TUPELO NURSING AND REHABILITATION CENTER

1901 BRIAR RIDGE ROAD, TUPELO, MS 38804 (662) 844-0675
For profit - Limited Liability company 120 Beds NORBERT BENNETT & DONALD DENZ Data: November 2025 2 Immediate Jeopardy citations
Trust Grade
0/100
#195 of 200 in MS
Last Inspection: September 2024

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

Overview

Tupelo Nursing and Rehabilitation Center has a Trust Grade of F, indicating significant concerns and poor overall quality of care. It ranks #195 out of 200 facilities in Mississippi, placing it in the bottom half of nursing homes in the state, and #4 out of 4 in Lee County, meaning there are no better options nearby. The facility is reportedly improving, having reduced issues from 16 in 2024 to just 1 in 2025. Staffing is rated average at 3 out of 5, but with a concerning turnover rate of 60%, which is higher than the state average, suggesting instability among caregivers. However, the center has faced serious issues, including a critical incident where a resident with dementia was able to leave the facility unsupervised, walking 4.2 miles before being found, and another incident where a resident was verbally abused by staff for requesting pain medication. While the nursing home has some strengths, the presence of fines totaling $62,606-higher than 90% of facilities in Mississippi-highlights ongoing compliance problems that families should consider.

Trust Score
F
0/100
In Mississippi
#195/200
Bottom 3%
Safety Record
High Risk
Review needed
Inspections
Getting Better
16 → 1 violations
Staff Stability
⚠ Watch
60% turnover. Above average. Higher turnover means staff may not know residents' routines.
Penalties
✓ Good
$62,606 in fines. Lower than most Mississippi facilities. Relatively clean record.
Skilled Nurses
⚠ Watch
Each resident gets only 29 minutes of Registered Nurse (RN) attention daily — below average for Mississippi. Fewer RN minutes means fewer trained eyes watching for problems.
Violations
⚠ Watch
35 deficiencies on record. Higher than average. Multiple issues found across inspections.
★☆☆☆☆
1.0
Overall Rating
★★★☆☆
3.0
Staff Levels
★★☆☆☆
2.0
Care Quality
★☆☆☆☆
1.0
Inspection Score
Stable
2024: 16 issues
2025: 1 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 Mississippi average (2.6)

Significant quality concerns identified by CMS

Staff Turnover: 60%

13pts above Mississippi avg (46%)

Frequent staff changes - ask about care continuity

Federal Fines: $62,606

Above median ($33,413)

Moderate penalties - review what triggered them

Chain: NORBERT BENNETT & DONALD DENZ

Part of a multi-facility chain

Ask about local staffing decisions and management

Staff turnover is elevated (60%)

12 points above Mississippi average of 48%

The Ugly 35 deficiencies on record

2 life-threatening 1 actual harm
Feb 2025 1 deficiency 1 Harm
SERIOUS (G) 📢 Someone Reported This

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

Actual Harm - a resident was hurt due to facility failures

Free from Abuse/Neglect (Tag F0600)

A resident was harmed · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record reviews, resident and staff interviews, facility policy review, the facility failed to ensure a resident's right...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record reviews, resident and staff interviews, facility policy review, the facility failed to ensure a resident's right to be free from abuse and reprisal by staff. Resident #1 was verbally abused and confronted by Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN #1) for reporting that she had not received pain medications in a time when Resident #1 asked for them. Resident #1 was one (1) of three (3) residents reviewed for abuse and neglect. Findings include: The facility undated policy titled Abuse Prevention revealed, The facility is committed to protecting the residents from abuse by anyone including, but not necessarily limited to: facility staff . a) Abuse: Willful infliction of injury, unreasonable confinement, intimidation, or punishment with resulting physical harm, pain, or mental anguish. This includes the deprivation by an individual, including a care taker of goods or services are necessary to attain or maintain physical, mental and psychosocial well-being. b) Verbal abuse: The use of oral, written, or gestured communication or sounds that willfully includes disparaging and derogatory terms to residents or their families, or within their hearing distance, regardless of their age, ability to comprehend, or disability . Interview on 02/18/25 at 12:25 PM with the facility Administrator (ADM)/ Executive Director (ED) revealed that the facility had conducted a full investigation of the alleged verbal abuse reported by Resident #1 and the facility did not substantiate any abuse, but they did substantiate poor customer service. The facility found that Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) #1 delivered poor customer service when Resident #1 asked for her pain medications. The facility suspended the nurse from work while the investigation was conducted. The facility issued a written class one reprimand to LPN #1 for poor customer service. The ADM presented supporting investigation materials and written statements that the facility had gathered during their facility investigation dated 01/03/2025 and signed by the ADM/ED and the Director of Nursing (DON). Interview on 02/18/25 at 12:45 PM with the Director of Nursing (DON) revealed that she and the ADM had investigated the incident and that they had suspended LPN #1 until the investigation was completed. The facility issued written discipline to LPN #1 for poor customer service. The facility also pulled LPN #1 from working the rehabilitation unit and she was not allowed to work on that unit any longer. DON stated that Resident #1 was a short-term rehab resident and was admitted to the facility for rehab from a tibia fracture. DON stated that Resident #1 was cognitive and was a good historian and had a Brief Interview of Mental Status (BIMS) score of 15 which indicated that she was intact cognitively. Record review of the facility investigation dated 1/03/25 revealed: Conclusion: After a thorough investigation, (name of facility) was unable to substantiate abuse or neglect. This was based on interviews with residents and staff members. It was determined that the nurse exhibited poor customer service in explaining how the medications are given and asking her about anything that was reported. Record review of the admission Record of Resident #1 revealed that she had admission dates of 2/01/24 and a second admission date of 12/24/24 with diagnoses of Unspecified fracture of upper end of left tibia, subsequent encounter for closed fracture with routine healing; Type 2 Diabetes; Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease; and Repeated Falls. Record review of Resident #1's Minimum Data Set (MDS) with an Assessment Reference Date of 12/31/24 revealed a BIMS score of 15, indicating that Resident #1 was cognitively intact. Interview on 02/18/25 at 1:20 PM with the Director of the Rehabilitation (DOR) Department revealed that she had two (2) rehab therapy staff members that had reported to her that LPN #1 had spoken harshly and in a demeaning tone to Resident #1. The DOR stated that she stood behind her staff and supported them, and she had full confidence in the statements that the rehab therapy staff had made in the incident involving Resident #1 and LPN #1 and she believed the statements were true and accurate. She stated that the Speech Therapist (ST) had been a witness to the harsh tone and confrontational manner in which LPN #1 had used toward Resident #1. She also stated that the Physical Therapy Assistant (PTA) had gone in to assist Resident #1 when he found her crying and upset due to the confronting manner of LPN #1 towards her. The DOR stated that both staff had provided the facility with written statements about their account of the incident. The DOR confirmed that the rehab department had a policy that they would not deliver services to residents complaining of pain and that they would request pain medications prior to rehab services with residents. She stated that the ST had delivered the message to LPN #1 that Resident #1 was requesting pain medications prior to the physical therapy sessions and that LPN #1 denied that the ST had made the pain medication request. Interview on 2/18/25 at 4:00 PM with the ST revealed that she was in Resident #1's room with her on 12/31/24 at approximately 7:30 AM and LPN #1 came in and began to yell at the resident. ST stated that LPN #1 loudly told Resident #1 that she should never have called the front desk to complain on her and that she had not asked for her the pain medications. ST stated that she interrupted and told LPN #1 that she herself had come to her on the day before and had requested pain medications for the resident prior to therapy and LPN #1 told her, No you never told me she requested medications. LPN #1 continued to tell Resident #1 that she had to request the medications and that she had not requested them and that she should not have called the front desk and complained about her. ST stated that she was trying to defuse the situation and asked to move on because LPN #1 was very rude and hostile toward Resident #1 and she was not going to argue with LPN in front of the resident, because she could tell it was upsetting the resident already how LPN #1 was acting towards her. ST stated that Resident #1 began to cry and shake after LPN #1 confronted her. ST stated that she gave the facility a written statement of the accounts of the incident that she witnessed. The interview on 2/18/25 at 2:45 PM with the PTA revealed that on 12/31/24 he had gone into Resident #1's room and found her crying and upset. When he asked her what was wrong and why she was upset and crying she stated that LPN #1 had blessed her out. Resident #1 stated that she felt unsafe around LPN #1, and she never wanted her to come into her room again. PTA stated that he gave a written statement to the facility as to what Resident #1 had told him and that she had requested that LPN #1 never come into her room again. Resident #1 had her face in her hands crying and she voiced that she was bothered and upset by the manner in which LPN #1 had talked to her. Resident #1 was a cognitive resident, and she presented as a resident that was truthful. I trusted that what she was telling me was what had happened. Interview on 2/18/25 at 4:15 PM with LPN #1 revealed that she had been sent home on [DATE] for the facility to conduct an investigation after Resident #1 had told the facility that she was not getting her medications timely. LPN #1 stated that her supervisor, LPN #2, had come to her and told her that Resident #1 had called the front desk and issued complaints that she was not getting her pain medications. LPN #1 stated that the resident had to request the medications, and she had not made a request for pain medications to her. LPN #1 stated that she told Resident #1 that she would need to turn on her call light and ask her for her pain medications because they were not scheduled, they were as needed (PRN) medications. LPN stated that she returned to work after her suspension, and she received in-services regarding customer service skills. Interview on 2/18/25 at 1:45 PM with the LPN #2 Supervisor confirmed that she was the supervisor for all the LPN's and that LPN #1 was one of the LPN's that she supervised. LPN #2 stated that she remembered Resident #1 well and that she was a cognitive resident that was admitted to the short-term unit for rehab. LPN #2 denied knowledge of Resident #1's complaints against LPN #1 and stated that she has no knowledge that Resident #1 had called the front desk issuing complaints against LPN #1 on 12/31/24. LPN #2 stated that she had been in-serviced numerous times on the facility Abuse Prevention Policy, and stated that verbal abuse did include tone of your voice and body language. She stated that confronting a resident about issuing complaints was abuse and could also be considered bullying. LPN #2 stated that LPN #1 should never have confronted Resident #1 and asked her about calling the front desk to complain about her. LPN #2 stated Resident #1 was not the type of individual to be untruthful, and that she was unaware that LPN #1 had given a written statement to the facility that she had told LPN #1 that Resident #1 was complaining to the front desk that LPN #1 was not giving her pain medications. LPN #2 stated that LPN #1's written statement to the facility was not true because she had not told her that the resident had complained about her, because she did not know at that time. An interview on 2/18/25 at 2:50 PM with Resident #1 revealed that she had been a resident of the facility on two (2) different occasions. She stated that she had problems with LPN #1 on more than one occasion for not getting her pain medications in a timely manner. Resident #1 stated that she had been a City Police Officer for over 20 years and had to retire early due to a fall and some health issues. She stated that in all her 20 years with the police department she had never had anyone talk so badly to her like LPN #1 had talked to her. She stated that she got tired of sending someone up to ask for her pain medications, so she called the front desk and complained about her not giving her pain medications every six hours after she had asked for them. Resident #1 stated that the CNA's answered the call lights, and she would tell them to please go and ask the nurse for her pain medications. Resident stated that she was admitted to the facility after a fall and fracture for rehab and was a short-term rehab resident. She stated that she needed her pain medications prior to physical therapy and that LPN #1 was well aware of this yet she continued to delay giving the medications. Resident stated that ST was in her room on one occasion and had witnessed the demeaning loud tone and degrading manner that LPN #1 spoke to her. LPN #1 would come to my room and ball me out. LPN #1 Told me that she was doing the best that she could and that I was a damn liar. I felt mentally and emotionally unsafe and she had me shook. I was not physically afraid of her, but I was emotionally harmed by her. She told me that I had no business calling the front desk and telling the front office about her. Resident #1 stated that she had all her marbles and if LPN #1 talked to her in such a hostile manner how did she talk to those that had fewer mental abilities. Resident #1 stated that on 12/31/24 she requested that LPN #1 not be allowed in her room ever again. Resident #1 stated that she was discharged from the facility on 1/15/25 and LPN #1 was never in her room again after that day. An interview on 2/18/25 at 3:15 PM, with a Licensed Social Worker (LSW) confirmed that she believed the events outlined by Resident #1 happened and she was traumatized and harmed mentally and emotionally from the incident. LSW confirmed that she had completed a Trauma assessment dated [DATE] related to the incident that occurred on 12/31/24. LSW confirmed that the resident marked Yes that she was shaken and nervous after the encounter, that she had upset thoughts and was jumpy after the incident with LPN #1. The LSW confirmed that she and the ADM/ED did interview Resident #1, and she did express being upset by LPN #1, and the LSW confirmed that she conducted two (2) trauma assessments for Resident #1 and placed them in the medical record. The interview on 2/18/25 at 3:40 PM with CNA #1 revealed that she worked from 7:00 AM until 3:00 PM on the A-hall, where Resident #1 resided. She stated that on several occasions she would answer the call light of Resident #1 when she was requesting pain medications and she confirmed that she would go tell LPN #1 that the resident was requesting pain medications, and she would tell me she was busy and would be there in a little while. CNA #1 stated that on 12/31/24, Resident #1 was crying in her room upset that LPN #1 had talked mean to her after asking for pain medications. CNA #1 stated that Resident #1 was an intelligent free spirited person and she was well aware of her surroundings and events. CNA #1 confirmed that after LPN #1 confronted Resident #1 that day she saw her upset and crying alone in her room. Interview on 2/18/25 at 4:10 PM with CNA #2 revealed that on 12/31/24 she saw Resident #1 crying and upset after LPN #1 had left her room. Resident #1 was a cognitive and well-behaved resident and CNA #2 stated that she believed what Resident #1 had told her. Resident #1 told CNA #2 that she didn't want LPN #1 to come back in her room and that she had been loud and rude to her and had called her a liar. CNA #2 stated that she believed what Resident #1 had told her because she was visibly upset and crying. Record review of the facility's written documentation contained in the personnel record of LPN #1 revealed: Category One Violation Employee Corrective Counseling Memorandum contained the name and position of (LPN #1) read: Category One Warning: If a further incident of this nature occurs, your employment will be terminated. Violation 1.13 conduct widely regarded as immoral, improper, fraudulent, or otherwise inappropriate in the workplace. The nurse was accused of being confrontational with a resident regarding her PRN medications and the times that it can be given. Returned to work 1/4/25 Employees are to address the residents in a respectful manner at all times. The violation was signed by the ADM and the DON and dated 12/31/24. The violation was signed by LPN #1 and dated 1/4/25. Record review of the handwritten statement of PTA dated 12/31/24 revealed: Pt (patient) requested medicine from CNA prior to therapy. CNA states nursing said she was busy. Pt. states she was not within her 6-hour window prior to therapy. Pt. requested for me to close her door. Pt reports several incidents have occurred with current nurse where the nurse has been loud, rude, and confrontational with pt in regard to her medicine. Around 15 minutes upon leaving the room I went in to check on pt and she was in tears, when asked what happened, she states that the nurse has just left and was yelling directly at her that she knows she should have already asked for her medicine. Pt reports she feels unsafe and requests that the nurse does not come in her room again. Record review of the handwritten statement of ST dated 12/31/24 revealed, ST walked in approx. 730 (am) to pt's room. The nurse on A-Hall was talking to patient in a confrontational manner stating 'I never refused to give you pain meds. You should have never called up here and told them that. Your pain meds are PRN (as needed), so you have to request them.' ST stepped in due to observing pt's (patients) anxiousness asked, 'are you talking about yesterday because after I got done with therapy I came and told you she wanted her pain meds while you were on med pass' The nurse stated I never asked her that. The nurse continued to state that she needs to request her meds either before shift change or after. Record review revealed that there were two (2) Trauma Screening Assessments completed on Resident #1 dated 12/25/24 and dated 1/2/25 that were completed by the LSW. The 12/25/24 Trauma Screening Assessment (prior to the incident with LPN #1 on 12/31/24) did not contain information that was conducive to trauma experienced by Resident #1. The Trauma Screening Assessment conducted on 01/2/25 (after the incident with LPN #1 on 12/31/24) completed by the LSW, revealed that Resident #1 had experienced excessive trauma. The second Trauma Assessment for Resident #1 dated 1/2/25 was positive for trauma and confirmed that the resident had Upset thoughts; feeling upset by reminders of events; jumpy; and heightened awareness.
Sept 2024 16 deficiencies
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0561 (Tag F0561)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on observation, resident and staff interview, record review and facility policy review the facility failed to ensure a resident received coffee, as desired, for one (1) of 24 residents sampled. ...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, resident and staff interview, record review and facility policy review the facility failed to ensure a resident received coffee, as desired, for one (1) of 24 residents sampled. Resident #74 Findings included: Record review of facility policy titled, Resident [NAME] of Rights, dated 1/23, revealed, Each resident has a right to a dignified existence, self-determination .in an environment that promotes maintenance or enhancement of (his or her) quality of life .15. Self determination, which the facility must promote and facilitate through support of resident choice, consistent with his or her interests, assessments and plan of care and make other choices about aspects of his or her life in the facility that are significant to the resident. Including but not limited to: activities .and how she or he spends time, both in and outside the facility should be supported to the extent possible. During an interview on 9/9/24 at 12:05 PM, Resident #74 revealed she loved to have coffee each morning, but for the past month, she had not received coffee due to the coffee machine in the kitchen being broken. She stated she received coffee this morning for the first time in weeks, but she was unsure if that would continue. She stated this had also been mentioned in the Resident Council meeting and they were told the coffee machine was being repaired. She revealed that coffee was something that she and many other residents enjoyed and it was a social activity for her and others and not having it had been awful. She stated the facility could have gone to Walmart and bought a coffee pot to make coffee for those residents who wanted it and to go for so long without it was not right or fair for the residents. She stated a lot of money was paid to live at the facility and a basic enjoyable thing like coffee should be given. An interview on 09/10/24 at 11:00 AM, with the Dietary Manager revealed that the facility's coffee maker that was used to make the coffee for the residents had been broken for about two months. She stated that they had been boiling water on top of the stove and using a filter to make some coffee, but there was a delay in getting the coffee to the residents because it was a slow process. She confirmed she had complaints about the coffee machine being broken and understands the residents' frustration. She stated that the Administrator had known about it, and they tried to get someone to repair it, but they never came. She stated someone finally came yesterday and brought a coffee pot as a replacement and this one was working fine. During an interview on 09/10/24 at 11:24 AM, the Administrator confirmed that the coffee pot for the residents had been broken for a while, but she was thinking it had only been a month. She stated she thought someone had already been out to look at the coffee pot before yesterday. She stated that they had a back-up method for making coffee for the residents, but did not realize there was a delay in getting it out to the residents. During the Resident Council on 9/10/24 at 3:15 PM, all of the residents present stated the coffee machine had been broken for several weeks and they were not consistently receiving their coffee and this had been mentioned in the last Resident Council meeting. Record review of admission Record revealed the facility admitted Resident #74 on 10/13/20. Record review of Resident #74's Minimum Data Set (MDS) with Assessment Reference Date (ARD) of 8/13/24, revealed a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) of 15 which indicated the resident was cognitively intact.
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

Safe Environment (Tag F0584)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on observation, staff interview, and facility review, the facility failed to provide housekeeping services necessary to maintain a clean home-like environment for one (1) of 55 rooms observed fo...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, staff interview, and facility review, the facility failed to provide housekeeping services necessary to maintain a clean home-like environment for one (1) of 55 rooms observed for a clean environment. Findings include: A review of a document on facility letter head dated 9/10/24 and signed by the Executive Director revealed the facility does not have a policy on cleaning floor mats. An observation of D5 B room on 9/9/24 at 10:20 AM, revealed a light gray fall protection floor mat that was a length of 72 inches by width of 24 inches on the left side of the bed covered in black and brown dried stains. A quarter size clump of a brown leaf tobacco product was observed on the floor next to the floor mat, with a dried brown ring around the tobacco. An observation of room D5 B on 9/09/24 at 2:30 PM, revealed the tobacco product that was lying on the floor had been cleaned up but the floor mat on the left side of the bed remained completely covered in black and brown dried stains. In an observation of the fall mat next to the bed in room D5 B with Certified Nurse Assistant (CNA) #3 on 9/9/24 at 2:30 PM, she revealed the floor mat was filthy and covered with brown and black stains and the floor mat needed to be cleaned. In an interview with the Director of Nursing (DON) on 9/9/24 at 3:10 PM, she revealed the floor mats should be cleaned daily to prevent the spread of infections when staff step on the dirty fall mat. In an interview with Housekeeper #1 on 9/10/24 at 7:45 AM, she revealed the resident's rooms are cleaned daily, and the floors are mopped as well and more often if needed. She stated if a resident has a fall protection floor mat, they should be moved to mop under the mat, and the top of the mat should be sanitized daily to reduce bacteria growth. In an interview with the Assistant Director of Nursing/Infection Control Nurse on 9/10/24 at 10:44 AM, she revealed that the resident's fall mat should be cleaned and sanitized every day along with the room to reduce the risk for spread of infection.
CONCERN (D)

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

Transfer Notice (Tag F0623)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on resident/resident representative interviews, staff interview, record review, and facility policy review the facility failed to notify the resident/resident's representative(s) of a notice of ...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on resident/resident representative interviews, staff interview, record review, and facility policy review the facility failed to notify the resident/resident's representative(s) of a notice of discharge/transfer to the hospital in writing and in a language and manner they understand for one (1) of three (3) hospital transfers reviewed. Resident #45 Findings include: A review of the facility policy titled, Emergency Transfers Procedures, dated 7/21, revealed, .Procedure: 4.) An Emergency Transfer notice that includes the date, reason for emergency transfer, location the resident is being transferred to and contact information for State Agencies to initiate the appeal process should be provided to the resident/resident representative as soon as is practicable . In an interview with Resident #45 on 9/8/24 at 1:00 PM, she revealed she had been to the hospital recently. Record review of the progress notes for Resident #45 dated 8/29/24 at 11:56 AM revealed the resident was transferred to the emergency department related to chest pains. A record review of the Discharge/Transfer notice for Resident #45 revealed the date of notice as 8/30/24 with no signature from the resident or the resident representative. An interview with the Business Office Manager on 9/10/24 at 12:47 PM, she revealed there is no signature on the Discharge/Transfer form because the forms are mailed out to the responsible party. She revealed she had no proof that the form was ever mailed to the resident representative. She then revealed the purpose of the Discharge/Transfer Notice is to inform the resident representative in writing of the reason for transfer and where the resident was transferred to. A phone interview with the Resident Representative for Resident #45 on 9/10/24 at 3:03 PM, she revealed she has never received anything in person or in the mail regarding notification of discharge/transfer form and stated her mom has been to the hospital a few times. Record review of the admission Record revealed the facility admitted Resident #45 on 12/16/22 with a diagnosis of Encounter for attention to other artificial openings of the urinary tract. Record review of Resident # 45's Section C of the Quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) revealed on 7/26/24 a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score was 15, indicating the resident was cognitively intact.
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0625 (Tag F0625)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on resident/resident representative interviews, staff interview, record review, and facility policy review, the facility failed to provide written notice of the bed-hold policy to the resident/r...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on resident/resident representative interviews, staff interview, record review, and facility policy review, the facility failed to provide written notice of the bed-hold policy to the resident/resident representative for (1) one of (3) three residents bed holds reviewed. Resident #45 Findings include: A review of the facility policy titled, F-625 Notice of Bed-Hold Policy undated revealed, at the time of transfer of a resident for hospitalization, a nursing facility must provide to the resident and the resident representative written notice of the bed-hold policy. In an interview with Resident # 45 on 9/8/24 at 1:00 PM, she revealed she had been to the hospital recently and the facility had not notified her of the bed hold policy when she went out to the hospital, she revealed she did not know what that was. A record review of a Bed-Hold Notice form for Resident #45 revealed the date of notice of 8/30/24 with no signature from the resident or resident representative. In an interview with the Business Office Manager on 9/10/24 at 12:47 PM, she revealed there is no signature on the bed-hold notice form because they are mailed out to the resident representative. She revealed she had no proof that the bed-hold form was ever mailed to the resident representative. She then revealed the purpose of the bed-hold notice is to notify the resident/resident representative in writing about the bed-hold and the amount of the bed-hold, and gives the family the opportunity to make the decision of whether they want to reserve the bed-hold or not. In a phone interview with the Resident Representative for Resident #45 on 9/10/24 at 3:03 PM, she revealed she has never received anything in person or in the mail regarding a bed-hold notice and stated her mom has been to the hospital a few times. Record review of the admission Record revealed the facility admitted Resident #45 on 12/16/22 with a diagnosis of Encounter for attention to other artificial openings of the urinary tract. Record review of Resident # 45's Section C of the Quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) revealed on 7/26/24 a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score was 15, indicating the resident was cognitively intact.
CONCERN (D)

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

Assessment Accuracy (Tag F0641)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on resident and staff interview, record review, and facility policy review, the facility failed to accurately complete section N of the five (5) day Minimum Data Set (MDS) for one (1) of 24 samp...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on resident and staff interview, record review, and facility policy review, the facility failed to accurately complete section N of the five (5) day Minimum Data Set (MDS) for one (1) of 24 sampled residents. Resident #22 Findings Include: Review of the facility policy titled MDS Assessment with a revision date of 6/23 revealed, Policy: The facility shall conduct interdisciplinary assessments using the MDS item sets as defined by Federal/State regulations. These assessments provide information on the resident's condition to facilitate development of an individualized plan of care is as a means by which the facility can track changes in a resident's status. Record review of section N of the Admit 5-day MDS with an Assessment Reference Date (ARD) of 8/26/2024 revealed, Resident #22 was coded to have received seven (7) days of insulin injections during the 7-day look back period since admission. An interview with Resident #22 on 9/9/2024 at 3:55 PM revealed, he was not a diabetic and had never taken insulin injections. Record review of the August 2024 Medication Administration Record (MAR) revealed, Resident #22 did not receive insulin or injections of any kind during the 7 day lookback period. An interview with the MDS Nurse on 9/11/2024 at 7:50 AM, confirmed a coding error was made on the MDS, as Resident #22 did not have a physician order for insulin. She revealed the MDS should be accurate to paint a complete and correct picture of the resident. An interview with the Administrator on 9/11/2024 at 8:33 AM, revealed her expectations were for the MDS assessments to be completed accurately on each resident. Record review of the admission Record revealed the facility admitted Resident #22 on 7/16/2024 with a medical diagnosis of Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease. Record review of the Admit 5-day MDS with an ARD of 8/26/2024 revealed, under section C, a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) summary score of 12, which indicated Resident #22 was moderately cognitively impaired.
CONCERN (D)

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

Room Equipment (Tag F0908)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on observation, staff and resident interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure a wheelchair was in good, safe condition for one (1) of 21 sampled residents' wheelchairs. Resident...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, staff and resident interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure a wheelchair was in good, safe condition for one (1) of 21 sampled residents' wheelchairs. Resident #84 Findings include: Record review of facility letterhead dated and signed by the Administrator on 9/11/24, revealed, (Proper name of facility) do not have a maintenance equipment repair policy. During an interview and observation on 9/9/24 at 11:20 AM, Resident #84's wheelchair was noted to have both arm rests with foam exposed between the cracked protective covering which covered all the left arm rest and was approximately four inches by one inch area on right arm rest. Resident #84 stated it had been that way for a while and those areas are rough to touch. During an observation and interview with the Director of Nursing (DON) on 9/10/24 at 1:00 PM, she confirmed that Resident #84's wheelchair arms needed to be replaced to prevent skin injury. She stated they had a system in place for any needed repairs to be noted in so areas of concern could be corrected, but this was overlooked and not put into their system. She confirmed the facility failed to maintain Resident #84's wheelchair in safe and good repair, which could cause an injury to the resident's skin. Record review of Resident #84's admission Record revealed the facility admitted the resident initially on 9/26/23 with the most recent admission of 2/16/24 with diagnoses included Muscle wasting and atrophy, Muscle weakness and Cerebral infarction. Record review of quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) with an Assessment Reference Date (ARD) of 8/14/24 revealed a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of 15 which indicated the resident was cognitively intact.
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

Comprehensive Care Plan (Tag F0656)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

Based on observation, staff and resident interview, record review, and facility policy review, the facility failed to ensure a developed care plan was implemented for shaving (Resident #43), bathing (...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, staff and resident interview, record review, and facility policy review, the facility failed to ensure a developed care plan was implemented for shaving (Resident #43), bathing (Resident #59), incontinent care (Resident #68, 351, & 352), and nail care (Resident #151) for six (6) of 24 resident care plans reviewed. Findings include: Record review of facility policy titled, Shaving - Male and Female dated 1/15, revealed, Residents will be free of facial hairs - both male and female. If the resident is alert and oriented and requests not to be shaved, this will be noted in the Care Plan. Record review of facility policy titled, Comprehensive Person Centered Care Plans, revealed, Each resident will have a person centered plan of care to identify problems, needs, strengths, preferences, and goals that will identify how the interdisciplinary team will provide care. Resident #43 Record review of Resident #43's Care Plan revealed, I require assistance with my ADL's with intervention listed as assist me with my shower/bath three times weekly and as needed. During an interview and observation on 9/9/24 at 10:50 AM, Resident #43 revealed her preference is to have her facial hair removed by shaving, and she had asked staff to assist her with this, but they had not helped her and facial hair was observed on the resident's face. An interview with the Director of Nursing (DON) on 9/10/24 at 2:30 PM, revealed the shower was documented as given yesterday and shaving was a part of the shower/bathing routine and the facility failed to do the shaving. She confirmed the care plan's purpose was to provide resident's preferences and care requirements and Resident #43's care plan for activities of daily living (ADL) was not followed. During an interview on 9/10/24 at 2:33 PM, the Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) Minimum Data Set (MDS) Assistant confirmed the resident had a care plan for assistance with her Activities of Daily Living (ADL) care which included showers/baths three times weekly. She stated shaving is included in that care and was not done. She confirmed the care plan allows the staff to know what care each resident requires and their preferences for care and she confirmed the facility failed to follow Resident #43's developed care plan for ADL assistance. Record review of Resident #43's admission Record revealed the facility admitted the resident on 12/18/2020 with diagnoses that included Type 1 Diabetes Mellitus and Arthritis. Record review of Resident #43's quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) with Assessment Reference Date (ARD) of 7/26/24, revealed a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of 12 which indicated the resident had a mild cognitive impairment. Resident #151 Record review of Resident #151's Care Plan date initiated 9/2/24 revealed, The resident has an ADL self-care performance deficit. Interventions included, Check nail length and trim and clean on bath day and as necessary. An observation and interview with Resident #151 on 9/9/24 at 10:50 AM revealed fingernails were long (approximately one-half inch from nail bed) with a brown substance noted under nails. The resident stated she would love for her nails to be trimmed but no one had done it. During an observation and interview with the Director of Nursing (DON) and Resident #151 on 9/10/24 at 4:15 PM, the resident told the DON she wanted her nails to be trimmed. The DON confirmed the nails were long with a brown substance under each nail. She confirmed the care plan for assistance with activities of daily living (ADL) for nail care was not followed for this resident. An interview with the MDS Assistant on 9/11/24 at 9:10 AM, revealed Resident #151's comprehensive care plan for assistance with nail care and activities of daily living had been developed but it was not implemented. She stated purpose of care plan is to provide staff with care required and preferences and should be followed. She confirmed the facility failed to implement the care plan for Resident #151's nail care. Record review of Resident #151's admission Record revealed the facility admitted the resident on 8/23/24. Diagnoses included Metabolic Encephalopathy, Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus, and Need for assistance with personal care. Record review of Resident #151's admission MDS with ARD of 8/30/24 revealed a BIMS score of 9 which indicated the resident was moderately impaired cognitively. Resident #59 Record review of Resident #59's Care Plan with a problem onset date of 11/29/23 revealed, I require assistance with ADL's (activities of daily living) r/t (related to) impaired mobility d/t (due to) BIL (bilateral) amputee .Approaches: Shower/Bath resident 3 X (times) weekly . An interview on 9/9/2024 at 12:18 PM, with Resident #59 who stated, I'm not going to lie on them or for them . I have not had a bath of any type since last Tuesday; They will wash my face, but that's it. He revealed he would love to be really cleaned up. Record review of documented baths for Resident #59 revealed the resident received a bed bath on 8/29/2024 with the next bath on 9/3/2024. An interview on 9/11/2024 at 7:45 AM, with CNA #7 revealed, if a resident was supposed to get a bath 3 times per week, and it was care planned, then the care plan was not implemented. An interview on 9/11/2024 at 7:50 AM, with the MDS Nurse revealed, she was one of the staff members responsible for developing the residents' care plans. She confirmed that if a resident had a care plan indicating a resident receives 3 baths a week and did not get them, then the care plan was not implemented. Record review of the admission Record revealed the facility admitted Resident #59 on 11/14/2023 with a medical diagnosis of Need for Assistance with Personal Care. Record review of the Quarterly MDS with an ARD of 7/24/2024 revealed, under section C, a BIMS summary score of 13, which indicated Resident #59 was cognitively intact. Resident #68 Review of Resident #68's Care Plans date initiated 8/27/24, revealed under, Focus: The resident has an ADL (activities of daily living) self-care performance deficit r/t (related to) Hemiplegia, Limited Mobility, Stroke. Also revealed under, Interventions: . Personal hygiene: The resident requires partial assistance by 1 staff with personal hygiene . Toilet use: The resident is totally dependent on 2 staff for toilet use. An interview on 9/9/2024 at 10:20 AM, with Resident #68 revealed, that both Saturday (9/7) and Sunday (9/8) she rang her call light and told the CNA who came in that she was wet and needed to be changed. She revealed on both days the CNA turned the call light off, said she would be back, and left the room without ever coming back. She revealed, last night, her sister called the facility and spoke with the nurse to report that the aide never came back. The resident explained that the nurse and another aide later came to change her. She revealed, I sat in that urine for an hour. Record review of the admission Record revealed the facility admitted Resident #68 on 8/19/2024 with a medical diagnosis of Chronic Combined Systolic and Diastolic Heart Failure. Record review of the admission MDS with an ARD of 8/26/2024 revealed, under section C, a BIMS summary score of 13, which indicated Resident #68 was cognitively intact. Resident #351 Review of Resident #351's Care Plans date initiated 9/2/24, revealed, Focus: The resident has an ADL (activities of daily living) self-care deficit r/t (related to) Hemiplegia, Limited Mobility, Stroke. Also revealed under, Interventions/Tasks: Personal Hygiene . The resident is totally dependent on 1 staff for personal hygiene . Toilet Use: The resident is totally dependent on 2 staff for toilet use. An observation of Resident #351 on 9/9/2024 at 10:45 AM revealed, he was sitting in a reclining wheelchair in his room. His eyes were open, and he was non-verbal. The resident was wearing a gray pair of jogger pants that were saturated through the groin area and in between the legs with urine. An interview with a family member, while in the room, revealed he was brought back from therapy like this, and nobody had been there since to check on him. The family member revealed the resident's bed was always wet with urine. She revealed the bed was soaked out this morning and had to be changed after they got him up. She stated, They say they are changing him every 2 hours, but they are not because I am here, and they do not enter the room. Record review of the admission Record revealed the facility admitted Resident #351 on 8/23/2024 with diagnoses including Cerebral Infarction. Resident #352 Review of Resident #352's Baseline Care Plan dated 9/3/24 revealed under, Bowel and Bladder: . Incontinence care An observation and interview with Resident #352 on 9/9/2024 at 10:58 AM revealed, he was lying in bed and it was noted that a foul odor was around the resident. The resident revealed, after he ate breakfast and took his morning medicine, it was 2 hours before someone could come to clean him up and change him. He stated, They tell me they are working with somebody and will get to me when they can. He revealed the therapy man will even come to his room to take him to therapy, and he must tell him that he cannot go right now because he needs changing. The resident stated, He wouldn't want to sit like that, so he should understand. The resident stated he was still waiting to be changed today. An interview with the Physical Therapy Assistant (PTA) on 9/10/2024 at 11:50 AM revealed, Resident #352 not being changed had been an issue since he had been working with him. He revealed he had only done about 4 sessions with the resident, and each time the resident would be dirty. The PTA revealed it took 2-3 hours before the resident got changed by the staff. He stated he usually goes down to the resident's room about 8-9 in the morning to start his session, but after the resident reports being soiled, he will push the resident's call light. He stated he also goes to hunt down someone to help change the residents, but nine times out of ten he cannot find anybody. The PTA stated like yesterday he pushed the call light, and nobody ever came, so he went to the nurse and told her, and she went to change the resident. Record review of the admission Record revealed the facility admitted Resident #352 on 9/3/2024 with medical diagnoses that included Osteomyelitis of vertebra, thoracic region. Record review of the admission MDS with an ARD of 8/13/2024 revealed under section C, a BIMS score of 15, which indicated Resident #352 was cognitively intact. An interview with the MDS Nurse on 9/11/2024 at 7:50 AM revealed, she does MDS and the care plans. She revealed, if the ADL care was on the care plan, and it was not being done by the staff, then the care plan was not being followed.
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

ADL Care (Tag F0677)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

Based on observation, staff and resident interview, record review and facility policy review the facility failed to provide assistance with Activities of Daily Living (ADL's) for residents that were d...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, staff and resident interview, record review and facility policy review the facility failed to provide assistance with Activities of Daily Living (ADL's) for residents that were dependent on staff, as evidenced by not being shaved (Resident #43), missed bath (Resident #59), not performing timely incontinent care (Resident # 68, 351 & 352) and long dirty nails (Resident #151) for six (6) of seven (7) residents reviewed for ADL's. Resident #43, 59, 68, 151, 351 and 352. Cross Reference F725 Findings include: Record review of facility policy titled, Shaving - Male and Female dated 1/15, revealed, Residents will be free of facial hairs - both male and female. If the resident is alert and oriented and requests not to be shaved, this will be noted in the Care Plan. Review of the facility policy titled Bath/Shower-Dependent with a revision date of 8/11 revealed, Policy: A bath (shower/tub) for cleanliness and comfort is scheduled at least weekly for each resident. Also revealed under, Responsibility: Nursing Assistants or Licensed Nurses monitored by Charge Nurse. Review of the facility policy titled Incontinent Care with a review date of 1/15 revealed, Policy: To provide routine, preventative skin, perineal care to residents after an incontinent episode. Also revealed under, Responsibility: All Nursing Personnel. Record review of facility policy titled, Fingernails/Toenails Care, dated 1/15, revealed, The purpose of this procedure is to clean the nail bed, to keep nails trimmed, and to prevent infections. Resident #43 On 9/9/24 at 10:50 AM, during an interview and observation , Resident #43 revealed her preference was to have her facial hair removed by shaving, and she had asked staff to assist her with this, but they had not. Facial hair was noted on resident's face. An interview and observation of Resident #43 on 9/10/24 at 11:50 AM, revealed facial hair on chin and lower jaw area. She stated she had a shower yesterday afternoon and she wanted her facial hair to be removed, but the staff did not do it. During an interview and observation in Resident #43's room on 9/10/24 at 12:05 PM, the resident informed the Director of Nursing (DON) that she wanted her facial hair shaved, but staff had not done this. The resident informed the DON she had a shower yesterday afternoon, but shaving was not done. The DON confirmed the resident, who required assistance with care, had facial hair present and did not receive the Activity of Daily Living (ADL) care for shaving, which was part of the grooming process, especially for a female resident. Record review of Task Record revealed Resident #43 had a bath on 9/9/24 at 8 PM. Record review of Resident #43's admission Record revealed the facility admitted the resident on 12/18/2020. Diagnoses included Type 1 diabetes mellitus and arthritis. Record review of Resident #43's quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) with Assessment Reference Date (ARD) of 7/26/24, revealed a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of 12 which indicated the resident had a mild cognitive impairment. Resident #151 On 9/9/24 at 10:50 AM, an observation and interview with Resident #151 revealed fingernails were long (approximately one-half inch from nail bed) with a brown substance noted under nails. The resident stated she would love for her nails to be trimmed but no one had done it. On 9/10/24 at 4:15 PM, during an observation and interview with the DON and Resident #151 , the resident stated she wanted her nails to be trimmed. The DON confirmed the nails were long with a brown substance under each nail and nails were to be trimmed and cleaned to ensure skin was not scratched and to prevent infections and the facility failed to do this. Record review of Resident #151's admission Record revealed the facility admitted the resident on 8/23/24. Diagnoses included Metabolic Encephalopathy, Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus, and Need for assistance with personal care. Record review of Resident #151's admission MDS with ARD of 8/30/24 revealed a BIMS score of 9 which indicated the resident was moderately impaired cognitively. Resident #59 An observation and interview on 9/9/2024 at 12:18 PM, with Resident #59 who stated, I'm not going to lie on them or for them . I have not had a bath of any type since last Tuesday; They will wash my face, but that's it. He revealed he would love to be really cleaned up. This observation revealed the resident was a double above the knee amputee and stated he needed assistance with his baths. An interview on 9/10/2024 at 10:17 AM, with Certified Nurse Assistant (CNA) #1 confirmed that she was assigned to Resident #59, and he had told her he only gets a bath when she was on duty. She stated she knew that the resident complained to Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) #1 last week about it, but was not sure what happened. In an interview on 9/10/2024 at 12:10 PM, with LPN #1, confirmed that Resident #59 had complained to her about not receiving a bath on 8/31/24, but she did not report it to anyone, that she just discussed it with the resident. Record review of documented baths for Resident #59 confirmed that the resident did not receive a bath on 8/31/2024. This documentation revealed the resident received a bed bath on 8/29/2024 with the next bath on 9/3/2024. Record review of the admission Record revealed the facility admitted Resident #59 on 11/14/2023 with a medical diagnosis of chronic venous insufficiency. Record review of the Quarterly MDS with an ARD of 7/24/2024 revealed, under section C, a BIMS summary score of 13, which indicated Resident #59 was cognitively intact and in Section GG that the resident needs assistance with Activities of Daily Living (ADL's). Resident #68 An observation and interview on 9/9/2024 at 10:20 AM, with Resident #68 revealed, she was sitting in her wheelchair in her room. The resident explained that both Saturday (9/7) and Sunday (9/8) she rang her call light and told the aide who came in that she was wet and needed to be changed. She revealed on both days the aide turned the call light off, said she would be back, and left the room without ever coming back. She revealed, last night, her sister called the facility and spoke with the nurse to report that the aide never came back. The resident explained that the nurse and another aide later came to change her. She revealed, I sat in that urine for an hour. On 9/10/2024 at 8:50 AM, in an interview with the DON revealed she was aware of both incidents that happened over the weekend with Resident #68. She explained that she met with the resident and her son yesterday. She revealed the aide who cared for the resident on Saturday (9/7) had been terminated. The DON revealed she spoke with the aide, and the aide stated that she changed the resident after breakfast and that every time she went back into the resident's room, the resident was asleep. The aide reported that she did not wake the resident to check her or provide incontinent care. The DON revealed that she terminated the aide because this was her second occurrence of not making rounds and leaving the residents soiled. She explained that the resident had a different aide on Sunday (9/8). The DON revealed that she met with the aide, and the aide stated that she answered the call light, cut it off, and told the resident she would be back, but never went back. She revealed the resident called her sister, who then called the facility and reported the issue. The DON revealed that during that time the aide had gone to break, and the aide stated that she had changed the resident before supper. The DON revealed the aide was written up and counseled on answering the call lights and rendering the care when needed, as this was her first offense. The DON confirmed her expectations were for the aides to make rounds on the residents every two (2) hours and as required, and render the necessary care needed. An interview with Resident #68 on 9/10/2024 at 9:25 AM, revealed the aide assigned to her on Sunday (9/8) did not toilet or change her before supper. She explained that she waited until after supper and the trays were all picked up and pushed her call light to be changed. She stated the aide came in, turned the light off and said she would be back. The resident explained that after the aide did not return, she called her sister around 7:30 PM, who called the facility. She stated, They don't come check on me every 2 hours; They say they do, but they don't. She stated, They can't be lying on me because I have my mind. An interview with the DON on 9/10/2024 at 1:21 PM, confirmed staff did not provide the necessary care for Resident #68. She revealed her expectations were for staff to answer the call lights and render the care that the resident needs in a timely manner. She explained that the aides were to make rounds every 2 hours and as needed to ensure the residents were clean and dry and to prevent skin breakdown. An interview with Certified Nurse Aide (CNA) #4 on 9/10/2024 at 3:20 PM, revealed she had been employed at the facility for eight (8) months and worked 3-11 shift. She revealed on Sunday (9/8) she was assigned to Resident #68. She revealed she had the split section which included her working the top section of A and B hall. CNA #4 revealed she was in the middle of cleaning up another resident on another hall at the time Resident #68's light went off. She explained that she had stepped out of the other resident's room to get some clean linen when she answered Resident #68's light, turned it off, and told the resident she would be back. She stated she forgot to go back. Record review of the admission Record revealed the facility admitted Resident #68 on 8/19/2024 with a medical diagnosis of Chronic Combined Systolic and Diastolic Heart Failure. Record review of the admission MDS with an ARD of 8/26/2024 revealed, under section C, a BIMS score of 13, which indicated Resident #68 was cognitively intact. Resident #351 On 9/9/2024 at 10:45 AM, observation of Resident #351 and interview with a family member revealed, he was sitting in a reclining wheelchair in his room. His eyes were open, and he was non-verbal. The resident was wearing a gray pair of jogger pants that were saturated through the groin area and in between the legs with urine. The family member revealed he was brought back from therapy like this, and nobody had been there since to check on him. The family member revealed the resident's bed was always wet with urine. She revealed the bed was soaked out this morning and had to be changed after they got him up. She stated, They say they are changing him every 2 hours, but they are not because I am here, and they do not enter the room. She explained that the resident was wetting out his clothes and the bed with urine through a brief. The family member revealed when he was in bed, she positioned a pillow under his stroke affected arm, and it even got soaked with urine. She reiterated, They are not changing him like they should be. She revealed she had been waiting on the resident's nurse to come back since 10:15 AM because she had some questions regarding the resident's fluid medication, but she had yet to come back. On 9/9/2024 at 10:51 AM, an interview with CNA #5 revealed she got Resident #351 up this morning, but she was unsure what time. She stated the resident had been to therapy, and she did not realize he was back. She revealed therapy did not come and let her know he was back or that he was wet. CNA #5 revealed she makes rounds every 2 hours to see if the residents need changing. She confirmed the resident's bed linen had to be changed because it was wet this morning. An interview with the DON on 9/10/2024 at 11:10 AM revealed, Resident #351 should be checked and changed every 2 hours and more if he needed it. She explained that he may be a heavy wetter and needed to be changed more frequently. The DON revealed if the resident was a heavy wetter, she could see that the resident could wet the bed. She revealed she was not aware of the family members' concerns regarding the resident's care, and stated those concerns were just brought to her attention yesterday. Record review of the admission Record revealed the facility admitted Resident #351 on 8/23/2024 with diagnoses including cerebral infarction. Resident #352 On 9/9/2024 at 10:58 AM an observation and interview with Resident #352 revealed, he was lying in bed. There was a foul odor around the resident. The resident revealed, after he ate breakfast and took his morning medicine, it was 2 hours before someone could come to clean him up and change him. He stated, They tell me they are working with somebody and will get to me when they can. He revealed the therapy man will even come to his room to take him to therapy, and he must tell him that he cannot go right now because he needs changing. The resident stated, He (the therapy man) wouldn't want to sit like that, so he should understand. The resident stated he was still waiting to be changed today. On 9/10/2024 at 11:50 AM, interview with the Physical Therapy Assistant (PTA) revealed, Resident #352 not being changed had been an issue since he had been working with him. He revealed he had only done about 4 sessions with the resident, and each time the resident would be dirty. The PTA revealed it took 2-3 hours before the resident got changed by the staff. He stated he usually goes down to the resident's room about 8:00-9:00 in the morning to start his session, but after the resident reports being soiled, he will push the resident's call light. He stated he also goes to hunt down someone to help change the resident, but nine times out of ten he cannot find anybody. The PTA stated yesterday he pushed the call light, and nobody ever came, so he went to the nurse and told her, and she went to change the resident. An interview with the DON on 9/10/2024 at 2:52 PM, revealed she was not aware Resident #352 was not being changed in a timely manner. She stated that therapy had not reported anything to her. She revealed when an issue was brought to her attention, she would address it. The DON confirmed that the aides should be rounding on the residents every 2 hours and the residents should be changed in a timely manner. Record review of the admission Record revealed the facility admitted Resident #352 on 9/3/2024 with diagnoses that included Osteomyelitis of vertebra, thoracic region. Record review of the admission MDS with an ARD of 8/13/2024 revealed under section C, a BIMS score of 15, which indicated Resident #352 was cognitively intact.
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

Deficiency F0725 (Tag F0725)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

Based on observation, resident/family/staff interviews, and record review, the facility failed to ensure nursing staff provided the necessary resident care for six (6) of seven (7) residents reviewed ...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, resident/family/staff interviews, and record review, the facility failed to ensure nursing staff provided the necessary resident care for six (6) of seven (7) residents reviewed for Activities of Daily Living (ADL) during the survey. Resident #43, #59, #68, #151, #351, #352 Cross-Reference to F 677 Findings include: Record review of a statement on letterhead dated 9/11/2024 and signed by the Executive Director revealed, (Proper name of facility) do not have a policy on staffing. We staff according to resident acuity. Resident #43 During an interview and observation on 9/9/24 at 10:50 AM, Resident #43 revealed her preference was to have her facial hair removed by shaving, and she had asked staff to assist her with this, but they had not and facial hair was noted on resident's face. An interview and observation of Resident #43 on 9/10/24 at 11:50 AM, revealed facial hair on the chin and lower jaw area. She stated she had a shower yesterday afternoon, and she wanted her facial hair to be removed, but the staff did not do it. During an interview and observation in Resident #43's room on 9/10/24 at 12:05 PM, the resident informed the Director of Nursing (DON) that she wanted her facial hair shaved, but staff had not done this. The resident informed the DON she had a shower yesterday afternoon, but shaving was not done. Resident #59 An observation and interview on 9/9/2024 at 12:18 PM, with Resident #59 who stated, I'm not going to lie on them or for them. I have not had a bath of any type since last Tuesday. They will wash my face, but that's it. He revealed he would love to be really cleaned up. This observation revealed the resident was a double above the knee amputee and stated he needed assistance with his baths. An interview on 9/10/2024 at 10:17 AM, with Certified Nurse Assistant (CNA) #1 confirmed that she was assigned to Resident #59, and he had told her he only gets a bath when she was on duty. She stated she knew that the resident complained to Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) #1 last week about it, but was not sure what happened. An interview on 9/10/2024 at 12:10 PM, with LPN #1 confirmed that Resident #59 had complained to her about not receiving a bath on 8/31/24, but she did not report it to anyone. She stated that she just discussed it with the resident. Record review of documented baths for Resident #59 confirmed that the resident did not receive a bath on 8/31/2024. This documentation revealed the resident received a bed bath on 8/29/2024 with the next bath on 9/3/2024. Resident #68 An observation and interview on 9/9/2024 at 10:20 AM, with Resident #68 revealed, she was sitting in her wheelchair in her room. The resident explained that both Saturday (9/7/24) and Sunday (9/8/24) she rang her call light and told the girl who came in that she was wet and needed to be changed. She revealed on both days the girl turned the call light off, said she would be back, and left the room without ever coming back. She revealed, last night, her sister called the facility and spoke with the nurse to report that the aide never came back. The resident explained that the nurse and another aide later came to change her. She revealed, I sat in that urine for an hour. An interview with the Director of Nursing (DON) on 9/10/2024 at 8:50 AM, revealed, she was aware of both incidents that happened over the weekend with Resident #68. She explained that she met with the resident and her son yesterday. She revealed the aide who cared for the resident on Saturday (9/7/24) had been terminated. The DON revealed she spoke with the aide, and the aide stated that she changed the resident after breakfast and that every time she went back into the resident's room, the resident was asleep. The aide reported that she did not wake the resident to check her or provide incontinent care. The DON revealed that she terminated the aide because this was her second occurrence of not making rounds and leaving the residents soiled. She explained that the resident had a different aide on Sunday (9/8/24). The DON revealed that she met with the aide, and the aide stated that she answered the call light, cut it off, and told the resident she would be back, but never went back. She revealed the resident called her sister, who then called the facility and reported the issue. The DON revealed that during that time the aide had gone to break, and the aide stated that she had changed the resident before supper. The DON revealed the aide was written up and counseled on answering the call lights and rendering the care when needed, as this was her first offense. The DON confirmed her expectations were for the aides to make rounds on the residents every 2 hours and as required and render the necessary care needed. An interview with Resident #68 on 9/10/2024 at 9:25 AM, revealed the aide assigned to her on Sunday (9/8/24) did not toilet or change her before supper. She explained that she waited until after supper and the trays were all picked up and pushed her call light to be changed. She stated the aide came in, turned the light off and said she would be back. The resident explained that after the aide did not return, she called her sister around 7:30 PM, who called the facility. She stated, They don't come check on me every 2 hours. They say they do, but they don't. She stated, They can't be lying on me because I have my mind. An interview with Certified Nurse Aide (CNA) #4 on 9/10/2024 at 3:20 PM, revealed she had been employed at the facility for 8 months and worked 3-11 shift. She revealed on Sunday (9/8/24) she was assigned to Resident #68. She revealed they were short-staffed that day, and she had the split section, which included her working the top section of A and B hall. CNA #4 revealed she was in the middle of cleaning up another resident on another hall at the time Resident #68's light went off. She explained that she had stepped out of the other resident's room to get some clean linen when she answered Resident #68's light, turned it off, and told the resident she would be back. She stated she forgot to go back. CNA #4 revealed they work short-staffed a lot and stated that staffing was a big concern because things do not get done. She revealed the aides were responsible for vitals, showers, making rounds every 2 hours, toileting, passing out supper trays, assisting the residents who need help with eating, picking the trays back up, answering the call lights, passing out ice, and charting. She stated, It's a lot. I'm just one person and I do all I can do. Resident #151 An observation and interview with Resident #151 on 9/9/24 at 10:50 AM, revealed fingernails were long (approximately one-half inch from nail bed) with a brown substance noted under the nails. The resident stated she would love for her nails to be trimmed, but no one had done it. During an observation and interview with the Director of Nursing (DON) and Resident #151 on 9/10/24 at 4:15 PM, the resident stated she wanted her nails to be trimmed. The DON confirmed Resident #151's nails were long with a brown substance under each nail. She stated nails were to be trimmed and cleaned to ensure the skin was not scratched and to prevent infections, and the facility failed to do this. Resident #351 An observation on 9/9/2024 at 10:45 AM, revealed Resident #351 was sitting in a reclining wheelchair in his room. His eyes were open, and he was non-verbal. The resident was wearing a gray pair of jogger pants that were saturated through the groin area and in between the legs with urine. An interview with a family member, while in the room, revealed he was brought back from therapy like this, and nobody had been there since to check on him. The family member revealed the resident's bed was always wet with urine. She revealed the bed was soaked out this morning and had to be changed after they got him up. She stated, They say they are changing him every 2 hours, but they are not because I am here, and they do not enter the room. She explained that the resident was wetting out his clothes and the bed with urine through a brief. The family member revealed when he was in bed, she positioned a pillow under his stroke affected arm, and it even got soaked with urine. She reiterated, They are not changing him like they should be. She revealed she had been waiting on the resident's nurse to come back since 10:15 AM because she had some questions regarding the resident's fluid medication, but she had yet to come back. An interview with CNA #5 on 9/9/2024 at 10:51 AM,revealed she got Resident #351 up this morning, but she was unsure what time. She stated the resident had been to therapy and she did not realize he was back. She revealed therapy did not come and let her know he was back or that he was wet. CNA #5 confirmed the resident's bed linen had to be changed because it was wet this morning. Resident #352 An observation and interview with Resident #352 on 9/9/2024 at 10:58 AM, revealed he was lying in bed with a foul odor noted around the resident. The resident revealed, after he ate breakfast and took his morning medicine, it was 2 hours before someone could come to clean him up and change him. He stated, They tell me they are working with somebody and will get to me when they can. He revealed the therapy man will even come to his room to take him to therapy, and he must tell him that he cannot go right now because he needs changing. The resident stated, He (the therapy man) wouldn't want to sit like that, so he should understand. The resident stated he was still waiting to be changed today. An interview on 9/10/24 at 11:05 AM, with CNA #1 and #2 revealed they had been working at the facility for about 4 months and stated they work shorthanded a lot and usually just get one day a week off. An interview with the Physical Therapy Assistant (PTA) on 9/10/2024 at 11:50 AM, revealed Resident #352 not being changed had been an issue since he had been working with him. He revealed he had only done about 4 sessions with the resident, and each time the resident would be dirty. The PTA revealed it took 2-3 hours before the resident got changed by the staff. He stated he usually goes down to the resident's room about 8-9 in the morning to start his session, but after the resident reports being soiled, he will push the resident's call light. He stated he also goes to hunt down someone to help change the resident, but nine times out of ten he cannot find anybody. The PTA stated like yesterday he pushed the call light, and nobody ever came, so he went to the nurse and told her. The nurse then went to change the resident. An interview with the Director of Nursing (DON) on 9/10/2024 at 3:12 PM, revealed they base their facility staffing needs on the acuity of the residents. Record review of a list provided by the facility revealed there were 18 residents who required assistance with meals. Record review of a list provided by the facility revealed there were 19 residents that requires the use of a total lift x 2 staff members for transfer. Record review of a list provided by the facility revealed there were 14 residents that requires the use of a sit-to-stand lift x 2 staff for transfers. Record review of a list provided by the facility revealed there were 16 residents that requires the assistance of 2 staff members for transfers. An interview with the Staff Development Nurse on 9/10/2024 at 3:40 PM, revealed the aides were responsible for ensuring the residents were clean and dry, answering call lights, making rounds, meals and providing showers which are split between 7-3 and 3-11 shifts. She revealed they do not have a shower team right now, but it was the goal. She revealed call ins were the main concern with staffing and explained that call ins were called to her or the DON. She revealed she then tries to get someone to fill the position but sometimes they are not able to get anyone. The Staff Development Nurse explained that sometimes the aides do not show up for a shift and do not call and then try to say they tried calling the facility,which leaves them in a bind. Furthermore, she explained they do have a high acuity of residents and stated any of the residents that use a lift of any kind must have 2 staff present for transfers. An interview with the Staff Development Nurse on 9/11/2024 at 9:30 AM, revealed On a good day, the aides are responsible for caring for 14-15 residents a piece. She explained that they work with 2 aides to each hall for all shifts, and sometimes extra when they can get someone. She revealed they are actively hiring for 4 nurse positions and 3 aides. She confirmed call ins were the biggest concern. She stated that she had to work as a med cart nurse on 3 PM-11 PM last night due to a call in, and revealed they were short-staffed. She explained that the 7 AM-3 PM shift was her most challenging shift to staff. She stated that the staff was just different now versus how they used to be and stated, They are more concerned about how much they are going to get paid. She explained that she tried to encourage the charge nurses on each hall to take charge of their hall and their CNA's, but that does not always happen. She stated, unfortunately, you sometimes must treat them like children and give them direction. An interview with CNA #7 on 9/11/2024 at 10:02 AM, revealed she has worked at the facility for 1 year and worked night shift but was working over today to fill an open position. She explained that on day shift they usually have about 7 showers to do, which did pull them away from the floor. She revealed they split them between the 2 aides on the hall and tried to cover each other's lights during that time. An interview on 9/11/24 at 11:10 AM, the DON revealed that she relies on the Charge Nurses and Unit Managers to direct their staff and follow-up to make sure the work is done. She admitted that does not always happen. She stated honestly sometimes you have to treat them like children, for instance the aides need to be told exactly what to do. She revealed she knows there have been issues but does not know the answer. She stated staff in healthcare is just different now, they are worried more about the money than the job. She revealed they do not even think of it as health care, instead just health services. An interview with the Administrator (ADM) with the DON in attendance, on 9/11/2024 at 11:16 AM, revealed she was not aware of any workload concerns from the staff or care concerns from the residents. She revealed we discuss this in resident council meetings and every morning in the stand-up meeting. She revealed the aides say they are short, but we are not. The ADM stated, We just have the wrong people in place. The ADM explained that they have a Registered Nurse (RN) Unit Manager for both units, and they also have a LPN which was a Charge Nurse on each hall. She confirmed they were supposed to be rounding on the residents to ensure the care was provided, and the resident's needs were met.
CONCERN (E)

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

Medication Errors (Tag F0758)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

Based on staff interview, record review, and facility policy review, the facility failed to ensure residents were free from unnecessary drug use as evidenced by no side effect monitoring for the use o...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on staff interview, record review, and facility policy review, the facility failed to ensure residents were free from unnecessary drug use as evidenced by no side effect monitoring for the use of psychotropic medications for three (3) of 64 residents receiving psychotropic medications. (Resident #44, #54 and #87) Findings include: Record review of the facility policy Behavior Management and Psycho-pharmacological Medication Monitoring Protocol, (K.1) with a History date of 3/18 revealed Policy: Residents will be reviewed routinely for effectiveness and monitored for side effects of these medications . Record review of Resident #44's Order Summary Report with active orders as of 9/10/24 revealed orders dated 11/29/23 for Duloxetine 30 milligrams (mg) - give one capsule by mouth in the afternoon related to major depressive disorder (give along with the 60 mg to equal a 90 mg dose, Duloxetine 60 mg - give one tablet by mouth in the afternoon related to major depressive disorder (take along with the 30 mg to equal 90 mg dose). Quetiapine Fumarate tablet 25 mg - give 0.5 tablet by mouth at bedtime related to generalized anxiety disorder. Lorazepam 0.5 mg tablet - Give 0.5 tablet by mouth two times a day related to Generalized anxiety disorder. Divalproex Sodium Cap Delayed Release Sprinkle 125 mg - Give 2 capsules by mouth three times a day related to Generalized anxiety disorder. Record review of Resident #44's admission Record revealed the facility admitted the resident on 11/29/23 with diagnoses that included Major depressive disorder, Generalized anxiety disorder, Primary insomnia and Restlessness and agitation. Record review of Resident #44's quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) with an Assessment Reference Date (ARD) of 8/20/24, revealed Resident #44 had a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of 10 which indicated the resident had moderate cognitive impairment. Resident #54 During the record review of Resident #54's Order Summary Report with active orders as of 9/10/24 revealed orders dated 5/3/24 for Quetiapine Fumarate 100 milligrams (mg) tablet - give 1.5 tablet at bedtime related to Psychotic disorder with delusions, Memantine tablet 10 mg - Give one tablet every morning and at bedtime related to Unspecified dementia with psychotic disturbance, Divalproex Sodium delayed release 125 mg - Give one capsule orally two times a day related to Psychotic disorder with delusions, Donepezil Hydrochloride (HCl) 5 mg - Give one tablet orally at bedtime related to Unspecified dementia with psychotic disturbance, Mirtazapine 30 mg - Give one tablet at bedtime related to Major depressive disorder, Venlafaxine HCl tablet 75 mg (base equivalent) - Give 1.5 tablet one time a day related to Major depressive disorder (one and one half tablet to equal 112.5 mg), Buspirone HCl oral tablet 5 mg - give one tablet every morning and at bedtime related to Psychotic disorder with delusions due to known physiological condition. Record review of Resident #54's admission Record revealed the facility admitted the resident on 7/20/23. Diagnoses included Dementia with psychotic disturbance, Alzheimer's disease, Psychotic disorder with delusions due to known physiological condition and Major depressive disorder. Record review of Resident #54's MDS with an ARD of 8/2/24 revealed a BIMS score of 3 which indicated severe cognitive impairment. Resident#87 Record review of the Medication Review Report on or after date of 9/1/24 revealed an order dated 3/1/23 for Buspirone 10 MG: Give one tablet orally three times a day related to Generalized anxiety disorder, an order dated 3/1/23 for Fluoxetine 40 MG: Give one capsule orally one time a day related to Depressive episodes, an order dated 2/9/24 for Trazodone 100 MG tablet: Give one tablet orally at bedtime related to Insomnia, and an order dated 3/15/24 for Quetiapine Fumarate 25 MG: Give one tablet orally at bedtime related to Generalized anxiety. A continued review of the medical record for Resident # 87 revealed no monitoring for side effects of the use of psychotropic medications. Review of the admission Record revealed the facility admitted Resident # 87 on 3/01/23 with diagnoses that included Generalized anxiety disorder, Major depressive disorder, Other specified depressive episodes, and Insomnia. An interview with Registered Nurse (RN) #1 on 9/10/24 at 1:10 PM, revealed she did not routinely monitor or document side effects of psychotropic medication use. She stated if she noted any abnormal movement or other concern in her routine assessment or medication administration, she would document in progress note and notify the provider, but this was not done or documented routinely. During an interview on 9/10/24 at 1:40 PM, the Director of Nursing (DON) confirmed the facility did not monitor for side effects of psychotropic medication use. She acknowledged that monitoring for psychotropic medication side effects was important to ensure any adverse effect was noted quickly and responded to for appropriate care of the resident. In an interview with the Pharmacy Consultant on 9/10/24 at 3:05 PM, he revealed all residents on psychotropic medications should be monitored for side effects like over sedation and other adverse reactions that could indicate a resident may require a change in medication.
CONCERN (E)

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

Infection Control (Tag F0880)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

Based on observation, resident and staff interview, record review, and facility review the facility failed to help prevent the transmission of infections when a resident returned from the hospital wit...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, resident and staff interview, record review, and facility review the facility failed to help prevent the transmission of infections when a resident returned from the hospital with a treatment for Clostridium Difficile Colitis (C-Diff) infection was not placed on contact isolation precautions for one (1) of 14 residents being treated for an infection. Resident #83 Findings include: A review of Centers for Disease Control (CDC) document revealed Contact Precautions: Contact precautions are intended to prevent transmission of infectious agents, which are spread by direct or indirect contact with the patient or the patient's environment.(Example: C. Difficile) . C-diff is a germ (bacterium) that causes diarrhea and colitis (an inflammation of the colon).Key Points: Most cases of C. Diff occur when you have been taking antibiotics or not long after you have finished . A review of the facility policy titled, Contact Precautions, revealed Policy: Contact precautions are a transmission-based precaution that will be utilized to reduce the risk of transmission of epidemiologically important microorganisms by direct or indirect contact. In an interview with Resident # 83 on 9/9/24 at 10:00 AM, he revealed he had just returned from the hospital the day before with bad diarrhea. He stated the diarrhea was C-Diff. Observation of the resident's room revealed there were no isolation barrels in the room. There was no signage on the resident's door alerting the staff that the resident was on contact precautions. A review of the diagnosis information on the admission Record for Resident #83 revealed on 8/30/24 he received a diagnosis of long-term use of antibiotics. A review of the Order Details revealed a physician's order for Resident # 83 dated 9/8/24 Fidaxomicin Oral Table 200 MG(milligram) Give 1( one) tablet by mouth every morning and at bedtime for C-Diff until 9/13/24. Review of hospital lab values for Resident #83 dated 9/3/24 revealed C. Difficile results was positive. In an interview with Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) #2 on 9/9/24 at 1:20 PM, she revealed Resident #83 was not on contact precautions for C-Diff. She stated she asked the night nurse if the resident was supposed to be on isolation because he was on medication for C-diff, and the nurse told her no because he was treated in the hospital. LPN #2 stated she should have questioned this further. In an interview with the Director of Nursing on 9/9/24 at 1:50 PM, she revealed that Resident #83 did come back from the hospital with orders to treat C-Diff and confirmed staff should have placed him on contact isolation to reduce the risk of infection transmission. In an interview with Assistant Director of Nursing/Infection Control nurse on 9/10/24 at 11:38 AM, she confirmed Resident #83 should have been placed on contact isolation when he returned from the hospital the evening of 9/8/24 to reduce the spread of the infection. Review of the admission Record revealed the facility admitted Resident #83 on 6/09/23 with a diagnosis of Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease. Record review of the Quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) with an Assessment Reference Date (ARD) of 7/9/24 revealed a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score was 15, indicating the resident was cognitively intact
CONCERN (F)

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 staff interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure that staff were trained on dementia care prior to caring for residents with dementia for one (1) of three (3) survey days. Fin...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on staff interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure that staff were trained on dementia care prior to caring for residents with dementia for one (1) of three (3) survey days. Findings Include: Record review of a typed statement on facility letterhead, dated September 11, 2024 and signed by the Executive Director revealed (Proper name of facility) do not have a policy on training staff or competency of staff. Record review of a typed statement on facility letterhead, dated September 11, 2024 and signed by the Executive Director revealed (Proper name of facility) have not implemented training on Dementia Care. An interview on 09/10/24 at 11:05 AM, with Certified Nurse Assistant (CNA) #1 and CNA #2 revealed they had been working at the facility for about 4 months and had not been trained on dementia care. CNA #1 stated that she did not know any special considerations regarding dealing with residents that have dementia and that she did not have any residents on her assigned B hall that had dementia. An interview on 09/10/24 at 11:48 AM, with the Staff Development Nurse confirmed that dementia care training is not included in the new hire orientation. She stated she has a video that she could let them watch, but she does not. An interview on 09/10/24 at 11:58 AM, with the Administrator confirmed that staff should be receiving dementia care training prior to caring for residents because we have a lot of residents with dementia. She stated that was a staff competency issue and they need to know how to deal and approach residents with dementia. Record review revealed the last two dementia care in-services were on 8/25/23 and 10/06/23. An interview on 09/10/24 at 12:42 PM with the Staff Development Nurse confirmed that CNA #1 and CNA #2 had not received any training on dementia care prior to starting work. She stated she had been doing staff development for about 5 years and it had never been included in the new hire orientation and training. She stated she understands now that it should have been included so that staff would know how to react and deal with residents and be able to recognize the signs. She confirmed that the last dementia care in-service was on 10/6/23. Record review of the New Hire Program revealed dementia care was not included. Record review of the Facility Assessment Tool dated July 22, 2024 revealed New Hire Training Topics-All Staff did not include dementia care listed as a required topic. Record review of the facility Resident Matrix revealed there were 16 current residents with a diagnosis of Dementia and/or Alzheimer's Disease and 2 resided on the B Hall.
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

Administration (Tag F0835)

Could have caused harm · This affected most or all residents

Based on observations, staff and resident interviews and record reviews, the facility failed to be administered in a way that allows it to use its resources effectively to ensure the wellbeing of its ...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observations, staff and resident interviews and record reviews, the facility failed to be administered in a way that allows it to use its resources effectively to ensure the wellbeing of its residents for three (3) of three (3) days of survey. Findings Include: This tag is cross referenced to F561, F584, F677, F725, F726, F758, F908, F924 & F947. Record review of a typed statement on facility letterhead dated September 11, 2024, and signed by the Executive Director revealed (Proper name of facility) do not have a policy on Administration or Administrative Staff. We have a job description for each employee position. Record review of the facilities Job Description with an effective date of 8/01/12 revealed Job Title: Executive Director . General Description .The Executive Director leads and directs the overall operation of the Facility in accordance with resident needs .so as to maintain quality care for the residents .Essential Duties 1. Works with the Facility management staff in planning all aspects of Facility's operations, including setting priorities and job assignments. Monitors each department's activities, communicates policies, evaluates performance, provides feedback and assists, coaches, and disciplines as needed . Record review of the facility Job Description: Job Title: Director of Nurses with an effective date of 01/2017 revealed General Description .Responsible for the overall management of resident care 24 hours a day, seven days per week .In the absence of the Executive Director, assumes responsibility for the Facility . Record review of the facility Job Description: Assistant Director of Nurses with an effective date of 01/2017 revealed General Description .Responsible for performing a variety of duties to provide quality nursing care to residents . F 561 An interview on 09/10/24 at 11:00 AM, with the Dietary Manager revealed that the facility's coffee maker that was used to make the coffee for the residents had been broken for about two months. She stated that they had been boiling water on top of the stove and using a filter to make some coffee, but there was a delay in getting the coffee to the residents because it was a slow process. She confirmed she had complaints about the coffee machine being broken and understands the residents' frustration. She stated that the Administrator had known about it, and they tried to get someone to repair it, but they never came. She stated someone finally came yesterday and brought a coffee pot as a replacement and this one was working fine. During an interview on 09/10/24 at 11:24 AM, the Administrator confirmed that the coffee pot for the residents had been broken for a while, but she was thinking it had only been a month. She stated she thought someone had already been out to look at the coffee pot before yesterday. She stated that they had a back-up method for making coffee for the residents, but did not realize there was a delay in getting it out to the residents. F 584 An observation of room D5 B on 9/9/24 at 10:20 AM, revealed a light gray fall protection floor mat that was a length of 72 inches by width of 24 inches on the left side of the bed covered in black and brown dried stains. A quarter size clump of a brown leaf tobacco product was observed on the floor next to the floor mat, with a dried brown ring around the tobacco. In an interview with the Director of Nursing (DON) on 9/9/24 at 3:10 PM, revealed the floor mats should be cleaned daily to prevent the spread of infections when staff step on the dirty fall mat. In an interview with the Assistant Director of Nursing/Infection Control Nurse on 9/10/24 at 10:44 AM, she revealed that the resident's fall mat should be cleaned and sanitized every day along with the room to reduce the risk for spread of infection. F 677 Resident #43 During an interview and observation in Resident #43's room on 9/10/24 at 12:05 PM, the resident informed the Director of Nursing (DON) that she wanted her facial hair shaved, but staff had not done this. The resident informed the DON she had a shower yesterday afternoon, but shaving was not done. The DON confirmed the resident, who required assistance with care, had facial hair present and did not receive the Activity of Daily Living (ADL) care for shaving, which was part of the grooming process, especially for a female resident. During an observation and interview with the Director of Nursing (DON) and Resident #151 on 9/10/24 at 4:15 PM, the resident revealed she wanted her nails to be trimmed. The DON confirmed the nails were long with a brown substance under each nail and nails were to be trimmed and cleaned to ensure skin was not scratched and to prevent infections and the facility failed to do this. Resident #59 An observation and interview on 9/9/2024 at 12:18 PM, with Resident #59 who stated, I'm not going to lie on them or for them. I have not had a bath of any type since last Tuesday. They will wash my face, but that's it. He revealed he would love to be really cleaned up. An interview on 9/10/2024 at 12:10 PM, with Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) #1 confirmed that Resident #59 had complained to her about not receiving a bath on 8/31/24, but she did not report it to anyone. Record review of documented baths for Resident #59 confirmed that the resident did not receive a bath on 8/31/2024. This documentation revealed the resident received a bed bath on 8/29/2024 with the next bath on 9/3/2024. Resident #68 An interview with the Director of Nursing (DON) on 9/10/2024 at 8:50 AM, revealed she was aware of both incidents that happened over the weekend with Resident #68 regarding not answering the call light and providing incontinent care timely. She revealed the aide who cared for the resident on Saturday (9/7/24) had been terminated. The DON revealed she spoke with the aide, and the aide stated that she changed the resident after breakfast and that every time she went back into the resident's room, the resident was asleep. The aide reported that she did not wake the resident to check her or provide incontinent care. The DON revealed that she terminated the aide because this was her second occurrence of not making rounds and leaving the residents soiled. She explained that the resident had a different aide on Sunday (9/8/24). The DON revealed that she met with that aide, and the aide stated that she answered the call light, cut it off, and told the resident she would be back, but never went back. She revealed The DON confirmed her expectations were for the aides to make rounds on the residents every 2 hours and as required, and render the necessary care needed. An interview with the Director of Nursing (DON) on 9/10/2024 at 1:21 PM, confirmed staff did not provide the necessary care for Resident #68. She revealed her expectations were for staff to answer the call lights and render the care that the resident needs in a timely manner. She explained that the aides were to make rounds every 2 hours and as needed to ensure the residents were clean and dry and to prevent skin breakdown. Resident #151 During an observation and interview with the DON and Resident #151 on 9/10/24 at 4:15 PM, the resident revealed she wanted her nails to be trimmed. The DON confirmed the nails were long with a brown substance under each nail and nails were to be trimmed and cleaned to ensure skin was not scratched and to prevent infections and the facility failed to do this. Resident #351 An interview with the DON on 9/10/2024 at 11:10 AM, revealed Resident #351 should be checked and changed every 2 hours and more if he needed it. She explained that he may be a heavy wetter and needed to be changed more frequently. The DON revealed if the resident was a heavy wetter, she could see that the resident could wet the bed. She revealed she was not aware of the family members' concerns regarding the resident's care, and stated those concerns were just brought to her attention yesterday. Resident #352 An interview with the Physical Therapy Assistant (PTA) on 9/10/2024 at 11:50 AM revealed, Resident #352 not being changed had been an issue since he had been working with him. He revealed he had only done about 4 sessions with the resident, and each time the resident would be dirty. The PTA revealed it took 2-3 hours before the resident got changed by the staff. He stated he usually goes down to the resident's room about 8-9 in the morning to start his session, but after the resident reports being soiled, he will push the resident's call light. He stated he also goes to hunt down someone to help change the resident, but nine times out of ten he cannot find anybody. The PTA stated like yesterday he pushed the call light, and nobody ever came, so he went to the nurse and told her. She then went to change the resident. He confirmed that this caused a delay in therapy session because time starts when he knocks on the door. An interview with the DON on 9/10/2024 at 2:52 PM, revealed,she was not aware Resident #352 was not being changed in a timely manner. She stated that therapy had not reported anything to her. She revealed when an issue was brought to her attention, she would address it. The DON confirmed that the aides should be rounding on the residents every 2 hours and the residents should be changed in a timely manner. F 725 An interview on 9/11/24 at 11:10 AM, with the DON revealed that she relies on the charge nurses and Unit Managers to direct their staff and follow-up to make sure the work is done. She admitted that does not always happen. She stated honestly sometimes you have to treat them like children, for instance the aides need to be told exactly what to do. She revealed she knows there have been issues but does not know the answer. She revealed that staff in healthcare today is just different now, they are worried more about the money than the job. She revealed they do not even think of it as health care, instead just health services. An interview with the Administrator (ADM) with the Director of Nursing (DON) in attendance, on 9/11/2024 at 11:16 AM, revealed she was not aware of any workload concerns from the staff or care concerns from the residents. She revealed we discuss this in resident council meetings and every morning in the stand-up meeting. She revealed the aides say they are short, but they are not. The ADM stated, We just have the wrong people in place. The ADM explained that they have a Registered Nurse (RN) Unit Manager for both units, and they also have an LPN which was a Charge Nurse on each hall. She confirmed they were supposed to be rounding on the residents to ensure the care was provided and the resident's needs are met. F 726 An interview on 09/10/24 at 11:48 AM, with the Staff Development Nurse confirmed that dementia care training is not included in new hire orientation. She stated she has a video that she could let them watch, but she does not. She stated that staff just get in-serviced on dementia care when it is time for an in-service. An interview on 09/10/24 at 11:58 AM, with the Administrator revealed she was unaware that new staff were not receiving dementia care training prior to working. She stated that staff should be receiving dementia care training prior to caring for residents because we have a lot of residents with dementia. She stated that was a staff competency issue and they need to know how to deal and approach residents with dementia. F 908 During an observation and interview with the Director of Nursing (DON) on 9/10/24 at 1:00 PM, she confirmed that Resident #84's wheelchair arms needed to be replaced to prevent skin injury. She revealed that they had a system in place for any needed repairs to be noted in so areas of concern could be corrected, but this was overlooked and not put into their system. She confirmed the facility failed to maintain Resident #84's wheelchair in safe and good repair, which could cause an injury to the resident's skin. F 924 An interview and observation on 9/9/24 at 12:00 PM with the Administrator confirmed that the hand rails on the resident halls had been loose for a while. She admitted that they had been talking about replacing them, but she wanted to get the floor replaced first. She stated that the hand rails were PVC pipes, and they had put them up. She stated she knew one of the residents on the B Hall pulled on them a lot but had not had an accident. She revealed that she had talked with a company about getting it fixed, but that was back in May, and she had not got that approved from corporate yet. She admitted that the lose handrails could be a safety issue for the residents. F 947 An interview and observation on 9/9/24 at 12:00 PM with the Administrator confirmed that the hand rails on the resident halls had been loose for a while. She admitted that they had been talking about replacing them, but she wanted to get the floor replaced first. She stated that the hand rails were PVC (Polyvinyl Chloride) pipes, and they had put them up. She stated she knew one of the residents on the B Hall pulled on them a lot but had not had an accident. She revealed that she had talked with a company about getting it fixed, but that was back in May, and she had not got that approved from corporate yet. She admitted that the lose handrails could be a safety issue for the residents. An interview on 09/11/24 at 12:52 PM, with the Administrator and the DON confirmed there is issues, but they are not sure if it is a breakdown in communication or follow up. The Administrator revealed they have been working on Survey Readiness since their last survey in 5/2023 and part of that was putting quality measures such as care under a Performance Improvement Plan (PIP). She stated that has included their administrative nurses and Unit Managers being assigned certain rooms and making rounds on those residents. She revealed that during those rounds they are supposed to be looking for issues such as needed care, dirty wheelchairs, facial hair, etc. She admitted there had been no real issues found and admits that is really impossible. The Administrator stated that there had been no changes to their polices or procedures based on the results of the rounds. They both admitted that when they do find something that needs to be fixed then they fix it, but never get to the root cause. The Administrator added that she has seen residents in the same clothes for days or have food on their clothes and has told the administrative staff and Unit Managers that if she sees these things she knows they do. The DON added that the administrative staff have to document their round results and turn them in, but the Unit Managers do not. She stated they verbally report if there are any issues. The DON admitted she thinks the problem is there is no accountability. They both agreed that they are accountable and should follow up as oversight to make sure the rounds are correct and being done and that care is being provided.
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

QAPI Program (Tag F0867)

Could have caused harm · This affected most or all residents

Based on observations, staff and resident interviews, record review and facility policy review, the facilities Quality Assessment Performance Improvement (QAPI)/ Quality Assessment and Assurance (QAA)...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observations, staff and resident interviews, record review and facility policy review, the facilities Quality Assessment Performance Improvement (QAPI)/ Quality Assessment and Assurance (QAA) committee failed to maintain implemented procedures and monitor interventions that the committee put into place. This failure resulted in four recited deficiencies that was originally cited on the 5/18/23 recertification survey. The recited deficiencies were in the areas of failing to implement an Activities of Daily Living (ADL) care plan, assist residents with ADL's, monitor for side effects of psychotropic medications and place an infectious resident in contact isolation. The continued failures during 2 recertification's shows a pattern of the facilities inability to sustain an effective Quality Assurance Program. Findings Include: This tag is cross referenced to: F656, F677, F758 and F880. Review of the facility policy titled, Quality Improvement Program with a revision date of 10/2022 revealed under the Policy .The Quality Improvement Committee will assess and monitor the quality of services provided to the residents in the facility in order to identify potential problems and/or opportunities for improvement. The committee will implement and systemically evaluate programs and processes to identify problems in order to proactively improve health care delivery. During the recertification survey on 5/18/23 the facility was cited for F656, F677, F758, and F880. During the recertification and complaint survey on 9/9/24, the facility was cited for deficiencies that included repeat deficiencies of F656, for failure to implement a care plan regarding ADL's. F677 for failure to bath, shave and provide nail care for a total of 6 out of 7 residents investigated for ADL's. F758 for failing to monitor for side effects of psychotropic medications and F880 for failing to place a resident with an infectious disease in contact isolation. An interview on 9/11/24 at 11:10 AM, with the Director of Nurses (DON) revealed that she relies on the charge nurses and Unit Managers to direct their staff and follow up to make sure the work is done. She admitted that does not always happen. She revealed she knows there have been issues, but does not know the answer. She stated staff in healthcare is just different now, they are worried more about the money than the job. An interview and record review on 09/11/24 at 11:53 AM, with the Administrator revealed the facility has a QAPI/QAA meeting with the medical director and other interdisciplinary team members monthly. She stated they have not addressed staffing concerns, ADL care or care plans during the meetings. An interview on 09/11/24 at 12:52 PM, with the Administrator and the DON confirmed there is an issue, but they are not sure if it is a breakdown in communication or follow up. The Administrator revealed they have been working on Survey Readiness since their last survey in 5/2023 and part of that was putting quality measures such as care under a Performance Improvement Plan (PIP). She stated that has included their administrative nurses and Unit Managers being assigned certain rooms and making rounds on those residents. She revealed that during those rounds they are supposed to be looking for issues such as needed care, dirty wheelchairs, facial hair, etc. She admitted there had been no real issues found and admits that its impossible for things to be perfect. The Administrator stated that there had been no changes to their polices or procedures based on the results of the rounds. They both admitted that when they do find something that needs to be fixed then they fix it, but do not get to the root cause. The Administrator added that she has seen residents in the same clothes for days or have food on their clothes and has told the administrative staff and Unit Managers that if she sees these things she knows they do. The DON added that the administrative staff have to document their round results and turn them in, but the Unit Managers do not. She stated they verbally report if there are any issues. The DON admitted she thinks the problem is there is no accountability. They both agreed that they are accountable and should follow up as oversight to make sure the rounds are correct and being done.
CONCERN (F)

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

Deficiency F0924 (Tag F0924)

Could have caused harm · This affected most or all residents

Based on observation, staff interview and facility letterhead review, the facility failed to ensure the handrails on the resident's halls were permanently affixed to the wall for four (4) of 4 hallway...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, staff interview and facility letterhead review, the facility failed to ensure the handrails on the resident's halls were permanently affixed to the wall for four (4) of 4 hallways. Findings Include: Record review of a typed statement on facility letterhead, dated September 11, 2024, and signed by the Executive Director revealed the (Proper name of facility) do not have a policy on facility repairs. An observation on 09/09/24 at 11:49 AM, of all resident halls revealed multiple loose hand rails with the ends of the hand rails not being permanently affixed to the walls on all four halls of the facility. An interview and observation on 9/9/24 at 12:00 PM with the Administrator confirmed that the hand rails on the resident halls had been loose for a while. She admitted that they had been talking about replacing them, but she wanted to get the floor replaced first. She stated that the handrails were PVC (polyvinyl chloride) pipes, and they had put them up. She stated she knew one of the residents on the B Hall pulled on them a lot but had not had an accident. She revealed that she had talked with a company about getting it fixed, but that was back in May, and she had not got that approved from corporate yet. She admitted that the lose handrails could be a safety issue for the residents. Record review revealed that there was communication from (proper name of business) in 5/10/2024 regarding options for fixing the broken handrails in the facility.
CONCERN (F)

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

Deficiency F0947 (Tag F0947)

Could have caused harm · This affected most or all residents

Based on staff interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure that new hire staff were trained on dementia care prior to caring for residents with dementia for one (1) of three (3) survey ...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on staff interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure that new hire staff were trained on dementia care prior to caring for residents with dementia for one (1) of three (3) survey days. Findings Include: This tag is cross referenced to F 726, Competent Staff Record review of a typed statement on facility letterhead, dated September 11, 2024 and signed by the Executive Director revealed (Proper name of facility) do not have a policy on training staff or competency of staff. An interview on 09/10/24 at 11:05 AM, with Certified Nurse Assistant (CNA) #1 and CNA #2 revealed they both had been working at the facility for about 4 months and had not been trained on dementia care. CNA #1 stated that she did not know any special considerations regarding dealing with residents that have dementia and that she did not have any residents on her assigned B hall that had a diagnosis of dementia. An interview on 09/10/24 at 11:48 AM, with the Staff Development Nurse confirmed that dementia care training is not included in new hire orientation. She stated she has a video that she could let them watch, but she does not. An interview on 09/10/24 at 11:58 AM, with the Administrator confirmed that staff should be receiving dementia care training prior to caring for residents because we have a lot of residents with dementia. She stated that was a staff competency issue and they need to know how to deal and approach residents with dementia. An interview on 09/10/24 at 12:42 PM, with the Staff Development Nurse confirmed that she had been doing staff development for about 5 years and it had never been included in the new hire orientation and training. She stated she understands now that it should have been included so that staff would know how to react and deal with residents and be able to recognize the signs. Record review of the New Hire Program revealed dementia care was not include. Record review of the Facility Assessment Tool dated July 22, 2024 revealed New Hire Training Topics-All Staff did not include dementia care listed as a required topic. Record review of the facility Resident Matrix revealed there were 16 current residents with a diagnosis of Dementia and/or Alzheimer's Disease and 2 were on the B Hall.
Aug 2023 2 deficiencies 2 IJ
CRITICAL (J) 📢 Someone Reported This

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

Immediate Jeopardy (IJ) - the most serious Medicare violation

Deficiency F0655 (Tag F0655)

Someone could have died · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on staff interviews, record reviews, and facility policy review, the facility failed to implement the baseline plan of car...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on staff interviews, record reviews, and facility policy review, the facility failed to implement the baseline plan of care for Res #1 who was a high risk for elopement, and had displayed exit seeking behaviors. Res #1 was one (1) of five (5) residents reviewed. The facility failed to provide supervision as outlined in the baseline care plan for hourly visual checks to prevent an elopement for Res #1, who was diagnosed with Dementia. Res #1 was allowed to leave the facility, unnoticed and unsupervised until the local Law Enforcement found the resident 4.2 miles away from the facility. During the investigation the State Agency (SA) identified an Immediate Jeopardy (IJ). The IJ had existed on 08/02/23 when Res #1 eloped from the facility unsupervised. The SA notified the facility's Administrator of the IJ on 08/08/23 at 10:10 AM and provide the IJ Template. The elopement placed Res #1 and other residents at risk for wandering and elopement, at risk for the likelihood of serious injury, harm, impairment, or death. Based on the facility's implementation of corrective actions on 08/04/23, the SA determined the IJ to be Past Non-Compliance (PNC) and the IJ was removed on 08/05/23, prior to the SA's entrance on 08/07/23. Findings include: The facility policy titled, Comprehensive Person-Centered Care Plans, revised dated 3/18 stated, Each resident will have a person-centered plan of care to identify problems, needs, strengths, preferences, and goals that will identify how the interdisciplinary team will provide care. The facility policy undated and titled, Elopement Guidelines, stated, The Elopement Risk Evaluation is to be done upon admission and quarterly & as needed with exit seeking behaviors. High risk residents are to be addressed on care plan and Pocket Care Guide. At the beginning and end of each shift the charge nurse is to make visual rounds on each high-risk resident to ensure that they can be in the facility. When exit seeking activity occurs consider 1:1 supervision or 15-minute checks. Record review of the facility investigation revealed that Res #1 was allowed to exit the facility on 08/02/23 at approximately 12:45 PM. At 2:40 PM on 08/02/23 the facility Medical Director (MD) discovered that Res #1 was not in the facility when he began looking for Res #1 to complete the admission assessment. Res #1 had been newly admitted to the facility on [DATE] at approximately 3:00 PM and eloped from the facility on 08/02/23 at approximately 12:45 PM. The MD notified the facility Administrator (ADM) and the Director of Nursing (DON) and they called Dr. Wander and the facility staff began to search for Res #1. When Res #1 was not located within the building or on the immediate facility grounds, the DON, the Maintenance Director, and several other staff members, got in their vehicles and began searching the community for Res #1. 911 was notified and the local law enforcement agencies began the search for Res #1. The facility had no identifying photographs of Res #1 therefore, the description of his appearance was given for the search. At approximately 3:00 PM the local law enforcement agency called the facility and stated that they had Res #1 in their vehicle and would bring him back to the facility. Res #1 was found by the local law enforcement in another nearby community approximately 4.2 miles away from the facility. The MD assessed Res #1 and sent him out to the local emergency room (ER) for further evaluation. Res #1's family came and picked up Res #1 from the ER to live with them and the family discharged Res #1 from the facility. Record review of the Baseline Care Plan, dated 08/01/23, revealed .Depression, anxiety, wandering, confusion Wander guard with visual checks, elopement risk. Check wander guard Q (every) shift, visual checks Q hour . Record review of Risk Elopement Evaluation, dated 08/01/23 stated, Past history of leaving facility/previous residence. Record review of the eFlowsheet, dated 08/23, indicated that hourly visual checks were documented by the licensed nursing staff and were checked and initialed for the hours of 9 AM, 10 AM, 11 AM, 12 PM, and 1 PM for the date of 08/02/23 and indicated an N for the 2 PM and 3 PM hourly visual checks, indicating Not Administered. Interview on 08/07/23 at 11:00 AM, with the Director of Nursing (DON) stated that Res #1 had a baseline care plan and that he had been placed on hourly checks along with the placement of a wander guard bracelet on 08/01/23 on admission because the resident was a high elopement risk. The DON confirmed that based on the resident's history of prior elopement from his residence that they probably should have watched him more frequently than hourly. Interview on 08/08/23 at 2:15 PM, with RN#2 revealed that she had assessed Res #1 upon his admission on [DATE] and that she placed the wander guard bracelet on Res #1 and placed him on hourly observation checks. RN#2 stated that prior to Res #1's admission to the facility she had read his history and physical and admitting information and she knew that he was at risk for elopement because his paperwork had documented that he had left his sister's house where he was living and had walked to his former home that he had once owned with his wife and broke in to the house and refused to leave when the new owners got home. Res #1 was confused at that time and thought that his dead wife and he were still living in their former home that had been sold to new owners. RN#2 stated that Res #1 had a history of confusion and elopement and that due to Res #1's history he was placed on close observation checks hourly and a wander guard was placed on his right leg. RN #2 stated that she and LPN#1 were together assessing Res #1 on 08/01/23 and that a baseline care plan for Res #1 was devised on 08/01/23 by her and LPN#1 and placed on Res #1's chart. Record review of the Face Sheet of Res #1 revealed that he was admitted to the facility on [DATE] at 1:36 PM and was discharged on 08/02/23 at 4:00 PM. Res #1 was admitted to the facility with diagnoses of Unspecified Dementia with Psychotic Disturbance; Generalized Anxiety; and Insomnia, among other diagnoses. Record review of Res #1 contained a Minimum Data Set (MDS) with and Assessment Reference Date (ARD) of 08/02/23 provided a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of 6 which indicated that he had severe cognitive impairment. The facility implemented the following Corrective Action Plan prior to the State Agency's (SA) entrance on 08/07/23: On August 2, 2023, at 2:20 PM the facility was notified by Medical Director that Resident #1 was not in his room for physical assessment. The nursing staff discovered the resident was not in last seen area or therapy department. At approximately 2:25 PM. a Dr. Wander was initiated by Business Office Manager in the facility and surrounding area. At 2:40 PM Business Office Assistant contacted Tupelo Police Department regarding missing elderly resident from the facility with description. At 3:15 PM Director of Nursing, called and notified facility that [NAME] County Sheriff had located Resident #1 approximated 4.2 miles from the facility toward (city proper name). At 3:18 PM Resident #1 was returned to the facility by [NAME] County Sheriff and escorted by Director of Nursing. An announcement of Dr. Wander all clear was initiated by Social Service Director. It was determined that Resident # 1 was last seen by facility staff at 12:45 PM and returned to facility at 3:18 PM. On August 8, 2023, at 10:00 AM the facility was verbally notified that IJ's were identified for Federal tag 656 Care Plans and Federal tag 689 Failure to Prevent Accidents and Hazards and the IJ templates were given to the facility. Immediate Actions: On 8/2/2023 at 3:03 PM Executive Director notified Resident # 1 Responsible Representative of possible elopement from facility. On 8/2/23 at 3:18 PM the Mississippi State Department of Health was notified of missing resident by Executive Director. On 8/2/2023 facility completed a 100% head count of all other Residents to ensure they were accounted for. On 8/2/2023 at 3:18 PM upon return to facility Resident # 1 was assessed by physician. On 8/2/2023 at 4:15 PM Resident #1 was sent to emergency room for further evaluation. On 8/2/2023 at 3:30 PM Executive Director and Director of Nursing begin official investigation of Resident #1 Elopement. On 8/2/2023 at 3:30 PM all facility exit doors were checked for proper functioning by Maintenance Director. On 8/2/2023 at 3:30 PM an educational in-service was initiated by Staff Development Coordinator to include all staff on Elopement Protocol, Abuse and Neglect, and Residents exhibiting exit seeking behaviors to be completed by August 7, 2023 with no staff allowed to work until in-service completed. On 8/2/2023 at 3:30 PM Assistant Director of Nursing checked all residents at risk for elopement wander-guard bracelet for placement and function. On 8/2/23 at 4:10 PM Emergency AD HOC QA (Quality Assurance) committee and Medical Director (via phone) met and completed a root cause analysis related to the elopement, and implemented new interventions as a result of the findings. New Interventions: 1) Facility initiated new protocol to immediately place any resident actively exit seeking on 1 on 1 staff monitoring of resident until calm and no longer attempting to exit building, then to immediately notify the Executive Director and or Director of Nursing. All licensed nurses educated on this new protocol by 8/4/23. Any nurse who has not completed in-service education by 8/4/23 will be required to complete education prior to starting a shift 2) Signage was posted on the front door cautioning visitors not to allow anyone to exit with them that they do not know. 3) Photographs of elopement risk residents posted at the receptionist desk for quick reference to identify anyone at risk. 4) Also, the topic of new elopement risk residents was added to the daily stand-up meeting (department head meeting) format to ensure communication of risk to key personnel. On 8/2/2023 After investigating and interviewing All facility employees, the elopement for Resident #1 from facility was substantiated. On 8/2/23 at 4:30 PM all residents with risk of elopements were reevaluated, the pocket care guide and care plans were updated by Director of Nursing, Social Service and Unit Managers to ensure all residents for risk for elopement had appropriate interventions in place. This was completed on 8/2/23. On 8/3/23 at 6:32 AM Executive Director followed up with Resident #1 Responsible Representative regarding resident's condition. Executive Director was informed that resident was home with Representative. On 8/3/2023 at 8:00 AM Business Office Manager officially discharged resident from facility effective 8/2/2023 On 8/3/2023 at 10:00 AM the facility security cameras were serviced for malfunctioning by an outside contractor. On 8/3/2023 at 11:00 AM the Maintenance Director installed new security camera system in the facility. On 8/3/23, Social Service initiated an Elopement Alarm Drill with the 3pm-11pm shift employees. On 8/4/2023 Social Service initiated an Elopement Alarm Drill with the 7a-3p and 11p-7a shift employees. Mandatory Elopement Alarm Drills will be conducted by the Social Service Director weekly times one month on each shift and thereafter, monthly on each shift. On 8/3/23 a picture of all residents at risk for elopement was placed on a secure wall at the Receptionist area for immediate viewing. The facility removed the IJ on August 5, 2023, at 8:00 AM and alleges compliance. VALIDATION OF THE CORRECTIVE ACTION PLAN: The State Agency (SA) validated the facility's Past Non-Compliance (PNC) Removal Plan /Corrective Action on 08/09/23: The SA validated through interviews and record review that on 8/2/2023 at 3:03 PM Executive Director notified Resident # 1 Responsible Representative of possible elopement from facility. The SA validated through interview and record reviews that on 8/2/23 at 3:18 PM the Mississippi State Department of health was notified of missing resident by Executive Director. The SA Validated through interviews and record reviews that on 8/2/2023 facility completed a 100% head count of all other Residents to ensure they were accounted for. The SA validated through interviews and record reviews that on 8/2/2023 at 3:18 PM upon return to facility Resident # 1 was assessed by physician. SA validated through interviews and record reviews that on 8/2/2023 at 4:15 PM Resident #1 was sent to emergency room for further evaluation. SA validated that on 8/2/2023 at 3:30 PM Executive Director and Director of Nursing begin official investigation of Resident #1 Elopement. SA validated that through interviews and record review that on 8/2/2023 at 3:30 PM all facility exit doors were checked for proper functioning by Maintenance Director. The SA validated through interviews and record reviews that on 8/2/2023 at 3:30 PM an educational in-service was initiated by Staff Development Coordinator to include all staff on Elopement Protocol, Abuse and Neglect, and Residents exhibiting exit seeking behaviors to be completed by August 7, 2023 with no staff allowed to work until in-service completed. The SA validated through interviews and record reviews that on 8/2/2023 at 3:30 PM Assistant. Director of Nursing checked all residents at risk for elopement wander-guard bracelet for placement and function. The SA validated through record review and interviews that on 8/2/23 at 4:10 PM Emergency AD HOC QA committee and Medical Director (via phone) met and completed a root cause analysis related to the elopement and implemented new interventions as a result of the findings. New Interventions: 1) Facility initiated new protocol to immediately place any resident actively exit seeking on 1 on 1 staff monitoring of resident until calm and no longer attempting to exit building, then to immediately notify the Executive Director and or Director of Nursing. All licensed nurses educated on this new protocol by 8/4/23. Any nurse who has not completed in-service education by 8/4/23 will be required to complete education prior to starting a shift. 2) Signage was posted on the front door cautioning visitors not to allow anyone to exit with them that they do not know. 3) Photographs of elopement risk residents posted at the receptionist desk for quick reference to identify anyone at risk. 4) Also, the topic of new elopement risk residents was added to the daily stand-up meeting (department head meeting) format to ensure communication of risk to key personnel. All the above new interventions were validated by the (SA) through interviews, observations, and record reviews from 08/07/23-08/09/23 that the facility had implemented and educated the staff on the new Interventions. The SA validated through record reviews and interviews that on 8/2/2023 After investigating and interviewing All facility employees, the elopement for Resident #1 from facility was substantiated. The SA validated through interview and record review that on 8/2/23 at 4:30 PM all residents with risk of elopements were reevaluated, the pocket care guide and care plans were updated by Director of Nursing, Social Service and Unit Managers to ensure all residents for risk for elopement had appropriate interventions in place. This was completed on 8/2/23. The SA validated through record review and interviews that on 8/3/23 at 6:32 AM Executive Director followed up with Resident #1 Responsible Representative regarding resident's condition. Executive Director was informed that resident was home with Representative. SA validated through interviews and record reviews that on 8/3/2023 at 8:00 AM Business Office Manager officially discharged resident from facility effective 8/2/2023. SA validated through observations, interviews, and record reviews that on 8/3/2023 at 10:00 AM the facility security cameras were serviced for malfunctioning by an outside contractor. SA validated through observations, record reviews, and interviews that on 8/3/2023 at 11:00 AM the Maintenance Director installed new security camera system in the facility. SA validated through record review and interview that on 8/3/23, Social Service initiated an Elopement Alarm Drill with the 3pm-11pm shift employees. On 8/4/2023 Social Service initiated an Elopement Alarm Drill with the 7a-3p and 11p-7a shift employees. The SA validated through interview with the facility Social Worker that Mandatory Elopement Alarm Drills will be conducted by the Social Service Director weekly times one month on each shift and thereafter, monthly on each shift. The SA validated through observations, interviews, and record reviews that on 8/3/23 a picture of all residents at risk for elopement was placed on a secure wall at the Receptionist area for immediate viewing. The SA validated through policy reviews, observations, and record reviews that the facility removed the IJ on August 5, 2023, at 8:00 AM and alleges compliance.
CRITICAL (J) 📢 Someone Reported This

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

Immediate Jeopardy (IJ) - the most serious Medicare violation

Accident Prevention (Tag F0689)

Someone could have died · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on staff interviews, record review and facility policy review the facility failed to provide supervision to prevent a resi...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on staff interviews, record review and facility policy review the facility failed to provide supervision to prevent a resident from leaving the facility unsupervised for one (1) of five (5) residents reviewed, Resident #1. The facility failed to provide supervision to prevent the elopement of Res #1 who was an elopement risk and had an order for visual checks every hour. Resident #1 was diagnosed with Dementia with Psychotic Disturbance. He was last seen by staff at approximately 12:20 PM on 08/02/23. He was allowed to leave the facility, unnoticed and unsupervised. Res #1 walked approximately 4.2 miles away from the facility in 94 degree weather along a busy highway before he was found by the local law enforcement at approximately 3:00 PM. The SA identified an Immediate Jeopardy (IJ) and Substandard Quality of Care (SQC) that existed on 08/02/23 when Res #1 eloped from the facility unsupervised. The SA notified the facility's Administrator (ADM) on 08/08/23 at 10:15 AM and provided the IJ template. The facility's failure to provide adequate staff supervision for Resident #1, with a history of elopement risk, placed this resident and other residents who exhibit wandering behavior in a situation that was likely to cause serious harm, injury, impairment or death. Based on the facility's implementation of corrective actions on 08/04/23, the SA determined the IJ and SQC to be Past Non-Compliance (PNC) and the IJ was removed on 08/05/23, prior to the SA's entrance on 08/07/23. Findings include: Record review of the facility policy titled Accident & Incident Documentation & Investigation Resident Incident with a history dated 7/18 revealed . Policy .An incident is defined as an occurrence which is not consistent with the routine operation of the facility or the routine care of a particular resident . Record review of the facility policy titled Missing Resident / Elopement reviewed 1/15 revealed, . Procedure: It is the responsibility of all personnel to report any resident attempting to leave the premises, or suspected of being missing, to the Charge Nurse as soon as practical . Record review of the investigation revealed Res #1 was allowed to exit the facility on 08/02/23 at approximately 12:45 PM. At 2:40 PM on 08/02/23 the facility Medical Director (MD) discovered that Res #1 was not in the facility when he began looking for Res #1 to complete the admission assessment. Res #1 had been newly admitted to the facility on [DATE] at approximately 1:36 PM and eloped from the facility on 08/02/23 at approximately 12:45 PM. The MD notified the facility Administrator (ADM) and the Director of Nursing (DON) and they called Dr. Wander and the facility staff began to search for Res #1. When Res #1 was not located within the building or on the immediate facility grounds, the DON, the Maintenance Director, and several other staff members, got in their vehicles and began searching the community for Res #1. 911 was notified and the local law enforcement agencies began the search for Res #1. The facility had no identifying photographs of Res #1 therefore, the description of his appearance was given for the search. At approximately 3:00 PM the local law enforcement agency called the facility and stated that they had Res #1 in their vehicle and would bring him back to the facility. Res #1 was found by the local law enforcement in another nearby community approximately 4.2 miles away from the facility. The MD assessed Res #1 and sent him out to the local emergency room (ER) for further evaluation. Res #1's family came and picked up Res #1 from the ER to live with them and the family discharged Res #1 from the facility. Record review of the Admission/readmission Evaluation' dated 8/1/23 revealed, .Elopement Evaluation: 1 Intermittent confusion .Exhibited wandering behaviors/Dementia .2. History of wandering . Yes If YES, when? Prior to admission .3. Mobility .Ambulates independently .If yes, resident is at risk---Place appropriate intervention of Care Plan. Location Monitoring, (checked), Notify staff (checked), Personal Alarm (checked). Record review of the Risk Elopement Evaluation, dated 08/01/23 revealed, .Past history of leaving facility/previous residence . Record review of the eFlowsheet, dated 08/23, indicated that hourly visual checks were documented by the licensed nursing staff and were checked and initialed for the hours of 9 AM, 10 AM, 11 AM, 12 PM, and 1 PM for the date of 08/02/23 and indicated an N for the 2 PM and 3 PM hourly visual checks, indicating Not Administered. Record review of the Departmental Notes, dated 08/02/23 4:31 PM Addendum. Note based on conversation with res at approx.(approximately) 1230 pm. Resident stood at nurses' station and spoke with nurse about why he was here in the facility. Resident was showing some confusion. Departmental Notes, dated 08/02/23 4:36 PM Approx 220 pm this nurse and (Proper Name of Physician) went to resident's room. Resident was not in room, after walking through the facility for approx. 5 min (minutes) and not seeing resident a code Dr Wander was initiated . Interview on 08/07/23 at 8:00 AM, with the Ombudsman revealed that on 08/02/23 at approximately 2:40 PM she was in the conference room of the nursing home talking to the Director of Nursing (DON) and the facility Administrator (ADM) when the facility physician and Medical Director, (MD) came to the conference room and told the ADM that (Res #1) was missing from the facility. The MD, the DON, the ADM, along with many other staff members, and the Ombudsman, all searched the facility and the grounds for Res #1 and he was not found, so they all got in their separate vehicles and began searching for Res #1 in the community. The police department was notified of the missing resident. The facility had not made any pictures of Res #1 and had no photos to provide the law enforcement for their search. The staff determined that the last time they saw resident (Res #1) was at 12:20 PM wearing a camo shirt and a cap and that he was a white male approximately [AGE] years old that looked younger than his stated age. None of the facility staff or Ombudsman were able to locate Res #1. The Police department called the facility at approximately 3:00 PM and reported that they had found the resident walking along the side of a busy highway in a nearby community which was approximately 4.2 miles from the facility. The DON went to meet the police and found Res #1 sitting in the back seat of the police car. The resident was brought back to the facility at approximately 3:20 PM on 08/02/23. The facility physician assessed Res #1 at the facility and then sent Res #1 out to the local hospital (ER) for a second assessment. Record review of the weather in (proper name of city) on 08/02/23 documented that the temperature was 94 degrees Fahrenheit. In an interview on 08/07/23 at 11:00 AM, the ADM stated that Res #1 had on a wander guard ankle monitoring bracelet, but Res #1 had taken the wander guard monitoring bracelet off prior to leaving the facility and the ankle bracelet was never found in the facility. ADM stated that the facility MD had discovered that Res #1 was missing from the facility when he came to evaluate Res #1 on 08/02/23 after the lunch hour. The MD came to the conference room and told ADM that Res #1 was missing. The search for Res #1 began at approximately 2:40 PM on 08/02/23. The facility called 911 and reported that Res #1 was wearing blue jeans, a short sleeve camo print shirt and hat. The ADM confirmed that the facility had no identifying photographs of Res #1 because he was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. The ADM stated that the facility had put in place and had completed an action plan immediately after Res #1 eloped. Interview on 08/07/23 at 11:00 AM, with the Director of Nursing (DON) confirmed that the last time anyone saw the resident was around 12:20 PM when he was observed at the nurse's desk voicing his concerns as to why he was at the facility. The staff that she interviewed confirmed that they last saw him walking to the front lobby to sit down in a chair. DON confirmed that after they found the resident and he was sent to the ER that the QA (Quality Assurance) committee met and discussed supervision and elopement of all residents. The DON confirmed that based off the resident's history of elopement from his previous residence and his exit seeking behaviors that the resident probably should have been monitored more frequently than every hour. The DON stated that throughout the investigation the facility was never sure how the resident got out of the facility unnoticed unless he went out the door with a visitor. The DON confirmed that they were never really sure and that when the resident was returned that he did not have the wander guard on his leg, and he stated that he had removed it. The DON stated that they never found the wander guard in the facility. Interview on 08/07/23 at 2:00 PM, Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN#1) stated that she was the nurse on 08/02/23 for the unit where Res #1 resided. She stated that she had assisted with the admission of Res #1 on 08/01/23 and that he was well dressed and looked much younger than his stated age of 73. LPN#1 stated that she and another nurse, Registered Nurse (RN#2) obtained a wander guard bracelet from the Social Worker (SW) and tested it to make sure it was functioning properly, and they placed the wander guard on Res #1 on 08/01/23 at approximately 3:00 PM. LPN #1 confirmed that they did that because the resident had eloped from his residence and was found in a house that was previously his own but had been sold and he was confused and had some agitation and was not pleased about being admitted to the nursing home. She stated that Res #1 was at the nursing station on 08/02/23 at approximately 12:20 PM asking why he was admitted here and that he needed to go to his house and check things. Res #1 didn't appear agitated, and he was easily redirected and left the nursing station. LPN#1 stated that she talked to Res #1 for about 10 minutes, and he was confused and was not oriented to the situation. LPN#1 stated that she was with the MD on 08/02/23 when he discovered that Res #1 was missing from the building. Interview on 08/08/23 at 9:30 AM, with Medical Director (MD) revealed that he had talked to Res #1 on 08/01/23 via Face Time along with his Nurse Practitioner. MD stated that he was able to see Res #1 on Face Time and that was how he knew who to look for on 08/02/23 when he was unable to find Res #1 in the facility. MD stated that he went to the facility on [DATE] after the noon lunch hour to assess Res #1 as a new admission to the facility and upon searching for Res #1 and asking staff where he was they discovered he was gone from the facility, and they began the search and called 911. The MD stated that Res #1 was not injured when he was returned to the facility from his elopement but was confused and refusing the nursing home placement when he assessed him. The MD sent Res #1 out to the local ER for further assessment and for a psychological evaluation. Res #1 did not return to the facility from the ER. Interview on 08/08/23 at 2:15 PM, with Registered Nurse (RN#2) revealed that she had assessed Res #1 upon his admission to the nursing home on [DATE]. She stated that she placed the wander guard bracelet on Res #1 and she placed him on hourly observation checks because she had read his history and physical and she knew that he was at risk for elopement because his paperwork had documented that he had left his sister's house where he was living and had walked to his former home. RN#2 stated that due to Res #1's history he was placed on hourly checks that was documented by the nurses and a wander guard was placed on his right leg. Interview on 08/09/23 at 9:20 AM, with the Maintenance Director revealed that on a regular basis and each week and on 08/02/23 he checked the doors of the facility on all halls, and all exits for functioning, locking, and proper movement. He found no issues with the doors, and he checked the functioning of the wander guard system and found no issues with functioning, and it was all in working order. Interview on 08/09/23 at 10:00 AM, with Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA#3) revealed that on 08/02/23 she was assigned as the CNA for Res #1 and at approximately 12:20 PM on 08/02/23 she last saw him at the nursing station talking to the nurse and asking why he was admitted to the nursing home. CNA #3 stated that at approximately 2:40 PM on 08/02/23 the MD stopped her in the hallway and asked if she had seen Res #1. CNA #3 began looking for Res #1 and was not able to find him. CNA #3 confirmed that she was not informed to make sure she had a visual check on the resident every hour, nor was she instructed to document any visual checks of the resident. Record review of the Face Sheet revealed that Res #1 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses that included Unspecified Dementia with Psychotic Disturbance; Generalized Anxiety and Insomnia, among other diagnoses. Record review of Res #1 Minimum Data Set (MDS) with an Assessment Reference Date (ARD) of 08/02/23 provided a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of six (6) which indicated that he had severe cognitive impairment. The facility implemented the following Corrective Action Plan prior to the State Agency's (SA) entrance on 08/07/23: On August 2, 2023, at 2:40 PM the facility was notified by Medical Director that Resident #1 was not in his room for physical assessment, a Dr. Wander was initiated by Business Office Manager in the facility and surrounding area. At 2:40 PM Business Office Assistant contacted Police Department regarding missing elderly resident from the facility with description. At 3:15 PM Director of Nursing, called and notified facility that County Sheriff had located Resident #1 approximated 4.2 miles from the facility. At 3:18 PM Resident #1 was returned to the facility by County Sheriff and escorted by Director of Nursing. An announcement of Dr. Wander all clear was initiated by Social Service Director. It was determined that Resident # 1 was last seen by facility staff at 12:45 PM and returned to facility at 3:18 PM. The facility was notified that IJ's were identified for Federal tag 656 Care Plans and Federal tag 689 Failure to Prevent Accidents and Hazards on 08/08/23 at 10:00 AM. Immediate Actions: On 8/2/2023 at 3:03 PM Executive Director notified Resident # 1 Responsible Representative of possible elopement from facility. On 8/2/23 at 3:18 PM the Mississippi State Department of Health was notified of missing resident by the Executive Director. On 8/2/2023 facility completed a 100% head count of all other Residents to ensure they were accounted for. On 8/2/2023 at 3:18 PM upon return to facility Resident # 1 was assessed by physician. On 8/2/2023 at 3:30 PM all facility exit doors were checked for proper functioning by Maintenance Director. On 8/2/2023 at 3:30 PM Executive Director and Director of Nursing begin official investigation of Resident #1 Elopement. On 8/2/2023 at 3:30 PM an educational in-service was initiated by Staff Development Coordinator to include all staff on Elopement Protocol, Abuse and Neglect, and Residents exhibiting exit seeking behaviors to be completed by August 7, 2023, with no staff allowed to work until in-service completed. On 8/2/2023 at 3:30 PM Assistant Director of Nursing checked all residents at risk for elopement wander-guard bracelet for placement and function. On 8/2/23 at 4:10 PM Emergency AD HOC QA committee and Medical Director (via phone) met and completed a root cause analysis related to the elopement and implemented new interventions as a result of the findings. On 8/2/2023 at 4:15 PM Resident #1 was sent to emergency room for further evaluation. New Interventions: 1) Facility initiated new protocol to immediately place any resident actively exit seeking on 1 on 1 staff monitoring of resident until calm and no longer attempting to exit building, then to immediately notify the Executive Director and or Director of Nursing. All licensed nurses educated on this new protocol by 8/4/23. Any nurse who has not completed in-service education by 8/4/23 will be required to complete education prior to starting a shift. 2) Signage was posted on the front door cautioning visitors not to allow anyone to exit with them that they do not know. 3) Photographs of elopement risk residents posted at the receptionist desk for quick reference to identify anyone at risk. 4) Also, the topic of new elopement risk residents was added to the daily stand-up meeting (department head meeting) format to ensure communication of risk to key personnel. On 8/2/2023 After investigating and interviewing All facility employees, the elopement for Resident #1 from facility was substantiated. On 8/2/23 at 4:30 PM all residents with risk of elopements were reevaluated, the pocket care guide and care plans were updated by Director of Nursing, Social Service and Unit Managers to ensure all residents for risk for elopement had appropriate interventions in place. This was completed on 8/2/23. On 8/3/23 at 6:32 AM Executive Director followed up with Resident #1 Responsible Representative regarding resident's condition. Executive Director was informed that resident was home with Representative. On 8/3/2023 at 8:00 AM Business Office Manager officially discharged resident from facility effective 8/2/2023 On 8/3/2023 at 10:00 AM the facility security cameras were serviced for malfunctioning by an outside contractor. On 8/3/2023 at 11:00 AM the Maintenance Director installed new security camera system in the facility. On 8/3/23, Social Service initiated an Elopement Alarm Drill with the 3pm-11pm shift employees. On 8/4/2023 Social Service initiated an Elopement Alarm Drill with the 7a-3p and 11p-7a shift employees. Mandatory Elopement Alarm Drills will be conducted by the Social Service Director weekly times one month on each shift and thereafter, monthly on each shift. On 8/3/23 a picture of all residents at risk for elopement was placed on a secure wall at the Receptionist area for immediate viewing. The facility removed the IJ on August 5, 2023, at 8:00 AM and alleges compliance. VALIDATION: The State Agency (SA) validated the facility's Past Non-Compliance (PNC) Removal Plan /Corrective Action on 08/09/23: The SA validated through interviews and record review that on 8/2/2023 at 3:03 PM Executive Director notified Resident # 1 Responsible Representative of possible elopement from facility. The SA validated through interview and record reviews that on 8/2/23 at 3:18 PM the Mississippi State Department of health was notified of missing resident by Executive Director. The SA Validated through interviews and record reviews that on 8/2/2023 facility completed a 100% head count of all other Residents to ensure they were accounted for. The SA validated through interviews and record reviews that on 8/2/2023 at 3:18 PM upon return to facility Resident # 1 was assessed by physician. SA validated through interviews and record reviews that on 8/2/2023 at 4:15 PM Resident #1 was sent to emergency room for further evaluation. SA validated that on 8/2/2023 at 3:30 PM Executive Director and Director of Nursing begin official investigation of Resident #1 Elopement. SA validated that through interviews and record review that on 8/2/2023 at 3:30 PM all facility exit doors were checked for proper functioning by Maintenance Director. The SA validated through interviews and record reviews that on 8/2/2023 at 3:30 PM an educational in-service was initiated by Staff Development Coordinator to include all staff on Elopement Protocol, Abuse and Neglect, and Residents exhibiting exit seeking behaviors to be completed by August 7, 2023, with no staff allowed to work until in-service completed. The SA validated through interviews and record reviews that on 8/2/2023 at 3:30 PM Asst. Director of Nursing checked all residents at risk for elopement wander-guard bracelet for placement and function. The SA validated through record review and interviews that on 8/2/23 at 4:10 PM Emergency AD HOC QA committee and Medical Director (via phone) met and completed a root cause analysis related to the elopement and implemented new interventions as a result of the findings. New Interventions: 1) Facility initiated new protocol to immediately place any resident actively exit seeking on 1 on 1 staff monitoring of resident until calm and no longer attempting to exit building, then to immediately notify the Executive Director and or Director of Nursing. All licensed nurses educated on this new protocol by 8/4/23. Any nurse who has not completed in-service education by 8/4/23 will be required to complete education prior to starting a shift. 2) Signage was posted on the front door cautioning visitors not to allow anyone to exit with them that they do not know. 3) Photographs of elopement risk residents posted at the receptionist desk for quick reference to identify anyone at risk. 4) Also, the topic of new elopement risk residents was added to the daily stand-up meeting (department head meeting) format to ensure communication of risk to key personnel. All the above new interventions were validated by the (SA) through interviews, observations, and record reviews from 08/07/23-08/09/23 that the facility had implemented and educated the staff on the new Interventions. The SA validated through record reviews and interviews that on 8/2/2023 after investigating and interviewing all facility employees, the elopement for Resident #1 from facility was substantiated. The SA validated through interview and record review that on 8/2/23 at 4:30 PM all residents with risk of elopements were reevaluated, the pocket care guide and care plans were updated by Director of Nursing, Social Service and Unit Managers to ensure all residents for risk for elopement had appropriate interventions in place. This was completed on 8/2/23. The SA validated through record review and interviews that on 8/3/23 at 6:32 AM Executive Director followed up with Resident #1 Responsible Representative regarding resident's condition. Executive Director was informed that resident was home with Representative. SA validated through interviews and record reviews that on 8/3/2023 at 8:00 AM Business Office Manager officially discharged resident from facility effective 8/2/2023. SA validated through observations, interviews, and record reviews that on 8/3/2023 at 10:00 AM the facility security cameras were serviced for malfunctioning by an outside contractor. SA validated through observations, record reviews, and interviews that on 8/3/2023 at 11:00 AM the Maintenance Director installed new security camera system in the facility. SA validated through record review and interview that on 8/3/23, Social Service initiated an Elopement Alarm Drill with the 3pm-11pm shift employees. The SA validated through interview with the Social Worker that on 8/4/2023 Social Service initiated an Elopement Alarm Drill with the 7a-3p and 11p-7a shift employees. The SA validated through interview with the facility Social Worker that Mandatory Elopement Alarm Drills will be conducted by the Social Service Director weekly times one month on each shift and thereafter, monthly on each shift. The SA validated through observations, interviews, and record reviews that on 8/3/23 a picture of all residents at risk for elopement was placed on a secure wall at the Receptionist area for immediate viewing. The SA validated through policy reviews, observations, and record reviews that the facility removed the IJ on August 5, 2023, at 8:00 AM and alleges compliance.
May 2023 7 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

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Resident #99 Record review of Resident #99's care plans revealed a care plan for Diabetes, with an approach of Nails as needed ...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Resident #99 Record review of Resident #99's care plans revealed a care plan for Diabetes, with an approach of Nails as needed and indicated per RN. An interview and observation on 5/17/23 at 4:02 PM, with the DON confirmed that Resident #99 had long fingernails with a brown substance underneath. She revealed that the CNA that provides direct care to the resident is responsible for cleaning the nails. She stated that the Registered Nurses (RNs) are responsible for cutting the nails. She revealed that the CNA's are supposed to inform the RNs when the residents nails need trimming. She stated that the resident could cause a skin tear or an infection. During an interview with the DON on 5/18/23 at 11:45 AM, the SA inquired whether the staff was following Resident #99's care plan regarding, Nails as needed and indicated per RN and she stated, No, they didn't. Record review of the Face Sheet revealed Resident #99 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with medical diagnoses that included Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus, Diabetic with Chronic Kidney Disease, Cerebral Infarction, and Dementia, unspecified severity. Based on staff interview, record review and facility policy review, the facility failed to develop and/or implement a care plan related to finger nails, shaving and medications for three (3) of 24 care plans reviewed. Resident #75, Resident #77, and Resident #99. Findings include: Record review of the facility policy titled, Comprehensive Person Centered Care Plan revealed, Policy: Each resident will have a person centered plan of care to identify problems, needs, strengths, preferences, and goals that will identify how the interdisciplinary team will provide care .Procedure: 1. The Comprehensive Person Centered Care Plan shall be fully developed within 7 days after completion of the admission MDS Assessment .6. Assigned disciplines will be identified to carry out the intervention . Resident #75 Record review of the comprehensive care plans for Resident #75 revealed no care plan for anticoagulant medication. Record review of the Physician Orders for Resident #75, revealed an order dated 3/15/23, Eliquis 5 mg (milligrams) tablet one (1) tablet by mouth twice daily. An interview with the Director of Nursing (DON) on 5/18/23 at 9:20 AM, confirmed that Resident #75 did not have a comprehensive care plan for anticoagulant medication. She revealed that the resident took Eliquis twice daily and stated, It should be in the comprehensive care plan. She revealed that the care plan told the staff about the care the resident should receive. She confirmed that by looking at Resident #75's comprehensive care plan, staff would not know that she took a blood thinner and was at risk for bleeding. An interview with the Minimum Data Set (MDS) Coordinator on 5/18/23 at 10:35 AM, confirmed that she could not locate a care plan for anticoagulant medications for Resident #75. She stated that the purpose of the care plan was to address what was going on with the residents. When the Survey Agent (SA) questioned how the staff would know the resident was taking anticoagulant medication without a care plan developed, she stated, They wouldn't know. She stated, Human error. Record review of the Face Sheet for Resident #75 revealed an admission date of 8/30/22 with diagnoses that included Hemiplegia Following Cerebral Infarction Affecting Right Dominant Side, Cerebrovascular Disease, and Paroxysmal Atrial Fibrillation. Resident #77 Record review of the care plan for Resident #77 with a problem onset date of 1/30/23 revealed I am at risk for complications related to Diabetes . Approaches . The nurse is to provide my nail care. An observation, on 05/16/23 at 03:41 PM, revealed Resident #77 was unshaven and fingernails were long past the the end of his fingertips. His facial hair is approximately one (1) inch long. An observation and interview, on 05/17/23 at 03:50 PM, with the Director of Nursing (DON) revealed Resident #77 told the DON, concerning his fingernails, Yeah, they need cutting and I like to be clean shaven. An interview, on 5/18/23 at 12:10 PM, with the DON confirmed the care plan is in place for nail care. She confirmed the care plan was not being followed. Review of the facility Face Sheet for Resident # 77 revealed an admission date of 1/30/23 with diagnoses that included Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus with Diabetic Neuropathy , unspecified, Anxiety Disorder, and Cerebral Infarction.
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

ADL Care (Tag F0677)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Resident #99 An observation on 05/16/23 at 10:45 AM, of Resident #99 revealed long thick fingernails extending one-forth (1/4) i...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Resident #99 An observation on 05/16/23 at 10:45 AM, of Resident #99 revealed long thick fingernails extending one-forth (1/4) inch from the tip of fingers bilaterally with a brown substance underneath and a foul odor to hands. An observation on 5/17/23 at 8:20 AM, of Resident #99 revealed long thick fingernails extending 1/4 inch from the tip of fingers bilaterally with a brown substance underneath. An interview and observation on 5/17/23 at 3:45 PM, with CNA #1 revealed Resident #99 did need nails trimmed and cleaned. She revealed that the nails should be cleaned when they become dirty and when the resident received his shower. She revealed that the CNA's are responsible for cleaning the nails and the nurses for cutting. An interview and observation on 5/17/23 at 3:52 PM, with Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) #1 confirmed that Resident #99 had long fingernails that needed cleaning. She revealed she would have to go check and get back with SA about whose responsibility it was to trim the resident's nails since he is a diabetic. She revealed that the resident could potentially break his skin and cause an infection. Interview and observation on 5/17/23 at 4:02 PM, with the Director of Nursing (DON) confirmed that Resident #99 had long fingernails with a brown substance underneath. She revealed that the CNA that provides direct care to the resident is responsible for cleaning the nails and the Registered Nurses (RNs) are responsible for cutting the nails. She revealed that the CNA's inform the nurse when the residents nails need trimming. She confirmed that the resident could cause a skin tear or infection. Record review of the Face Sheet revealed Resident #99 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with medical diagnoses that included Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus with Diabetic Chronic Kidney Disease. Record review of the MDS with an ARD of 5/17/23 revealed a BIMS score was not conducted due to Resident #99 is rarely/never understood. Based on observation, resident interviews, staff interviews, record review and facility policy review, the facility failed to provide Activities of Daily Living (ADL) care including shaving and nail care for two (2) of 111 residents observed for ADL care. Findings include: Review of the facility policy titled, Fingernails/Toenails Care, reviewed date of 1/15, revealed, Policy: The purpose of this procedure to clean the nail bed, to keep nails trimmed, and to prevent infections .Key procedural points revealed that, Nails can be partially cleaned during bath care .Nail care includes daily cleaning and regular trimming Review of the facility policy titled, Shaving - Male and Female, revealed residents will be free of facial hairs - both male and female. If the resident is alert and oriented and requests not to be shaved, this will be noted in the care plan. Resident #77 An observation on 05/16/23 at 03:41 PM, revealed Resident #77 in the hallway in a wheelchair eating a snack. His general appearance was very unkempt. Resident #77 was unshaven, and fingernails were long past the end of his fingertips. His facial hair was approximately one (1) inch long. An observation and interview on 05/17/23 at 09:45 AM, revealed Resident #77 unshaven with facial hair approximately 1 inch long. The resident stated that he would like to be shaved every day and his fingernails need to be cleaned and cut. An observation and interview on 05/17/23 03:40 PM, with Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA) #2 confirmed Resident #77's fingernails were long and needed to be cut and that the resident stated he wanted to be kept clean shaven. CNA #2 stated the resident could cut his skin with long nails. An observation and interview on 05/17/23 at 03:50 PM with the Director of Nursing (DON) revealed Resident #77 told the DON concerning his fingernails, Yeah, they need cutting. The DON stated that the CNAs should assess nails and report to the nurse if they need cutting, because the CNAs are not allowed to cut nails. She stated the nurses should be assessing the residents. She stated her expectation is if the nails need cutting, they should be cut. An interview on 5/18/23 at 3:30 PM with Registered Nurse (RN) #1 revealed the RNs are responsible for diabetic nail care. She stated they are supposed to do it weekly. RN #1 stated that it is on the Medication Administration Record (MAR) for charting on some residents but not all of them. She stated that she thought the RN supervisors usually do diabetic nail care on the weekends, but the nurses should be assessing the resident's nails. Review of the facility Face Sheet for Resident #77 revealed an admission date of 1/30/23 with diagnoses that included Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus with Diabetic Neuropathy, Anxiety disorder, and Cerebral Infarction. Review of Section C of the Minimum Data Set (MDS) with an Assessment Reference Date (ARD) of 5/4/23 revealed a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of five (5) that indicated Resident #77 was severely cognitively impaired.
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0697 (Tag F0697)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on resident interview, staff interviews, and record review the facility failed to renew a prescription for pain medication for a resident with constant pain for one (1) of two (2) residents revi...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on resident interview, staff interviews, and record review the facility failed to renew a prescription for pain medication for a resident with constant pain for one (1) of two (2) residents reviewed for pain. Resident #40 Findings include: Record review of documentation on a nursing facility letterhead revealed, May 18,2023; To whom it may concern, Tupelo Nursing and Rehabilitation Center, LLC, do not have a policy specifically stating the timely ordering of medication. An interview on 05/16/23 at 11:59 AM, with Resident #40 revealed her pain medication runs out and she must wait for it to be reordered by the nurses and delivered to the nursing facility. Resident #40 also revealed her pain medications ran out Monday, 5/15/23 and she did not get another pain pill until Tuesday, 5/16/23. She noted she was told by the nurse, on 5/15/23, that she had no pain pills left and she would get a pain pill when her new prescription arrived. Resident #40 shared that she wanted her pain medication to be available to take to stop her pain. An interview on 5/18/23 at 2:50 PM, with Registered Nurse (RN) #2 revealed she was the nurse assigned to Resident #40 Sunday, 5/14/23, and she gave her the last Hydrocodone-Acetaminophen 7.5-325 milligram (mg) resident had available on that day. RN#2 noted she did not think she needed to be in a hurry to get Resident #2's pain medication filled over the weekend, because Resident #40 told her the Voltaren Gel that was rubbed on her helped her pain. RN #2 noted she requested the new prescription for the Hydrocodone-Acetaminophen 7.5-325 mg on Sunday, 5/14/23, that she received the new prescription on Monday, 5/15/23, and the courier picked the new prescription up and delivered the pain medication back to the nursing facility on Tuesday, 5/16/23. She revealed Resident #40's pain medication should have been reordered when Resident #40 had, at least 10 pain pills left. An interview on 5/18/23 at 02:55 PM with Resident #40 revealed RN #2 did apply the Voltaren gel on her joints, but it did not completely stop the pain. She noted again that she wanted her pain medication and had kept herself on a regimen to take it at least three (3) times a day to keep her pain down. An interview on 5/18/23 at 03:05 PM, with the Director of Nursing (DON) revealed Resident #40's pain medication should have been reordered when the last column of her Controlled Drug Record form was started to ensure her pain medication did not run out. She noted the last column contained a reminder message of time to reorder. She confirmed there was a possibility of harm to Resident #40 by her not having her pain medication available to be administered to her to totally relieve her pain. An interview on 5/18/23 at 03:15 PM, with the Administrator confirmed the nursing staff should have gotten a new prescription timely for Resident #40's pain medication to avoid her pain medicine to not be available to administer to Resident #40 to relieve her pain. There was a possibility of harm to Resident #40 by her not having her pain medication available to totally alleviate her pain. Record review of the May, 2023 Physicians' Orders for Resident #40 revealed an order dated 10/6/22 with a start date of 10/6/22 for Hydrocodone-Acetamin 7.5-325 mg, Take one tablet by mouth as needed every 6 (six) hours for the Dx (diagnosis): Chronic Back and Joint Pain. Record review of the CONTROLLED DRUG RECORD for April 7, 2023, to May 14, 2023, for Resident #40, revealed in the last column, on the last line, dated 5/14, the last tablet of Hydrocodone-Acetamin 7.5-325 mg was administered at 12:00 PM, with a signature of RN #2. A note along the side of the column for the last 14 medications administered stated TIME TO REORDER. From May 1 through May 14th revealed Resident #40 received three (3) or four (4) Hydrocodone-Acetamin tablets daily for pain. Record review of the CONTROLLED DRUG RECORD for Hydrocodone-Acetaminaphen from May 16, 2023, to May 18, 2023, for Resident #40, revealed the resident received 3 tablets on 5/16/23 and 4 tablets on 5/17/23. Record review of the prescription for Resident #40 revealed an order written on 5/14/23 for Norco 7.5/325mg Tab 1 tab PO (by mouth) q (every) 6 hours PRN (as needed) #120. Record review of nursing documentation for Resident #40 revealed on 5/15/23, RN #2 received the prescription for Resident #40 for Norco 7.5/325mg and the night shift nurse who gave med driver script (named removed) and dated 5/16/23. Record review of the 'CONSOLIDATED DELIVERY SHEETS - CONTROLLED SUBSTANCES, for Resident #40, revealed the Norco was received on 5/16/23 at 1:30 AM. Record review of Section J - Health Conditions of the Quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) Assessment, with an Assessment Reference Date (ARD) of 04/06/2023, for Resident #40, revealed . B. Received PRN pain medications: . 1. Yes . Pain Assessment Interview . Pain Presence . 1. Yes . Pain Frequency: 1. Almost constantly . Pain Effect on Function: A. Has pain made it hard for you to sleep at night: . 1. Yes . B. Have you limited your day-to-day activities because of pain: . 1. Yes . Pain Intensity: A. Numeric Rating Scale (00-10): 10. Record review of the Face Sheet for Resident #40 revealed an admission date of 10/06/22 and a diagnosis of Low Back Pain, Unspecified. Record review of Section C - Cognitive Patterns of the Quarterly MDS Assessment with an ARD of 04/06/2023, for Resident #40, revealed a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of 13, indicating Resident #40 is cognitively intact.
CONCERN (D)

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

Medication Errors (Tag F0758)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on record review, staff interviews, and facility policy review, the facility failed to ensure that an anti-anxiety, as needed (PRN), medication had a stop date for one (1) of four (4) residents ...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on record review, staff interviews, and facility policy review, the facility failed to ensure that an anti-anxiety, as needed (PRN), medication had a stop date for one (1) of four (4) residents reviewed for psychotropic medications. Resident #69 Findings include: Review of the facility policy titled, Behavior Management and Psychopharmacological Medication Monitoring Protocol, with history date of 3/18, revealed, Policy: Residents who receive . anti-anxiety medication are to be maintained at the safest, lowest dosage necessary to manage the resident's condition 3. PRN psychotropic drugs should be limited to 14 days unless the primary physician has documentation supporting the rational in the medical record and has indicated the duration for the PRN order Record review of Resident #69's Physician's Telephone Order dated 12/9/22 for Lorazepam 2 MG(milligrams)/ml(milliliters) Oral Concentrate 0.25-0.5 ML by mouth every (two) 2 hours as needed and a Physician's Telephone Order dated 12/29/2022 for Lorazepam 0.5 MG (ONE) 1 tab by mouth every six (6) hours as needed for Anxiety/Agitation. The record review did not reveal a stop date documented for either medication order. Record review of the Consultant Pharmacist Communication to Physician, dated 1/29/2023, for Resident #69, revealed the recommendation from the consultant pharmacist Re: Prn Psychotropic Meds (Duration of Therapy) . Please evaluate the following therapy (ies) for discontinuation or extended use: Regimen: prn Ativan (pills and/or injection) . continue therapy (ies) for at least 6 months and re-evaluate in January and July. A record review and an interview on 05/18/23 at 12:00 PM, with the Director of Nursing (DON) confirmed that the physician's telephone orders for Lorazepam 2 MG/ml Oral Concentrate 0.25-0.5 ML by mouth every 2 hours as needed, dated 12/9/22, and for Lorazepam 0.5 MG (ONE) 1 tab by mouth every 6 hours as needed, dated 12/29/22, for Resident #69, did not have a stop date documented for the medications. The DON revealed the nursing staff was responsible for assessing the orders for anti-anxiety medication to ensure it had a stop date when the physician's orders were written. She revealed the delay in addressing the need for a 14-day stop date for the 2 orders for the anti-anxiety medication was due to the physician's orders being written after the pharmacist's 12/7/22 visit. She revealed the physician inquiry regarding a 14-day stop date, for the 2 anti-anxiety medication physician's order, could not be submitted until the pharmacist visited the nursing facility in January 2023. The DON confirmed PRN anti-anxiety medication orders should be written with a 14-day stop date and should be reevaluated by a physician to reorder the anti-anxiety medication every 14 days. She confirmed that the Lorazepam could be considered an unnecessary medication for Resident #69. An interview on 5/18/23 at 01:45 PM, with the Administrator confirmed the physician's orders for Lorazepam 2 MG/ml Oral Concentrate 0.25-0.5 ML by mouth every 2 hours as needed, dated 12/9/22, and for Lorazepam 0.5 MG (one) 1 tab by mouth every 6 hours as needed, dated 12/29/22, for Resident #69, should have been written with a 14 day stop date, and confirmed it could possibly be an unnecessary medication for Resident #69. Record review of the Face Sheet for Resident #69 revealed an admission date of 4/8/19 with a diagnosis of Generalized Anxiety Disorder.
CONCERN (D)

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

Infection Control (Tag F0880)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, staff interviews, and record review the facility failed to store respiratory equipment in a manner to prev...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, staff interviews, and record review the facility failed to store respiratory equipment in a manner to prevent the possibility of infection, for three (3) of four (4) observations. Resident #7 Findings include: Record review of a statement the facility provided on letterhead dated 5/18/23 that revealed , We do not have a specific policy for cleaning and storage of individual medical equipment. An observation on 05/16/23 at 11:30 AM, revealed a suction machine with attached tubing and the Yankauer sitting directly on the floor by Resident #7's bedside. The clear, opened packaging was intact over the end of the Yankauer. An observation on 05/16/23 at 3:45 PM, revealed a suction machine with attached tubing and the Yankauer sitting directly on the floor by Resident #7's bedside. The clear, opened packaging was intact over the end of the Yankauer. An observation on 5/17/23 at 8:20 AM revealed a suction machine with attached tubing and the Yankauer sitting directly on the floor by Resident #7's bedside. The clear, opened packaging was intact over the end of the Yankauer. An interview and observation on 5/17/23 at 4:10 PM, with Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) # 1 revealed that she was the nurse for Resident #7. She revealed she does not recall seeing the suction machine with the Yankauer attached sitting on the floor by the resident's bedside. She revealed that the suction machine and Yankauer should not be stored on the floor due to infection. The suction machine and Yankauer was not on the floor at this time and an attempt to interview with Resident #7 was not successful. Interview with the Director of Nursing (DON) on 5/17/23 at 4:20 PM confirmed that the suction machine had been removed from Resident #7's room. She revealed that a suction machine and Yankauer should not be placed on the floor, and if the suction machine was used after being placed on the floor, it could cause the resident to have a respiratory infection. She revealed that the facility had in-services on infection control in March and May 2023. An interview with the Administrator (ADM) on 5/18/23 at 09:45 AM, confirmed that the suction machine and Yankauer should never be placed on the floor. She stated that the staff knew that leaving a suction machine on the floor could cause issues such as infection. She stated, They know that. Record review of a Hospice Physician's Order dated 11/1/22, revealed, Suction patient as needed for increased secretions or aspiration. Suction may be provided by hospice nurse during visit or facility nurse if hospice nurse is not present. Record review of the Face Sheet revealed Resident # 7 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with medical diagnoses that included Personal History of Malignant Neoplasm, Anemia, and Dysphasia. Record review of Resident #7's Minimum Data Set (MDS) with an Assessment Reference Date (ARD) date of 3/22/23, revealed under section C a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score was not completed due to the resident being rarely/never understood.
CONCERN (F)

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

Deficiency F0761 (Tag F0761)

Could have caused harm · This affected most or all residents

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, staff interviews and facility policy review the facility failed to ensure that a lock box was permanently ...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, staff interviews and facility policy review the facility failed to ensure that a lock box was permanently affixed in two (2) of two (2) medication refrigerators observed. Findings include: Review of facility policy titled: Controlled Medications Administration revealed, Policy: Medications included in the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) classification as controlled substances are subject to special handling, storage, disposal, and record keeping in the facility, in accordance with federal and stated laws and regulations. Record review of a statement on facility letterhead and signed by the Administrator, dated 5/17/23 revealed .Our facilities policy for narcotic storage does not address that narcotic medications must be kept in a locked container that is permanetly affixed inside a locked refrigerator inside a locked room. As described in F-tag 761. On 05/17/23 at 04:45 PM, observation of the Medication Storage room [ROOM NUMBER] on A-B Halls, revealed a locked refrigerator with Insulin, Intravenous antibiotics, Tylenol Suppositories, and Narcotics inside which included Dronabinol, Lorazepam, and Morphine. There were 21 capsules of Dronabinol 2.5mg(milligrams), 30mls of Lorazepam 2mg/ml (milliliters), and 24 milliliters of Morphine Sulfate (100mg/ml) laying on the middle shelf of the refrigerator. There was no storage box with a lock inside of the refrigerator. On 05/17/23 at 5:00 PM, an observation of the Medication Storage room [ROOM NUMBER] on C-D Halls revealed a locked refrigerator with a locked box inside. There were two (thirty milliliter) bottles of unopened Lorazepam inside the locked box which was not permanently affixed. On 05/17/23 at 5:30 PM, an observation of Medication Storage room [ROOM NUMBER] and interview with the Director of Nursing (DON), confirmed that there was no locked storage box inside the locked refrigerator and that there were narcotics laying on the shelf. She revealed that she wasn't sure of the regulations and thought the narcotics were supposed to be in a storage box inside the locked refrigerator. She confirmed there was no storage box inside the refrigerator, and it should have been. On 5/17/23 at 5:45 PM, an interview with the Administrator revealed that she did not realize there was not a locked box in the refrigerator on A-B hall and she was not aware of the regulation that the locked boxes were required to be permanently affixed inside the refrigerator. The Administrator also revealed that she would get this taken care of.
MINOR (C)

Minor Issue - procedural, no safety impact

Deficiency F0576 (Tag F0576)

Minor procedural issue · This affected most or all residents

Based on resident, staff interviews and facility policy review, the facility failed to provide mail services to the residents on Saturday for five (5) of five (5) residents interviewed during the resi...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on resident, staff interviews and facility policy review, the facility failed to provide mail services to the residents on Saturday for five (5) of five (5) residents interviewed during the resident council meeting. This has the potential to affect all 111 residents. Findings include; Record review of the Facility Policy titled Review of the Resident [NAME] of Rights revealed each resident has a right to a dignified existence, self determination, and communication with and access to persons and services inside and outside the Facility in a manner and in an environment that promotes maintenance or enhancement of (his or her) quality of life, regardless of diagnosis, severity of condition or payment source and to exercise those rights as a citizen of the United States without interference , coercion, including those rights specified herein: A. Facility Residents shall have the right to: . #26. To send and receive mail promptly and unopened. On 5/17/23 at 11:25 AM, during the resident council meeting with five residents with Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) scores of either 14 or 15 (which indicated intact cognitive skills) revealed the residents are not receiving mail on Saturdays. An interview on 5/17/23 at 5:05 PM, with the Hospitality Aide revealed she works 7:00 AM to 7:00 PM and is only off on the third week-end of the month. She stated she gets the mail and sets it in the Administrative Assistant's (AA) window and the AA separates it on Monday and gives her the resident's mail to deliver. She stated that residents do get mail delivered on Saturdays and are not able to get it until Monday. She stated that she does not go through the mail. An interview, on 5/17/23 at 5:10 PM, with the Administrative Assistant (AA) revealed the staff or the hospitality aide gets the mail. She stated the mail comes to the box by the road. She stated they put it in her window or keep it at the nurses station and occasionally mail is still in the box on Mondays. She stated that the mail needs to be distributed on Saturday regardless. An interview on 5/17/23 at 5:25 PM, with the Administrator (ADM) revealed the mail should be delivered when it arrives, including Saturday. She stated they do not have a specific policy on mail delivery.
Dec 2021 9 deficiencies
CONCERN (D)

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

Resident Rights (Tag F0550)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, staff interviews, resident interview, record review and facility policy review, the facility failed to pro...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, staff interviews, resident interview, record review and facility policy review, the facility failed to provide privacy during care as evidenced by no window covering for one (1) of twenty (20) residents observed. Resident #76. Findings include: Review of facility policy titled, Resident [NAME] of Rights, dated 11/2017, revealed, Facility residents shall have the right to: personal privacy and confidentiality in his or her accommodations, personal and medical treatments and records, written and telephone communications, personal care, visits, and meetings of family and resident groups. An interview on 12/9/2021 at 11:47 AM, with Director of Nurses (DON), revealed the facility did not have a specific policy on privacy or dignity. She revealed the Resident [NAME] of Rights was used for dignity and privacy concerns. During an observation and interview on 12/7/2021 at 10:00 AM, Resident #76 revealed his window blinds had been broken for two to three months and he told the staff, but the window blinds were not replaced. Resident #76 stated that at times, he had been incontinent and had to be changed by the facility staff. He stated he felt exposed and uncomfortable being changed with no window covering. He stated he did not know if anyone was outside of his window, but if anyone was there, he was exposed to them. An observation revealed Resident #76's window blinds were broken and unable to close to cover the window for privacy. An interview on 12/7/2021 at 4:30 PM, with Resident #76 revealed his broken blinds were removed. Resident revealed he hoped the blinds would be replaced before dark so he would not feel that he was being looked at through the uncovered window. An interview with Resident #76 on 12/8/2021 at 8:45 AM, revealed the blinds had not been replaced and he slept without any window covering. He revealed he did not have to be changed by the facility staff through the night, but he used the urinal and got dressed and he felt uncomfortable with no window covering. An interview on 12/8/2021 at 4:55 PM, with the Administrator revealed each resident should be treated with dignity and offered privacy. She revealed that resident care being performed next to an uncovered window did not protect Resident #76's dignity and privacy. The Administrator confirmed that the facility failed to protect the resident's dignity and privacy by not providing a functioning window covering. An interview on 12/9/2021 at 9:00 AM, with Certified Nurse Assistant (CNA) #3, revealed that Resident #76's blinds had been broken and the window was unable to be covered for privacy and this had been reported. CNA #3 revealed she performed care and changed the resident with the broken blinds. She stated she tries her best to protect his privacy, but it was not completely possible. She confirmed that Resident #76 was at risk of being exposed when the window was uncovered. An interview on 12/9/2021 at 9:05 AM, with Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) #2, revealed Resident #76's window was uncovered due to the blinds being broken and unable to close or open properly. She revealed the resident was continent most of the time, but he had occasional accidents, especially when he had diarrhea, and required being changed by staff. LPN #2 confirmed that doing resident care in front of an uncovered window was not protecting the resident's dignity and privacy. Record review of Resident #76's Face Sheet revealed the resident was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. Record review revealed the resident with diagnoses of Obstructive Sleep Apnea, Hypertension, Anxiety, Schizophrenia, Bipolar Disorder, and acquired absence of left and right leg below knees. Record review of Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated [DATE], Section C, Cognitive, revealed Resident #76 with a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of 15, which indicated resident was cognitively intact.
CONCERN (D)

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

Transfer Notice (Tag F0623)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on staff interview, resident interview, record review and facility policy review, the facility failed to provide written n...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on staff interview, resident interview, record review and facility policy review, the facility failed to provide written notification of a transfer to the hospital for one (1) of two (2) residents reviewed for hospitalization. Resident #76. Findings include: Review of facility policy titled, Discharge and Transfer Policies-Involuntary, dated 7/2018, revealed, The policy also revealed, Prior to resident being transferred or discharged , the facility must provide a written notice to the resident, and if known, a family member or legal representative of the resident. This must be issued at least 30 days before the resident is transferred or discharged . The written discharge notice must contain the following information: the reason for transfer or discharge; the effective date of transfer or discharge; the location to which the resident is transferred or discharged . An interview on 12/7/2021 at 10:00 AM, with Resident #76 revealed that he was in the hospital due to a viral infection and dehydration. He revealed he had diarrhea and was vomiting and was taken to the hospital for intravenous fluid and antibiotics. Resident #76 revealed he did not receive a written notification of going to the hospital or for the bed hold information. An interview on 12/8/2021 at 4:20 PM, with the Business Office Manager, revealed she did not realize that a written notification of bed hold and notification of transfer was needed for this long-term care resident since a 15-day bed hold was in place. She revealed she communicated information of the hospital transfer and bed hold notification to Resident #76 verbally, but did not give the resident this information in writing. She revealed notifications are needed for the resident or the resident representative to have the information for the care of the resident and she is the person responsible for completing these. The Business Office Manager stated, I'm not gonna lie about it. I just haven't been doing this. An interview with the Administrator on 12/8/2021 at 4:55 PM, revealed the facility failed to provide Resident #76 with the appropriate written notification of transfer with the basis for transfer specified. She revealed the notifications are necessary to keep the resident and the resident representatives informed, so they are aware of the resident's care and condition, and available options and requirements. Record review of Resident #76's Physician's Telephone Orders revealed an order dated 10/31/2021 to send to the emergency room due to excessive diarrhea and vomiting. Record review of Resident #76's Face Sheet revealed the resident was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. Record review revealed the resident with diagnoses of Obstructive Sleep Apnea, Hypertension, Anxiety, Schizophrenia, Bipolar Disorder, and Acquired absence of left and right leg below knees. Record review of Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated [DATE], Section C, Cognitive, revealed Resident #76 with a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of 15, which indicated resident was cognitively intact.
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0625 (Tag F0625)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on staff interviews, resident interview, record review and facility policy review, the facility failed to provide written ...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on staff interviews, resident interview, record review and facility policy review, the facility failed to provide written notification of bed hold policy for one (1) of two (2) residents investigated for hospitalization. Resident #76. Findings include: Review of facility policy titled, Discharge and Transfer Policies-Involuntary, dated 7/2018, revealed, Before a facility transfers a resident to a hospital or allows a resident to go on therapeutic leave, the nursing facility must provide written information to the resident and the resident representative or legal representative that specifies the duration of the bed-hold policy and the facility's policies regarding bed-hold policies. An interview on 12/7/2021 at 10:00 AM, with Resident #76 revealed that he was in the hospital due to a viral infection and dehydration. He revealed he had diarrhea and was vomiting and was taken to the hospital for IV fluid and antibiotics. Resident #76 revealed he did not receive the bed hold information. An interview on 12/8/2021 at 4:20 PM, with the Business Office Manager, revealed she did not realize that a written notification of bed hold and notification of transfer was needed for this long-term care resident since a 15-day bed hold was in place. She revealed she communicated information of the hospital transfer and bed hold notification to Resident #76 verbally, but did not give the resident this information in writing. She revealed notifications are needed for the resident or the resident representative to have the information for the care of the resident and she is the person responsible for completing these. The Business Office Manager stated, I'm not gonna lie about it. I just haven't been doing this. An interview with the Administrator on 12/8/2021 at 4:55 PM, revealed the facility failed to provide Resident #76 with the notice of bed hold. She revealed the notifications are necessary to keep the resident and the resident representatives informed, so they are aware of the resident's care and condition, and available options and requirements. Record review of Resident #76's Physician's Telephone Orders revealed an order dated 10/31/2021 to send to the emergency room due to excessive diarrhea and vomiting. Record review of Resident #76's Face Sheet revealed the resident was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. Record review revealed the resident with diagnoses of Obstructive Sleep Apnea, Hypertension, Anxiety, Schizophrenia, Bipolar Disorder, and Acquired absence of left and right leg below knees. Record review of Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated [DATE], Section C, Cognitive, revealed Resident #76 with a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of 15, which indicated resident was cognitively intact.
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0645 (Tag F0645)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on staff interviews and record review, the facility failed to ensure a Preadmission Screen and Resident Review (PASARR) Le...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on staff interviews and record review, the facility failed to ensure a Preadmission Screen and Resident Review (PASARR) Level II Screen was completed for one (1) of six (6) residents reviewed for PASARR. Resident #93. Findings include: The facility has no policy related to PASARR. Record review of the Pre-admission Screening (PAS) Application for Long Term Care dated 11/11/21 revealed, Part B-Level II Referral Criteria: Person has a history of, or presents any evidence of cognitive behavior or behavior functions that indicate the need for an MR evaluation? Yes. Person has a diagnosis of a major mental illness? Yes. Person has a recent history of major mental illness? Yes. Person takes, or has a history of taking psychotropic medication? Yes. Record review revealed there was no PASARR Level II Screen in the medical record for Resident #93. An interview on 12/8/21 at 2:25 PM, with the Social Worker (SW) revealed that she had sent a Pre-admission Screening (PAS) Level I Screen for resident and did not receive a response. SW stated she sent Resident #93's PAS Level I Screen in at the same time with a bunch more and she was able to find every other resident's proof of the information being faxed but was not able to find the fax confirmation for Resident #93. An interview, on 12/8/21 at 03:40 PM, with the SW confirmed that she did not follow up on the PAS Level I Screen within 30 days after Resident #93 admitted to the facility, and that Resident #93 was not referred to a mental health service agency for a PASARR Level II Screen. An interview on 12/8/21 at 3:40 PM, with the Administrator (ADM) revealed if a resident is noted to have a major mental illness on a PAS Level I Screen, with no primary diagnosis of Alzheimer's Disease or Dementia, they usually get a response for need for a PASARR Level II Screen. The ADM stated she remembered she received a call from the Mississippi (MS) State Department of Mental Health about Resident #93's PASARR Level II Screen, but the MS State Department of Mental Health would not come to the facility, because the facility had a COVID-19 outbreak at that time. The ADM stated she does not remember who she spoke with from the MS State Department of Mental Health and did not document the conversation. Record review of the Face Sheet revealed Resident #93 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses that included Schizoaffective Disorder, Unspecified, Paranoid Schizophrenia, and Other Anxiety Disorders.
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

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, staff interviews, record review, and facility policy review, the facility failed to complete a smoking car...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, staff interviews, record review, and facility policy review, the facility failed to complete a smoking care plan for a resident who smokes for one (1) of two (2) smoking care plans reviewed. Resident #4. Findings include: Review of the facilities Smoking Policy dated 11/17 revealed under policy: Smoking is to occur only in designated areas and in accordance with each smoking resident's individualized plan of care based on the Smoking Safety Evaluation. An observation on 12/07/21 at 10:30 AM, of Resident # 4 attending the 10:30 smoking session revealed the resident was smoking. Record review of Resident #4's Smoking Safety Evaluation dated 06/23/21 revealed Resident #4 had range of motion limitations, Bilateral amputee. Interventions included Smoke with supervision by staff, Smoker apron, Facility to store smoking items (tobacco/lighter/matches). The area for Care Plan Concern was left blank and was not marked as yes or no. An interview on 12/8/21 at 11:25 AM, with Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) # 1 revealed if the resident did not have a smoking care plan, then he should. An interview on 12/8/21 at 11:30 AM, with the Director of Nurses (DON) confirmed that the resident had a completed smoking assessment but did not have a smoking care plan on the medical record. An interview on 12/8/21 at 11:34 AM, with Registered Nurse (RN # 1), the Minimum Data Set (MDS) Nurse confirmed that the resident did not have a smoking care plan, but that it was on her to do list. Record review of the Face Sheet revealed Resident #4 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses that included Nicotine dependence, cigarettes. Record review of the Minimum Data Set (MDS) with an Assessment Reference Date (ARD) of 11/2/21 revealed a Brief Interview for Mental Status score of 15 indicating Resident #4 was cognitively intact.
CONCERN (D)

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

ADL Care (Tag F0677)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, staff and resident interviews, record review and facility policy review, the facility failed to provide na...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, staff and resident interviews, record review and facility policy review, the facility failed to provide nail care, facial shaving, and hair washing for two (2) of eight (8) residents observed. Resident #4 and Resident #59. Findings Include: Record review of Bath/Shower-Dependent policy, HISTORY .8/11 revealed, POLICY: A bath (shower/tub) for cleanliness and comfort is scheduled at least weekly for each resident. RESPONSIBILITY: Nursing Assistants or Licensed Nurses monitored by Charge Nurse. This policy revealed under Procedure: # 12 Shampoo hair unless done by beautician . Review of A.M. Care Policy, HISTORY 10/09 revealed, POLICY: A.M. Care will be given to residents daily. RESPONSIBILITY: All Nursing Assistants .PROCEDURE: .10. Provide nail care as needed 11. Provide/assist with shaving (male and female) as needed . Resident #4 An observation on 12/06/21 at 11:45 AM, revealed Resident # 4 sitting in the dining room eating lunch with his hands. Resident # 4's fingernails had a brown substance on top and under all of his fingernails, hair stubble on his face and his hair appeared greasy and unwashed. An interview on 12/8/21 at 9:20 AM, with Resident #4 revealed that he tries to clean his own nails and prefers to eat with his hands. Resident #4 revealed he would like to have his nails trimmed and filed. An observation on 12/9/21 at 8:53 AM, revealed that Resident # 4's nails had a brown substance under them and were long. An interview on 12/9/21 at 9:03 AM, with Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA) #4 revealed that when the residents get a bath, the CNAs cut nails, shave, wash hair and blow dry their hair if they want that done but confirmed that that is not something that they have to document in the computer system. During an interview and observation on 12/9/21 at 12:00 PM, with the Director of Nursing (DON) and Resident #4, the DON confirmed that Resident #4 needed his nails cleaned and trimmed and stated he refused to let me cut his nails yesterday. Resident #4 stated that he wanted his nails trimmed and needed them cleaned. Record review of Resident # 4's Care Plan with a problem onset date of 5/3/21 revealed, Problem/Need . I require assist with my ADLs (Activities of Daily Living) related to impaired mobility. The goal for this care plan was, My ADL needs will be met thru next review date .Approaches . Assist me with my shower/bath 3x (three times) weekly and as needed. Record review of Resident # 4's Face Sheet revealed he was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses including Encounter for orthopedic aftercare following surgical amp, Anemia, Acquired absence of right leg below knee, and Acquired absence of left leg below knee. Record review of Resident # 4's Minimum Data Set (MDS) with an Assessment Reference Date (ARD) of 11/2/21 revealed a Brief Interview for Mental Status of 15 indicating full cognitive ability. Resident #59 An observation on 12/07/21 at 08:55 AM, of Resident # 59 revealed he has hair growth on his chin and above his lip with hair stubble on his cheeks and his hair appeared greasy and unwashed. Record review of Resident # 59's Face Sheet revealed an admission date of 07/17/20 with diagnoses of Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD), Hypertension, Dementia, and Depressive Disorder. Record review of Resident # 59's Care Plan with a problem onset date of 7/22/2020 revealed Problem/Need I require assist with my ADLs (Activities of Daily Living) related to impaired mobility and incontinence. The goal for this care plan was My ADLs will be met thru next review date. The interventions for this care plan included, .Assist me with my shower/bath 3x (three times) weekly and as needed. An interview on 12/8/21 at 9:40 AM, with the Director of Nurses (DON) revealed that the residents are on a schedule for their baths or showers, and they can request different days. The DON revealed that Resident #4 had three baths per week documented. The DON revealed the Certified Nursing Assistant(CNA)s document when showers occur and if the resident refuses, they are to tell the nurse. The DON revealed that the CNAs document when the resident has a bath, but there is no specific place in the computer system for the CNA to document about particular things like nail care and shaving. The DON revealed that the CNAs know that nail care and shaving is just part of a bath. An interview on 12/9/21 at 11:00 AM, with Assistant Director of Nurses (ADON) verified there is no area in their computer system for the CNAs to document specifics about the residents' baths such as nail care and shaving. The ADON verified that there was no place for the nurse to verify that the residents nail care and shaving had been completed. The ADON verified that an area would have to be added to our system for them to document nail care and shaving and that it doesn't let the CNAs know to perform that area of care.
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0924 (Tag F0924)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on observation and staff interviews, the facility failed to maintain handrails that were secured and affixed to the walls for one (1) of four (4) hallways. Hallway D Findings Include: An observa...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation and staff interviews, the facility failed to maintain handrails that were secured and affixed to the walls for one (1) of four (4) hallways. Hallway D Findings Include: An observation on 12/08/21 at 8:00 AM, revealed D Hall handrails missing between rooms D9 and D11, rooms D8 and the conference room door, between rooms D5 and D6, and D3 and D4. The curved edges were not on the ends of the remaining side rails leaving the ends with sharp silver-colored exposed edges. These sharp edges were located outside the medical records door, room D11, room D13 and outside the data processing door and remaining rails were not well secured to the walls and were loose on Hallway D. An interview on 12/8/21 at 8:05 AM, with the Administrator revealed she was aware of issues with the handrails missing and being loose. She stated that she was not aware of the rough sharp edges exposed. She stated that this could cause skin damage/tears to the residents and that the residents who are on that hall would use the handrails. The Administrator stated they did not have a policy to address handrails, to maintain them in a safe and secure manner.
CONCERN (E)

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

Safe Environment (Tag F0584)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

Based on observation, staff and resident interviews and facility policy review, the facility failed to maintain a homelike environment as evidenced by dirty floors, gouged walls, and nonfunctional win...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, staff and resident interviews and facility policy review, the facility failed to maintain a homelike environment as evidenced by dirty floors, gouged walls, and nonfunctional window blinds for three (3) of four (4) hallways. Findings include: Review of the facility policy titled, Housekeeping Cleaning Procedures/Hallway Cleaning revealed it is the responsibility of the housekeeping staff to: #3 dust mop floors, #4 Autoscrub floors w/red pads as needed, #5 Burnish floors after auto scrubbing, #6 Use spray buff where needed to repair/enhance gloss level, and #7 Spot clean hallway walls with BLUE microfiber cloth. An observation, on 12/6/21 at 11:55 AM, revealed the overbed table in Room C2A and D5C had torn sharp edges that are peeled up and the bedside table in Room C 9 had edges that were rough and partially covered with a torn white tape-like substance. An interview, on 12/6/21 at 12:00 PM, with Resident #80 revealed that she had not had any injury due to the rough sharp edges on the overbed table, but that the staff was aware it was damaged. An observation on 12/7/21 at 8:15 AM, revealed Resident #76's bed positioned in front of the window. The window blinds were pulled up and tangled. There were no curtains on the window. The wall behind the resident's bed had two (2) areas that were gouged through the sheet rock and a pile of tan and brownish colored powdery substance was present on the floor under the gouged-out areas in the wall. The wall behind the A bed area also had deep gouges in the sheet rock. An interview, on 12/07/21 at 8:16 AM with Resident #76 revealed his blinds had been pulled up and tangled like that for quite a while. He stated that he had mentioned it to the staff. An observation, on 12/7/21 at 8:35 AM, revealed Room C2A room door was painted with a thin coat of white paint that was scratched and marred over the entire door. An observation of Room D14A revealed the wall behind the bed was scratched and gouged in several places. The base boards are pulled away from the wall and laying loose on the floor with a whitish powdery substance on the floor behind the headboard. An observation in the D hallway on 12/7/21 at 12:20 PM, revealed dry brownish material that had run down the wall between Room D 11 and D 13. The housekeeper was observed cleaning the handrails over this area and did not clean the wall. An observation of the area between Room D11 and D13 on 12/8/21 at 9:00 AM, revealed the brownish material remained on the wall. An interview, on 12/8/21 at 9:15 AM, with Housekeeping Staff #2, confirmed the brownish material on the wall in the hall between Room D11 and D13. She stated that she guessed she just overlooked it when she was cleaning. She stated that it does not look nice, and she should have seen it. She stated that the floors need some work too. An interview on 12/8/21 at 9:05 AM, with the Administrator (ADM), confirmed she was aware the blinds in Resident #76's room needed to be replaced. She confirmed that the resident should have blinds or curtains to provide privacy. The ADM confirmed that the wall behind the beds in the room needed repair due to the damage done by the beds being raised up and down. The ADM confirmed the floors needed cleaning. She stated that the D hall was worse. The ADM stated that the housekeeper should have seen the wall between D11 and D13 and cleaned it. The ADM stated that the condition of the wall and baseboards in Room D14 was unacceptable. The ADM stated staff members are to do daily walk throughs in assigned areas. She stated that all these things should have been reported. The ADM confirmed the wall behind the bed in Room C9A was damaged. The gouged area was measured by the Administrator at 25.5 inches long by 4 inches wide by 2 inches deep. She confirmed that the wall behind the bed in Room C2A was gouged and paint was scuffed off and the entry door to the room was scratched and scuffed. The ADM confirmed the damaged walls, bedside tables and overbed tables, and the dirty wall. She stated that the rough edges could cause skin tears to the residents. An interview on 12/8/21 at 9:15 AM, with the Maintenance Director revealed Resident #76's window blind was torn to pieces and not functional. He confirmed that the damage to the wall behind the beds and base boards pulled away from the wall should have been reported and repaired. He confirmed that the floors were dirty and could be cleaner. An interview on 12/8/21 at 9:20 AM, with Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) #1 revealed that she had been in Room D14A every day this week. She stated that she had not noticed the damage to the wall and baseboards in the resident's room. She stated that she should have because she was responsible for all aspects of the resident's care. An interview, on 12/8/21 at 10:50 AM, with Housekeeping Staff #3, confirmed the floors were dirty. She stated that they could be better.
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, staff interviews, and facility policy review, the facility failed to perform hand hygiene to prevent the l...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, staff interviews, and facility policy review, the facility failed to perform hand hygiene to prevent the likelihood of infection transmission as evidenced by improper hand hygiene during meal tray pass for two (2) of four (4) halls and the dining room. Findings include: Record review of facility policy titled Hand Washing, history 9/19, revealed, POLICY: Staff will use proper hand washing technique to prevent the spread of infection. Record review of the facility procedure titled Proper Hand Washing and Glove Use, no date, revealed Guideline: All employees will use proper hand washing procedures and glove usage in accordance with State and Federal Sanitation Guidelines. Procedure: .4. Employees will wash hands before and after handling foods, after touching any part of the uniform, face, or hair, and before and after working with an individual resident . 7. Gloves are changed any time hand washing would be required. This includes when leaving the kitchen for break, or to go to another area for break, or to go to another location in the building; after handling potentially hazardous food, or if the gloves become contaminated by touching the face, hair, uniform, or other non-food contact surface, such as door handles and equipment. 8. Staff should be reminded that gloves become contaminated just as hands do and should be changed often. When in doubt, remove gloves and wash hands again. 9. When gloves must be changed, they are removed, hand washing procedure is followed, and a new pair of gloves is applied. Gloves are never placed on dirty hands; the procedure is always wash, glove, remove, rewash, and re-glove. On 12/06/21 at 11:40 AM, an observation of meal tray pass in the dining room revealed Certified Nurse Assistant #2 (CNA) cleaned her hands with hand gel upon entry to the dining room, she passed out three residents' trays without cleaning hands between residents. She also touched her forehead, adjusted her face mask and did not utilize hand hygiene. On 12/06/2021 at 12:07 PM, an observation of the meal tray pass for A Hall revealed CNA #1 donned a pair of gloves and began passing trays. She wore the same pair of gloves from room to room returning to the tray cart for other trays without cleaning hands or utilizing alcohol hand gel. CNA#1 touched her forehead with the gloves and touched her mask with the gloves. She removed the gloves after she completed passing all the trays on the hallway. On 12/06/21 at 2:50 PM, during an interview with CNA #1, she confirmed she wore the same pair of gloves during the tray pass at noon today. She reported using the same gloves to pass the trays could cause the spread of germs and she admitted she didn't change gloves during meal pass. On 12/6/21 at 3:00 PM, an interview with CNA #2 revealed when asked how was she supposed to utilize hand hygiene when passing residents food trays, she replied that she should wash hands or use hand gel between each meal tray pass. The State Agency (SA) asked her did she clean her hands today when passing meal trays at noon, she reported no, she did not clean her hands between each tray she passed. The SA asked her what could be the outcome of not properly utilizing hand hygiene between passing trays, CNA #2 replied that it could cause a spread of germs. Surveyor: Mix, [NAME] An observation on 12/6/21 at 12:00 PM of two CNAs (CNA#5 and CNA#6) passing out lunch trays on the C Hall revealed the CNAs did not use sanitizer or wash their hands between residents. CNAs were observed setting up the resident trays and returning to the food cart, picking up and delivering and setting up trays from room to room. An interview, on 12/6/21 at 03:01 PM, with CNA #5, revealed she did not wash her hands between passing out resident trays for most of the residents. CNA #5 stated she did sanitize her hands between a few residents, but stated it was wrong not to sanitize her hands between all the residents. CNA stated she could have caused cross contamination by not sanitizing her hands between residents. CNA #5 stated she had an in-service on cross contamination and hand hygiene when she hired into the facility, as a PRN (as needed) staff member, 2 months ago. On 12/08/2021 at 4:30 PM, an interview with the Director of Nursing (DON) revealed the staff are supposed to utilize hand hygiene between passing trays to residents. The staff at the facility are not supposed to go from resident to resident wearing the same gloves. The SA asked what the outcome could be by not utilizing hand hygiene between resident tray pass, the DON replied that not cleaning hands between tray pass could lead to the spread of infection.
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, 2 life-threatening violation(s), 1 harm violation(s), $62,606 in fines, Payment denial on record. Review inspection reports carefully.
  • • 35 deficiencies on record, including 2 critical (life-threatening) violations. These warrant careful review before choosing this facility.
  • • $62,606 in fines. Extremely high, among the most fined facilities in Mississippi. 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 Tupelo's CMS Rating?

CMS assigns TUPELO NURSING AND REHABILITATION CENTER an overall rating of 1 out of 5 stars, which is considered much below average nationally. Within Mississippi, 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 Tupelo Staffed?

CMS rates TUPELO NURSING AND REHABILITATION CENTER's staffing level at 3 out of 5 stars, which is average compared to other nursing homes. Staff turnover is 60%, which is 13 percentage points above the Mississippi average of 46%. High turnover can affect care consistency as new staff learn residents' individual needs.

What Have Inspectors Found at Tupelo?

State health inspectors documented 35 deficiencies at TUPELO NURSING AND REHABILITATION CENTER during 2021 to 2025. These included: 2 Immediate Jeopardy (the most serious level, indicating potential for serious harm or death), 1 that caused actual resident harm, 31 with potential for harm, and 1 minor or isolated issues. Immediate Jeopardy findings are rare and represent the most serious regulatory concerns. They require immediate corrective action.

Who Owns and Operates Tupelo?

TUPELO NURSING AND REHABILITATION CENTER is owned by a for-profit company. For-profit facilities operate as businesses with obligations to shareholders or private owners. The facility is operated by NORBERT BENNETT & DONALD DENZ, a chain that manages multiple nursing homes. With 120 certified beds and approximately 106 residents (about 88% occupancy), it is a mid-sized facility located in TUPELO, Mississippi.

How Does Tupelo Compare to Other Mississippi Nursing Homes?

Compared to the 100 nursing homes in Mississippi, TUPELO NURSING AND REHABILITATION CENTER's overall rating (1 stars) is below the state average of 2.6, staff turnover (60%) 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 Tupelo?

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 I visit during a mealtime to observe dining assistance and food quality?" These questions are particularly relevant given the facility's Immediate Jeopardy citations, the substantiated abuse finding on record, and the facility's high staff turnover rate.

Is Tupelo Safe?

Based on CMS inspection data, TUPELO NURSING AND REHABILITATION CENTER 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 2 Immediate Jeopardy citations (the most serious violation level indicating risk of serious injury or death). The facility has a 1-star overall rating and ranks #100 of 100 nursing homes in Mississippi. Families considering this facility should ask detailed questions about what corrective actions have been taken since these incidents.

Do Nurses at Tupelo Stick Around?

Staff turnover at TUPELO NURSING AND REHABILITATION CENTER is high. At 60%, the facility is 13 percentage points above the Mississippi 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 Tupelo Ever Fined?

TUPELO NURSING AND REHABILITATION CENTER has been fined $62,606 across 5 penalty actions. This is above the Mississippi average of $33,705. Fines in this range indicate compliance issues significant enough for CMS to impose meaningful financial consequences. Common causes include delayed correction of deficiencies, repeat violations, or care failures affecting resident safety. Families should ask facility leadership what changes have been made since these penalties.

Is Tupelo on Any Federal Watch List?

TUPELO NURSING AND REHABILITATION CENTER is not on any federal watch list. The most significant is the Special Focus Facility (SFF) program, which identifies the bottom 1% of nursing homes nationally based on persistent, serious quality problems. Not being on this list means the facility has avoided the pattern of deficiencies that triggers enhanced federal oversight. This is a positive indicator, though families should still review the facility's inspection history directly.