Harm
D - Isolated E - Pattern F - Widespread
No Harm (Minor)
A - Isolated B - Pattern C - Widespread

Questions to Ask on Your Visit

  • "What changes have you made since the serious inspection findings?"
  • "What safeguards are in place to prevent abuse and neglect?"
  • "Why is there high staff turnover? How do you retain staff?"
  • "Can I speak with families of current residents?"
  • "What's your RN coverage like on weekends and overnight?"

Our Honest Assessment

Strengths
  • • Licensed and certified facility. Meets minimum state requirements.
Concerns
  • • Multiple safety concerns identified: Federal abuse finding, 1 life-threatening violation(s), $238,065 in fines. Review inspection reports carefully.
  • • 32 deficiencies on record, including 1 critical (life-threatening) violation. These warrant careful review before choosing this facility.
  • • $238,065 in fines. Extremely high, among the most fined facilities in Minnesota. Major compliance failures.
  • • Grade F (0/100). Below average facility with significant concerns.
Bottom line: This facility has a substantiated abuse finding. Extreme caution advised. Explore alternatives.

About This Facility

What is Seasons Healthcare's CMS Rating?

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

How is Seasons Healthcare Staffed?

CMS rates SEASONS HEALTHCARE's staffing level at 1 out of 5 stars, which is much below average compared to other nursing homes. Staff turnover is 58%, which is 11 percentage points above the Minnesota average of 46%. High turnover can affect care consistency as new staff learn residents' individual needs.

What Have Inspectors Found at Seasons Healthcare?

State health inspectors documented 32 deficiencies at SEASONS HEALTHCARE during 2023 to 2025. These included: 1 Immediate Jeopardy (the most serious level, indicating potential for serious harm or death) and 31 with potential for harm. Immediate Jeopardy findings are rare and represent the most serious regulatory concerns. They require immediate corrective action.

Who Owns and Operates Seasons Healthcare?

SEASONS HEALTHCARE 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 26 certified beds and approximately 21 residents (about 81% occupancy), it is a smaller facility located in TRIMONT, Minnesota.

How Does Seasons Healthcare Compare to Other Minnesota Nursing Homes?

Compared to the 100 nursing homes in Minnesota, SEASONS HEALTHCARE's overall rating (1 stars) is below the state average of 3.2, staff turnover (58%) is significantly higher than the state average of 46%, and health inspection rating (1 stars) is much below the national benchmark.

What Should Families Ask When Visiting Seasons Healthcare?

Based on this facility's data, families visiting should ask: "What changes have been made since the serious inspection findings, and how are you preventing similar issues?" "What safeguards and monitoring systems are in place to protect residents from abuse or neglect?" "How do you ensure continuity of care given staff turnover, and what is your staff retention strategy?" "Can you walk me through typical staffing levels on day, evening, and night shifts?" These questions are particularly relevant given the facility's Immediate Jeopardy citations, the substantiated abuse finding on record, the facility's high staff turnover rate, and the below-average staffing rating.

Is Seasons Healthcare Safe?

Based on CMS inspection data, SEASONS HEALTHCARE has documented safety concerns. The facility has 1 substantiated abuse finding (meaning confirmed case of resident harm by staff or other residents). Inspectors have issued 1 Immediate Jeopardy citation (the most serious violation level indicating risk of serious injury or death). The facility has a 1-star overall rating and ranks #100 of 100 nursing homes in Minnesota. Families considering this facility should ask detailed questions about what corrective actions have been taken since these incidents.

Do Nurses at Seasons Healthcare Stick Around?

Staff turnover at SEASONS HEALTHCARE is high. At 58%, the facility is 11 percentage points above the Minnesota average of 46%. High turnover means new staff may not know residents' individual needs, medications, or preferences. It can also be disorienting for residents, especially those with dementia who rely on familiar faces. Families should ask: What is causing the turnover? What retention programs are in place? How do you ensure care continuity during staff transitions?

Was Seasons Healthcare Ever Fined?

SEASONS HEALTHCARE has been fined $238,065 across 1 penalty action. This is 6.7x the Minnesota average of $35,460. Fines at this level are uncommon and typically indicate a pattern of serious deficiencies, repeated violations, or failure to correct problems promptly. CMS reserves penalties of this magnitude for facilities that pose significant, documented risk to resident health or safety. Families should request specific documentation of what issues led to these fines and what systemic changes have been implemented.

Is Seasons Healthcare on Any Federal Watch List?

SEASONS HEALTHCARE 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.