BILLDORA SENIOR CARE

314 ENOCHS ST, TYLERTOWN, MS 39667 (601) 876-2173
For profit - Corporation 60 Beds Independent Data: November 2025 1 Immediate Jeopardy citation
Trust Grade
56/100
#59 of 200 in MS
Last Inspection: March 2025

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

Overview

Billdora Senior Care has received a Trust Grade of C, indicating it is average compared to other nursing homes. It ranks #59 out of 200 facilities in Mississippi, placing it in the top half, and #2 out of 2 in Walthall County, meaning only one local option is better. Unfortunately, the facility is worsening, with issues increasing from 2 in 2023 to 4 in 2025. Staffing is a strong point, with a rating of 4 out of 5 stars and a turnover rate of 40%, which is better than the state average. However, the facility has concerning RN coverage, being below 89% of state facilities, which could affect resident care. Specific incidents of concern include a resident with cognitive impairments who was able to leave the facility unnoticed for almost three hours, highlighting supervision issues. Additionally, there have been complaints about residents not receiving their mail on weekends and unresolved grievances regarding missing personal property. While the facility shows some strengths in staffing, the rise in deficiencies and specific incidents raise questions about the overall quality of care.

Trust Score
C
56/100
In Mississippi
#59/200
Top 29%
Safety Record
High Risk
Review needed
Inspections
Getting Worse
2 → 4 violations
Staff Stability
○ Average
40% turnover. Near Mississippi's 48% average. Typical for the industry.
Penalties
✓ Good
$11,625 in fines. Lower than most Mississippi facilities. Relatively clean record.
Skilled Nurses
⚠ Watch
Each resident gets only 24 minutes of Registered Nurse (RN) attention daily — below average for Mississippi. Fewer RN minutes means fewer trained eyes watching for problems.
Violations
○ Average
9 deficiencies on record. Average for a facility this size. Mostly minor or procedural issues.
★★★☆☆
3.0
Overall Rating
★★★★☆
4.0
Staff Levels
★☆☆☆☆
1.0
Care Quality
★★★★☆
4.0
Inspection Score
Stable
2023: 2 issues
2025: 4 issues

The Good

  • 4-Star Staffing Rating · Above-average nurse staffing levels
  • Full Sprinkler Coverage · Fire safety systems throughout facility
  • No fines on record
  • Staff turnover below average (40%)

    8 points below Mississippi average of 48%

Facility shows strength in staffing levels, fire safety.

The Bad

3-Star Overall Rating

Near Mississippi average (2.6)

Meets federal standards, typical of most facilities

Staff Turnover: 40%

Near Mississippi avg (46%)

Typical for the industry

Federal Fines: $11,625

Below median ($33,413)

Minor penalties assessed

The Ugly 9 deficiencies on record

1 life-threatening
Mar 2025 4 deficiencies
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0576 (Tag F0576)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on facility policy review, interviews, and record review, the facility failed to provide residents with mail on Saturdays for one (1) of (17) sampled residents, Resident #25. Findings included: ...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on facility policy review, interviews, and record review, the facility failed to provide residents with mail on Saturdays for one (1) of (17) sampled residents, Resident #25. Findings included: A record review of the facility policy Communications Within and External to the Facility revised in August 2024, revealed, The facility will protect and facilitate the resident's right to communicate with individuals and entities within and external to the facility. The facility will ensure the resident has the ability to .receive mail, letters, packages, and other materials delivered to the facility . On 03/04/2025 at 10:10 AM, during a resident council meeting, members stated that residents in the facility does not receive mail on weekends. On 03/04/2025 at 10:20 AM, during an interview, the facility Administrator stated that the Activities Director distributes mail during the weekdays. The Administrator further stated that the front desk receptionist, nurses, or Certified Nurse Aides (CNAs) distribute mail on weekends when it is received at the front desk. The Administrator suggested that Resident #25 be interviewed, as she consistently receives mail. On 03/04/2025 at 10:27 AM, during an interview, Resident #25 stated that she never receives mail on weekends. She stated that even if mail arrives on the weekend, it is stored in the front office, and the Activities Director delivers it to her on Mondays. Resident #25 stated that no CNA or nurse has ever brought her mail on weekends. On 03/04/2025 at 10:22 AM, during an interview, the front desk receptionist stated that she does not work on weekends. She stated that nurses and CNAs usually retrieve the mail and distribute it on weekends. On 03/04/2025 at 10:30 AM, during an interview, Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN)# 1 stated that she was unaware of who retrieves the mail on Saturdays and distributes it to residents. LPN #1 stated that she had never delivered mail on weekends and had never seen any residents receive mail on Saturdays. On 03/04/2025 at 10:35 AM, during an interview, CNA #1 stated that she did not know what happens with mail on weekends. She stated that she had never been instructed to retrieve mail from the front office or distribute it to residents on weekends. On 03/04/2025 at 10:47 AM, during an interview, the facility's Social Services Director stated that the Activities Director distributes residents' mail Monday through Friday but was unsure who distributed mail on weekends. On 03/04/2025 at 10:53 AM, during an interview, Activities Staff #1 stated that she distributes residents' mail Monday through Friday. She stated that the charge nurse is responsible for distributing mail on weekends when she is not there. However, she stated that when she arrives on Mondays, packages are often waiting in the office to be distributed. On 03/04/2025 at 11:01 AM, during an interview, Registered Nurse (RN)# 1 stated that she had never distributed mail on weekends. She further stated that, to her knowledge, if mail is delivered to the facility on the weekend, it is stored in the front office until it is distributed on Monday. On 03/04/2025 at 11:05 AM, during an interview, the Director of Nursing (DON) stated that Activities Staff #1 distributes the mail during the week. When asked who delivers mail on weekends, the DON stated that she assumed it would be distributed by social services or activities staff. The DON confirmed that nurses and CNAs do not retrieve or distribute mail on weekends. A record review of Resident #25's admission Record revealed an admission date of 05/10/2017 with a diagnoses that included Hemiplegia and Hemiparesis Following Cerebral Infarction Affecting Right Dominant Side. A record review of Resident #25's Minimum Data Set (MDS) with an Assessment Reference Date (ARD) of 12/31/2024 revealed a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of 15, which indicated the resident was cognitively intact.
CONCERN (D)

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

Grievances (Tag F0585)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on interview, record review and facility policy review the facility failed to provide prompt resolution of a grievance related to a resident's missing property for one (1) of (17) sampled reside...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on interview, record review and facility policy review the facility failed to provide prompt resolution of a grievance related to a resident's missing property for one (1) of (17) sampled residents. Resident #22. Findings included: A review of the facility's policy titled Missing Property, dated 4/17, revealed It is the policy of the facility to safeguard resident' property (to the extent possible) to assure there is no misappropriation On 03/03/25 at 12:24 PM, in an interview, Resident #22 stated that a Saints jersey was missing from her closet. She was unsure when it went missing. She reported that Social Services (SS) initially told her they would order a replacement jersey but later informed her in January 2025 that they would need to reorder it. She further stated that SS told her they would check on the status of the jersey but never followed up with her. On 03/04/25 at 1:10 PM, in an interview, SS stated that she typically completes a grievance when residents report missing items. She confirmed that Resident #22 had reported her missing jersey late in 2024, during football season. She stated she completed a grievance but acknowledged that there was no record of the grievance in the grievance book. She further stated that she discussed the issue with the Nursing Home Administrator (NHA) and that the plan was to replace the jersey. The last time she spoke with NHA about the issue was at the end of 2024. On 03/04/25 at 1:22 PM, in an interview, NHA stated she planned to contact the resident's family to verify that Resident #22 owned a Saints jersey. She stated the resident never reported the missing jersey to her directly, but that SS had informed her about it. She confirmed she had not yet contacted the family for verification but planned to order a replacement jersey in size 2XL (extra large). However, she acknowledged that she had not verified Resident #22's size before placing the order. On 03/04/25 at 2:03 PM, in a phone interview, Resident #22's Resident Representative (RR) stated she was informed by both the resident and SS about the missing jersey. She stated the incident occurred late last year and assumed the facility had already replaced it. She confirmed that SS had contacted her and that she verified the jersey was missing. She also confirmed that the jersey was not at the resident's home. On 03/06/25, in a follow-up phone interview, the RR stated that a 2XL jersey would not fit Resident #22. She expressed concern that the facility did not contact her to confirm the appropriate size before ordering the replacement. A record review of Resident #22's inventory sheet, dated 11/25/24, documented the presence of one Saints jersey with #9 and Brees on it. A record review of Resident #22's admission Record revealed an admission date of 07/15/21 with diagnoses including Major Depressive Disorder. A record review of Resident #22's Minimum Data Set (MDS) with an Assessment Reference Date (ARD) of 01/07/25 revealed a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of 15, indicating the resident is 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

Based on record review and staff interviews, the facility failed to provide written notification of the reason for a resident's hospital discharge to the resident and/or Resident Representative (RR) f...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on record review and staff interviews, the facility failed to provide written notification of the reason for a resident's hospital discharge to the resident and/or Resident Representative (RR) for one (1) of (1) residents reviewed for hospitalization (Resident #18). Findings include: A record review of the admission Record revealed the facility admitted Resident #18 on 6/10/24, with diagnoses including Acute Respiratory Failure with Hypoxia and Acute Systolic Congestive Heart Failure. A record review of the transfer/discharge letter dated 1/9/25 revealed the Resident was discharged to the hospital on 1/8/25, however, the letter did not provide a reason for the transfer/discharge. On 03/04/25 at 1:07 PM, in an interview with the Social Service Director, she confirmed it was her role to mail hospital transfer/discharge letters to the family. She stated she was not aware that the letter was required to include the reason for the transfer/discharge and confirmed with the State Agency (SA) that the letter sent to the RR for Resident #18 did not include this information. On 03/04/25 at 1:22 PM, in an interview the Administrator, stated she was not aware of any regulation requiring the facility to include the written reason for the transfer/discharge in the letters sent to the Responsible Party. She stated she believed that doing so would be a violation of the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA).
CONCERN (D)

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

Respiratory Care (Tag F0695)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview, record review and facility policy review, the facility failed to ensure a resident requiring ox...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview, record review and facility policy review, the facility failed to ensure a resident requiring oxygen therapy had an Oxygen in Use sign placed on the resident's door as specified in the facility policy for one (1) of four (4) days of survey observations. (Resident #107). Findings Include: A record review of the facility's Oxygen Concentrator policy, revised April 2017, revealed Policy: To administer oxygen for the treatment of certain diseases or conditions. Policy Explanation and Compliance Guidelines: 1. Care of the Resident . h. Place an oxygen warning sign on the resident's door . On 03/03/25 at 11:30 AM, an observation of Resident #107 in her room, up in a wheelchair, revealed that oxygen was flowing at 3 milliliters per hour. However, there was no Oxygen in Use signage on the door. On 03/03/25 at 11:32 AM, during an interview, Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN)#1 confirmed that there was no oxygen signage on the door. She stated that an Oxygen in Use sign should have been placed on the door upon admission on [DATE] to alert staff and visitors not to enter with flammable materials. On 03/05/25 at 11:45 AM, during an interview, the Director of Nursing (DON) confirmed that oxygen signage should have been placed on the door. She stated that the purpose of the signage is to alert staff and visitors that oxygen is in use to prevent fire hazards. A record review of Resident #107's admission Record revealed an admission date of 2/17/25 with diagnoses including Dysphagia and Shortness of Breath. A record review of Resident #107's Minimum Data Set (MDS) with an Assessment Reference Date (ARD) of 2/24/25 revealed a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of 99, indicating the resident was unable to complete the interview.
Nov 2023 1 deficiency
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0849 (Tag F0849)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on staff interviews, record reviews, and facility policy reviews the facility failed to collaborate with hospice services related to a resident's continuous plan of care for one( 1) of two (2) h...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on staff interviews, record reviews, and facility policy reviews the facility failed to collaborate with hospice services related to a resident's continuous plan of care for one( 1) of two (2) hospice residents reviewed. Resident #30. Findings Include: Record review of the facility's policy, Hospice Care-Facility Responsibilities, with a revision date of 4/2017, revealed, It is the policy of this facility to improve quality and consistency of care between hospice and the facility in the provision of hospice care to our residents in order to attain or maintain the highest practicable physical, mental, and psychosocial well-being of each resident. Policy Explanation and Compliance Guidelines: . 2. b. Communicating with hospice representatives and other healthcare providers participating in the provision of care for terminal illness, related conditions, and other conditions to ensure quality of care for the patient and family . Record review of the admission Record, for Resident #30, revealed the facility admitted the resident on 5/30/23, with diagnoses that included Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD) and Vascular Dementia, Unspecified Severity, With Mood Disturbance. Record review of Order Summary Report, with active orders as of 11/16/2023, revealed a physician order ADMIT to hospice (Proper Name)/TERMINAL DIAGNOSIS OF COPD, dated 6/13/23 Record review of the Visit Note Report written by Hospice, revealed it did not contain the most recent visits by Hospice. The last notes were dated 8/31/23. The Hospice chart was not updated with each visit. On 11/14/23 at 1:25 PM, in an interview with Social Service (SS), she revealed she coordinates hospice serviced with the family. She stated she contacts the family when the physician recommends hospice and explains hospice to the family and the resident and answers all of their questions. She stated she does not do anything after that. Record review of the quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) with an Assessment Reference Date (ARD) of 8/29/23, Section O revealed Resident #30 was coded for having received hospice care. On 11/14/23 at 2:05 PM, in an interview with the Director of Nurses (DON), she stated the Hospice nurse talks to the staff nurses. She stated no one reviews the hospice notes to see if they are receiving the notes to follow up with hospice care. She stated the facility should follow up with Hospice to coordinate the resident's plan of care. On 11/14/23 at 2:17 PM, in an interview with Registered Nurse (RN) #1/Hospice Nurse, stated she comes to the facility once a week to see Resident #30. She stated Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) #2 comes once a week also. She stated she usually talks to the charge nurse. She stated the hospice office prints out the weekly notes and gives them to LPN #1/Medical Records Nurse at the facility. On 11/14/23 at 2:33 PM, in an interview with LPN #1 she stated she has never received hospice notes on Resident #30 from Hospice. She revealed she has only received records from Hospice when a resident expires. On 11/14/23 at 2:46 PM, in an interview with RN#2 / Charge Nurse, she stated she talks with the Hospice nurse when they come if she is in the facility that day. The Charge Nurse revealed she does not get written reports from Hospice and does not document what hospice tells her about the resident. On 11/14/23 at 2:54 PM, in an interview with LPN #2 from Hospice, she stated she gives the Medical Records Nurse the daily report forms when Hospice prints them out. She revealed it has been several months since they have given her reports to give to the facility, as they have a new staff member that is running behind on printing the reports. LPN #2 revealed no one from the facility has called requesting the reports.
Mar 2023 1 deficiency 1 IJ
CRITICAL (J) 📢 Someone Reported This

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

Immediate Jeopardy (IJ) - the most serious Medicare violation

Accident Prevention (Tag F0689)

Someone could have died · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observations, interviews, record review, facility policy review, and facility investigation review, the facility failed...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observations, interviews, record review, facility policy review, and facility investigation review, the facility failed to provide adequate supervision to prevent the elopement of Resident #1, who had severe cognitive impairment, from exiting the facility through a window on 3/14/23 at approximately 8:00 PM. This failure allowed Resident #1 to be away from the facility unnoticed and unsupervised for approximately two (2) hours and 37 minutes, until facility staff located the resident approximately 500 hundred feet away from the facility at a local business. This concern was identified for one (1) of four (4) residents reviewed for wandering behavior and risk for elopement. The State Agency (SA) conducted a Complaint Investigation (CI) at the facility from 3/21/23 through 3/23/23. During the survey, the SA investigated the facility reported incident, CI MS# 21045, related to an elopement, and determined the facility was not in compliance with the requirements for participation in Medicare and Medicaid. The facility failed to provide adequate supervision to prevent Resident #1's elopement from the facility. Resident #1 was last seen by the facility staff at approximately 8:00 PM, on 3/14/23. However, at approximately 9:00 PM, during an hourly observation, Resident #1 was not located. The facility initiated a facility wide search, at which time it was discovered that the window in the resident's room had been opened, with the screen knocked out behind the blinds. At approximately 9:23 PM, facility staff called 911, the Administrator, the Director of Nurses (DON), the Medical Doctor (MD), and the Resident's Representative (RR). The facility staff checked to make sure that all other residents were accounted for, and they expanded the search to include the area surrounding the facility. Resident #1 was located by facility staff at 10:37 PM, approximately 500 feet behind the facility, at a local business. Resident # 1 was transferred per ambulance to a local hospital. The hospital found no major injuries and released the resident back to the facility. The family transported the resident to the facility at 12:45 AM on 3/15/23, and one on one supervision was initiated. Resident #1 had been admitted to the facility on [DATE], and at that time, the facility's Wandering Risk Assessment revealed, that the resident was considered a moderate risk for wandering and hourly visuals had been initiated. Immediately following the elopement, the DON began an investigation of the incident and in-servicing the staff on the facility's policy for wandering and elopement. As part of the facility's corrective actions, no employees were allowed to work until they had attended the in-service on the Elopements and Wandering Residents Policy. Facility staff assessed all current residents for elopement risk and updated the Elopement Binder kept at the Nurses Station. The Maintenance Supervisor began immediately to secure facility windows with self-tapping screws the prevent the windows from opening more than three (3) inches. The facility's failure to provide supervision to prevent the elopement for Resident #1, allowed the resident to be away from the facility, unnoticed and unsupervised until found standing behind a local business, by facility staff. This situation placed Resident #1 and other residents at risk for elopement in a situation that was likely to cause serious injury, harm, impairment, or death. On 3/23/23, the SA identified an Immediate Jeopardy (IJ) and Substandard Quality of Care (SQC), which occurred on 3/14/23 and existed at 42 CFR(s): 483.25 (d)(1)(2) - Free of Accidents, Hazards/Supervision/Device (F689) - Scope/Severity J due to the facility's failure to provide adequate supervision to prevent an elopement of Resident #1. The SA notified the facility's Administrator of the Past Noncompliance (PNC) IJ and SQC on 3/23/23 at 11:15 AM, and provided the Administrator with the IJ template. Based on the facility's implementation of corrective actions on 3/14/23 through 3/15/23, the SA determined the IJ to be PNC and the IJ was removed on 3/15/23, prior to the SA's entrance on 3/21/23. Findings include: Review of the facility's policy, Elopements and Wandering Residents Policy, revised 9/2017, revealed, Policy: This facility ensures that residents who exhibit wandering behavior and/or are at risk for elopement receive adequate supervision to prevent accidents, and receive care in accordance with their person-centered plan of care addressing the unique factors contributing to wandering or elopement risk . 6. d. Adequate supervision will be provided to help prevent accidents or elopements . Record review of the Facility Investigation prepared by the Director of Nurses (DON) revealed Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) #1 noted seeing Resident #1 in his room at 8:00 PM, however, he was not in his room at 9:00 PM when Certified Nurse Aide (CNA) #1 went into Resident #1's room for an hourly observation. CNA #1 immediately reported to LPN #1 that Resident #1 was not in his room and facility staff initiated a resident headcount, with only Resident #1 unaccounted for. The staff initiated a search for Resident #1 inside and outside the facility. It was noted by staff, that behind his closed window blinds, the window was opened and the window screen was knocked out. At 9:23 PM, the local police department, the Administrator, the Director of Nurses (DON), Resident #1's Responsible Representative (RR), and his primary physician (who was also the facility's Medical Director) were notified by LPN #1, that Resident #1 could not be located. Resident #1 was located behind the facility at a local business by the Quality Assurance (QA) Nurse at 10:37 PM and transported by ambulance to the local hospital emergency department (ED) for assessment. As the resident had no major injuries, he returned to the facility at 12:45 AM on 3/15/23, by family. An observation on 3/21/23 at 9:00 PM, revealed the Northwest corner of the facility property was located approximately 500 feet from the intersection of a highway and adjacent street. The property was situated on the corner lot and backed up to a densely wooded area between the facility property and the backyards of the residences and the local business, which faced the next closest parallel street to the north. There was only one car seen driving down the street in front of the local business where Resident #1 had been located. The facility property was well lit with multiple streetlights on the property. The wooded area was very dark. There was a five-foot-high chain link fence around the facility property; the gates at the Northwest and Northeast corners of the property, which served the driveway that ran behind the facility (and provided service for the kitchen and other delivery and utility vehicles) were both wide open. There were houses and buildings across the street from the facility with streetlights in their yards on the East and [NAME] sides. Observation of Resident #1's room window revealed the bottom edge of the window was four (4) feet and seven (7) inches above the ground. The parking lot on the East side of the building was well lit by the streetlight and the streetlights of neighboring properties. The grassy yard area between the building and Street on the South side of the property were well lit by streetlights. Review of the weather report during investigation, revealed that the temperature during the time of Resident #1's elopement had been approximately 55 degrees Fahrenheit with no rain noted, clear with a full moon. Weather report for 1/14/23 was obtained from https://www.timeanddate.com. On 3/21/23 at 10:00 PM, during an interview with Registered Nurse (RN) #1 she confirmed she was on duty at the facility on the 6:00 PM to 6:00 AM shift on 3/14/23. She stated that at approximately 9:00 PM, LPN #1 informed her that Resident #1 was not in his room. RN #1 confirmed that all staff members were notified of the missing resident and a search was conducted beginning inside the building and continued outside the building. She reported that LPN #1 had contacted the local police department, Resident #1's primary physician, the resident's RR, the DON, and the Administrator. RN #1 said that she was notified at approximately 10:40 PM, that Resident #1 had been located and was taken to the local hospital emergency department. She confirmed the DON conducted an In-Service on the facility's Elopements and Wandering Residents Policy, the evening of 3/14/23, for all staff present and announced that one hundred percent (100%) of all staff were required to complete the In-Service training prior to working at the facility again. RN #1 noted she had observed the Maintenance Supervisor at the facility securing windows in resident rooms on the evening of 3/14/23 and early hours of 3/15/23. The nurse confirmed Resident #1 returned to the facility from the local ED at approximately 12:45 AM on 3/15/23, and orders were received to place the resident on one-on-one monitoring. She stated she had not noted any change of behavior in Resident #1 since the incident. On 3/21/23 at 10:30 PM, in an interview the Administrator, he confirmed he was notified at approximately 9:25 PM on 3/14/23, that Resident #1 had exited the facility through the window in his room and the staff had not located him. He stated the facility admitted Resident #1 on 1/20/23. Upon admission, the resident had been assessed for wandering/elopement risk and was deemed a Moderate elopement risk and the staff had been making hourly visual observations of the resident. He stated that he confirmed LPN #1 had conducted a headcount of all residents and that Resident #1 was the only resident unaccounted for and all appropriate notifications had been made per facility policy. He stated that at approximately 10:40 PM, he was notified that the resident was located and was being taken to the local ED for assessment and treatment as needed. He confirmed that the facility immediately started in-service training for all staff regarding missing residents and elopement policy and procedures. He stated Resident #1 was changed from hourly monitoring to one-on-one monitoring and that the Maintenance Supervisor had installed window stops on all resident windows which allowed the windows to open no more than three (3) inches. He revealed he had attended a Quality Assessment and Performance Improvement (QAPI) committee meeting on 3/15/23, and that all committee members, including the facility Medical Director were in attendance. During the meeting, the Elopement and Wandering Residents policy was reviewed and the incident, including interventions to provide for residents' safety and the prevention of future elopements. On 3/22/23 at 11:40 AM, an interview with the Maintenance Supervisor revealed, that he was made aware of the elopement of Resident #1 on 3/14/23 at approximately 9:30 PM and had reported to the facility and assisted in a search for the resident. He stated he arrived at the facility approximately five (5) minutes after the Administrator notified him of the elopement. Upon his arrival, he noted he immediately went and looked at the resident's window on the outside and then walked the streets surrounding the building with a flashlight. He said he saw all Department Heads, city police, sheriff's department personnel and volunteer firefighters searching on foot or in cars. He confirmed Resident #1 was located at approximately 10:30 PM, and after he had been notified, he went to work placing self-tapping screws into the window sash on each window of each resident room in the facility, which prevented windows from opening more than three (3) inches. He said that since then he has placed self-tapping screws in all windows of all common areas as well, which included the dining room and the activity room. On 3/22/23 at 12:10 PM, during an interview with the QA Nurse, she confirmed she had been notified at approximately 9:30 PM on 3/14/23, by LPN #1 of the elopement of Resident #1. She stated she reported to the facility and participated in the search. She revealed she located him approximately five hundred (500) feet behind the facility standing at a local business. She explained that the back of the facility property backed up to the back of the business. She said Resident #1 was wearing a red flannel button up shirt, gray warm-up pants, and black diabetic shoes with Velcro closures. She stated that Resident #1 was then transferred to the local hospital ED. The QA Nurse confirmed that she had attended an in-service about missing residents, elopement and supervision after Resident #1 eloped on 3/14/23. She confirmed she had taken part in an elopement drill as well. She noted that Resident #1 remains on one-on-one monitoring since his return from the ED on 3/15/23. The QA Nurse also confirmed that she had attended a QAPI committee meeting on 3/15/23, during which the facility policy, Elopements and Wandering Residents Policy was reviewed, along with the incident, and the interventions with methods for measuring efficacy. On 3/22/23 12:17 PM, a telephone interview with the facility Ombudsman revealed he had been notified of the elopement of Resident #1 and had visited the facility on 3/15/23. He stated he had visited Resident #1 and observed that a CNA was with the resident. He confirmed the resident had no visual injuries. On 3/23/23 at 5:20 PM, an interview with LPN #1, she confirmed she was working the 6:00 PM to 6:00 AM shift at the facility on 3/14/23, and at approximately 9:00 PM, CNA #1 reported to her that Resident #1 was not in his room. At that time, LPN #1 notified all staff present that Resident #1 was missing. She stated that she had never observed Resident #1 exit seeking. LPN #1 confirmed that she had attended an in-service about missing residents, elopement, and supervision, after Resident #1 eloped on 3/14/23. She confirmed she had taken part in an elopement drill as well. She also confirmed that Resident #1 had been on one-on-one monitoring since his return from the ED on 3/15/23. On 3/23/23 at 5:35 PM, an interview with the DON revealed she was made aware of the elopement of Resident #1 on 3/14/23 at approximately 9:23 PM, and had called other nursing staff to request assistance in locating Resident #1. Upon arrival at the facility, she confirmed she had interviewed staff and confirmed the safety of the other residents. Once the resident was located, she confirmed LPN #1 had made notifications to the primary physician and RR to notify them that the resident had been located and transferred to the local hospital ED. The DON confirmed she attended a QAPI committee meeting on 3/15/23 at 2:00 PM, during which the elopement of Resident #1 was discussed, and the Elopement policy was reviewed with no changes recommended to the policy. She stated the committee reviewed the interventions and staff education efforts and discussed monitoring the efficacy of the interventions enacted to prevent further elopements. She revealed she and the MDS Nurse reviewed/reassessed the fifty (50) current residents and updated the wandering/elopement assessments and binder. She stated staff education/In-Services regarding wandering/elopement began the night of the elopement and continued until all staff had received the education prior to working at the facility. She confirmed she reported the incident to SA at approximately 5:00 PM on 3/15/23. She stated elopement drills were completed quarterly for both shifts and In-Service training was provided at least twice a year which included elopement drills. She stated the facility had scheduled elopement drills for all shifts monthly and planned to review results and determine future frequency. The DON reported the Interdisciplinary Team (IDT) reviewed the Wandering/Elopement Binder every Tuesday during the Weekly High-Risk Meeting. She confirmed that she had been involved with the MDS Nurse in the update of the Care Plan for Resident #1, on 3/14/23. Record review of the admission Record for Resident #1 revealed, the facility admitted Resident #1 on 1/20/23. Resident #1's medical diagnoses included Vascular Dementia with Other Behavioral Disturbance and Senile Dementia of the Brain. Record review of the Wandering Risk Assessment, completed on 1/20/23, revealed Resident #1 had a moderate risk for wandering. Record review of the Care Plan for Resident #1 revealed it was updated on 3/14/23, to reflect the 3/14/23 elopement, and new interventions included one on one monitoring, a secured window, and use of the Wander ID band (red band) to his wrist. Review of the admission Minimum Data Set (MDS) with Assessment Reference Date (ARD) of 1/27/23, revealed Resident #1 had a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of 99 which reflected the resident was unable to complete the interview. The Assessment for Mental Status revealed, Resident #1 exhibited a short-term memory problem, and his Cognitive Skills for Daily Decision Making were severely impaired. Section E revealed that Resident #1 had exhibited wandering behavior one (1) to three (3) days of the seven (7) days reviewed. Record review of the QAPI committee meeting sign in sheet and Corrective Action Plan dated 3/15/23 at 2:00 PM revealed the meeting was attended by the Administration, DON, all department heads, and facility Medical Director. Review revealed the committee reviewed the facility policy titled Elopements and Wandering Residents Policy and the incident of the elopement of Resident #1 on 3/14/23 and formed a plan to ensure residents' safety and prevent elopements. The facility implemented the following Corrective Action Plan prior to the SA's entrance on 3/21/23: CORRECTIVE ACTIONS Resident #1 was last seen at approximately 8:00 PM. He was unable to be located at the 9:00 PM visual observation check. The facility interior and exterior search was conducted with the census and all other residents were accounted for. The facility search was expanded, and he was located by facility staff at approximately 10:37 p.m. at a local business near the facility. The Administrator and Director of Nurses were notified at 9:23 PM on 3/14/2023. The resident representative, his daughter, was notified at 9:29 PM on 3/14/2023. The resident's Physician was notified at 9:29 PM on 3/14/2023. Resident's care plan was updated on 3/14/2023, by the Minimum Data Set Coordinator nurse to include increased monitoring. An in-service was started on 3/14/2023, by the Director of Nursing for the staff that were available in the facility on the facility's wandering and missing resident policy, the facility search, review of the doors including codes and locks, evaluating the residents of being at risk and wandering, the one on one intervention to decrease the risk of elopement and the elopement risk binders and contents. The Staff Development Nurse is continuing this in-service, and staff will not be allowed to work until they have completed this in-service. Post event: 1. Resident # 1 was sent to the emergency room by ambulance and returned to the facility at 12:45 am on 3/15/2023. He was accompanied by his daughter. He did not have any injuries. Resident # 1 was placed on one on one observation on 3/15/2023 and continues to receive one on one observation. 2. A skin audit was completed on 3/15/2023, by the Licensed Practical Nurse # 1 and there were no injuries noted. 3. Pain monitoring was completed on 3/15/2023, after the emergency room visit by the Licensed Practical Nurse #1 and no pain was voiced by resident #1. 4. The Maintenance Director secured all resident rooms windows and ensured they only open 3-4 inches on 3/15/2023. The security company came to the facility on 3/15/2023, to check the exit doors to ensure they were secure. 5. On 3/15/2023, the Director of Nurses and the Minimum Data Set Coordinator and the interdisciplinary team performed an audit of the 50 current residents to identify risk for wandering and elopement. 6. Six (6) residents were identified to be at risk for wandering and elopement. The wandering and elopement binder were reviewed by the Social Service Director on 3/15/2023, to ensure that the residents had current pictures with current information, updated care plans and checked bracelet placement and updated wandering risk assessments. The wandering risk assessments will be completed on new admissions, quarterly and upon significant change in status. The facility Maintenance Director is monitoring the windows weekly times four weeks which started on 3/15/2023. On 3/15/2023, the facility Quality Assurance Performance Improvement Committee conducted an emergent meeting and reviewed the facility policy on wandering and elopement. There were no changes made to the policy. The Quality Assurance Performance Improvement team reviewed the process that was done to secure the windows. The windows will open 3-4 inches. The team also reviewed the process for checking the doors which will be continued to be done weekly to ensure that they are working properly this is being done by the Maintenance Director. The residents that are identified for wandering and elopement will be observed for the presence of the alert bracelet five times weekly by the Social Service Director. The residents that are identified as being at risk will be reviewed weekly in the interdisciplinary high-risk meeting to identify any changes that need to be made to their plan of care. The attendees of the Quality Assurance Performance Improvement Committee were the Administrator, Director of Nursing, Infection Preventionist, Staff Development, Maintenance Director, and the Medical Director. Facility will increase the frequency of the Elopement drills. The facility alleged that the immediate jeopardy was removed on 3/15/2023 at 2:00 PM. VALIDATION The State Agency (SA) validated the facility's corrective action: 1. The SA validated through record review of the local hospital emergency department (ED) report dated 3/14/23 and facility Progress Notes for Resident #1, and interview that he was transferred to the ED by ambulance, with no injuries noted, and returned to the facility at 3/15/23 at 12:45 AM via family vehicle. 2. The SA validated through record review of Progress Notes for Resident #1, and interview that a skin audit was completed for Resident #1 by LPN #1 upon return to the facility on 3/15/23 with no injuries noted. 3. The SA validated through record review of Progress Notes for Resident #1, and interview that a pain audit was completed for Resident #1 by LPN #1 upon return to the facility on 3/15/23 with no complaints of pain noted. 4. The SA validated through observations and interviews that all resident room windows had been secured and opened no more than four (4) inches, and that the security company came to the facility on 3/15/23 and assessed exit doors. 5. The SA validated through interviews that the DON and MDS Coordinator along with the Interdisciplinary Team (IDT) audited all residents for wandering and elopement risk. 6. The SA validated through record review of assessment documentation, Elopement Binder, and interviews that six (6) residents were identified to be at risk for wandering and elopement, the Elopement Binder and Care Plans were updated, and wander bracelets were correctly placed for the six (6) identified residents by the Social Service Director on 3/15/23. The SA validated through record review and interviews that the facility discussed Resident #1's incident of elopement from the facility at an emergency Quality Assurance and Performance Improvement (QAPI) meeting on 3/15/23. The actions taken to ensure the provision of adequate supervision to meet Resident #1's needs were verified was evidenced by verification of the in-services, re-assessments, elopement drills, wander bracelet checks, and audit tools. The SA verified that Resident #1's Care Plan was updated on 3/14/23 to reflect elopement risk and one-on-one observation. The SA verified that the wander bracelet was applied to Resident #1's wrist and that Resident #1's was monitored constantly by one-on-one monitoring. The SA also validated through Resident #1's monitoring documentation and interview that Resident #1 was on constant one-on-one observation. The SA validated that the Social Services Director had updated the Elopement Binder. The SA validated through interviews and record review of In-Service Sign-In sheets that Elopement Drills were conducted on all shifts with employees. The SA validated through interviews and sign-in sheets that beginning 3/14/23, the DON conducted mandatory in-services with all facility staff on elopement and missing resident policy, protocol, and procedures. The SA validated that all corrective actions to remove the Immediate Jeopardy were completed as of 3/15/22, prior to entrance.
Mar 2022 3 deficiencies
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0567 (Tag F0567)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on interviews, record review, and facility policy review, the facility failed to ensure residents had readily available and reasonable access to personal funds seven days a week for seven (7) of...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on interviews, record review, and facility policy review, the facility failed to ensure residents had readily available and reasonable access to personal funds seven days a week for seven (7) of 29 sampled residents reviewed for personal funds. Resident #2, Resident #3, Resident #4, Resident #17, Resident #19, Resident #20, and Resident #22. Findings include: A record review of the facility's policy Resident Personal Funds/Personal Effect, undated, revealed A. Policies: 1. Residents have the right to manage their own financial affairs .10. Residents will have access to personal funds daily during normal business hours . On 03/21/22 at 3:14 PM, during an interview with Resident #3, she told the State Survey Agency (SSA) that she cannot get money on the weekend because there is no one at the facility to get her money. The Business Office Manager (BOM) is the only one that gives the residents their money and she is not here on the weekends. On 03/22/22 at 10:00 AM, during the Resident Council Meeting, Resident #3, who is the Resident Council President, reported the personal funds are only available Monday through Friday until 5 PM when the BOM is at the facility. She said she must ask for money either on Friday or Thursday before the weekend to assure she has money if needed. She explained no one has ever told her she could have someone call the BOM when she is not here, and she would come give her money from her personal funds. During the meeting, all residents in attendance confirmed that money is only available from the BOM and is not available on evenings or weekends. The residents reported that no one has ever told them that personal funds should be available every day. At 10:10 AM on 03/22/22, Resident #2 was present in the Resident Council meeting. She explained she was told she could not get money on weekends because nobody is available to give out the money. The BOM had told her if she needs money for the weekend, to get it on Friday. She explained she was never told to have a nurse to call the BOM to come to the facility and give them money on the weekend. On 03/22/22 at 10:15 AM, Resident #4 was in attendance in the Resident Council meeting. He reported he has a personal fund account at the facility and gets money only on weekdays because the BOM is the only one who gives out money and she is not at the facility after 5 o'clock on weekdays and not at the facility at all on the weekends. On 03/22/22 at 10:20 AM, Resident #17 attended the Resident Council meeting. During the resident council meeting, he confirmed he has a personal fund account at the facility, but can only get his money while the BOM is working. At 10:25 AM on 03/22/22, Resident #19 was present in the Resident Council meeting. She explained she has a trust fund account at the facility, but she is not able to get her money on the weekends because the business office is closed. She reported she must get any money she wants for the weekend by Friday. On 03/22/22 at 10:30 AM, during an interview with Resident #20, she explained she can get her money during the weekdays only and not on the weekends. At 10:35 AM on 03/22/22, Resident #22 explained she has always had a personal fund account at the facility and can get money when she asks for it on the weekdays. She reported the BOM is the only one who gives out money and she is not available in the evening or on weekends. On 03/23/22 at 11:05 AM, during an interview with the BOM, she reported currently she is the only staff member at the facility that residents can get personal funds from. She confirmed residents don't have access to their personal funds after 5:00 PM on the weekdays and not on weekends. But, if someone would call her, she would come to the facility and get the resident their money because she doesn't live far way. She explained she has never told any residents or nurses to call her if they needed money on a weekend. If she is off work for any reason, the Administrator or a staff member will step in and give residents their money per request. On 03/23/22 at 3:35 PM, during an interview with the Director of Nursing, she confirmed the BOM has always been the only staff member that residents get personal funds from unless she is not here. She confirmed the residents do not have any access to personal funds after 5:00 PM on weekdays and not at all on weekends. A record review of the facility's Trust Transaction History dated March 24, 2022, revealed all residents in attendance of the Resident Council meeting have personal trust fund accounts. Record review of Resident #2's Quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) with Assessment Reference Date (ARD) of 03/09/2022 revealed a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of 15, which indicated the resident is cognitively intact. Record review of Resident #3's Quarterly MDS with ARD of 03/09/2022 revealed a BIMS score of 15, which indicated the resident is cognitively intact. Record review for Resident #4's Quarterly MDS with ARD of 03/11/2022 revealed a BIMS score of 15, which indicated the resident is cognitively intact. Record review of Resident #17's Quarterly MDS with ARD of 01/18/2022 revealed a BIMS score of 15, which indicated the resident is cognitively intact. Record review of Resident #19's 5-day Prospective Payment System (PPS) MDS with an ARD of 01/17/2022 revealed a BIMS score of 15, which indicated the resident is cognitively intact. Record review of Resident #20's 5-day PPS MDS with ARD of 01/17/2022 revealed a BIMS score of 14, which indicated the resident is cognitively intact. Record review of Resident #22's 5-Day PPS MDS with ARD of 01/19/2022 revealed a BIMS score of 15 which indicated the resident is 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 observation, staff interviews, record reviews, and Resident Assessment Instrument (RAI) review, the facility failed to accurately code a Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment for a resident with ...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, staff interviews, record reviews, and Resident Assessment Instrument (RAI) review, the facility failed to accurately code a Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment for a resident with a Percutaneous Endoscopic Gastrostomy (PEG) tube for one (1) of 29 residents reviewed for MDS accuracy. Resident #43. Findings include: A record review of a typed letter presented by the facility, undated, with the facility stamp revealed For MDS assessments, we follow the instructions of the RAI (Resident Assessment Instrument) manual. A record review of Center of Medicare and Medicaid Services RAI Version 3.0 Manual dated October 2019, revealed K0300: Weight Loss . Steps for Assessment this item compares the resident's weight in the current observation period with his or her weight at two snapshots in time: At a point closest to 30-days preceding the current weight and At a point closest to 180-days preceding the current weight . For Subsequent Assessments 1. From the medical record, compare's the resident's weight in the current observation period to his or her weight in the observation period 30 days ago . Coding Instructions . Code 2, yes not on physician-prescribed weight-loss regimen: if the resident has experienced a weight loss of 5% or more in the past 30 days or 10% or more in the past 180 days, and the weight was not planned and prescribed by a physician .K0510: Nutritional Approaches . definitions .feeding tube presence of any type of tube that can deliver food/nutritional substances/fluids/medications directly into the gastrointestinal system. Examples include but are not limited to nasogastric tubes, gastrostomy tubes, jejunostomy tubes, and percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy (PEG) tubes . Coding instructions for Column 2 check all nutritional approaches performed after admission/entry or reentry to the facility and within the 7-day look back period. Check all that apply . K0510B, feeding tube-nasogastric or abdominal (PEG) . K0710: Percent intake by artificial route . Steps for assessment 1. Review intake records to determine actual intake through parenteral or tube feeding routes . Coding instructions select the best responses 1. 25% or less . On 03/21/22 at 10:47 AM, the State Survey Agency (SSA) observed Resident #43 sitting in a high back wheelchair, with a PEG tube tube observed protruding from underneath his shirt. The resident explained he had a stroke and came to the facility for therapy and had the feeding tube inserted after the stroke. He reported that although he can now eat, he continues to have the feeding tube and receives water flushes through the tube. At 2:26 PM on 03/21/22, during an interview with Resident #43, he explained since he was admitted to the facility in November of 2021, he has lost maybe five (5) pounds. A record review of Resident #43's admission Record revealed the facility admitted Resident #43 on 11/22/2021 with diagnoses including Hemiplegia and Hemiparesis following Cerebral Infarction affecting left non-dominant side, Dysphagia Oropharyngeal Phase, and Gastrostomy Status. A record review of Resident #43's Quarterly MDS with an Assessment Reference Date (ARD) of 02/21/2022, revealed a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of 15, which indicated he is cognitively intact. For the question Loss of 5% or more in the last month or 10% or more in the last 6 months was checked as yes, which indicated he had significant weight loss. Feeding tube-nasogastic or abdominal (PEG) was not checked, which would indicate Resident #43 did not have a PEG tube during the seven day look back period. A record review of Resident #43's Weights and Vitals Summary revealed on 11/22/2021, Resident #43 weighed 208.0 pounds (lbs.); on 01/17/2022, he weighed 203.4 pounds which is a -2.21 % Loss; and on 12/13/2021, he weighed 204.4 lbs. On 01/17/2022, the resident weighed 203.4 pounds which is a -0.49 % Loss for a 30 day period. A record review of Resident #43's Order Summary Report with Active Orders as of : 3/24/2022 revealed a physician order dated 11/22/21 for Enteral Feed Order every shift [Enteral] Flush feeding tube with 30 cubic centimeters (cc) of water (every) 4 hours . A record review of Resident #43's Medication Administration Record for February 2022 revealed he received PEG tube flushes as ordered. On 03/21/22 at 3:30 PM, during an interview with the Director of Nursing (DON), she confirmed Resident #43 does have a PEG tube, but only receives water flushes and no feedings. The DON reviewed Resident #43's most recent MDS with and ARD of 02/21/2022 Section K510 and K0710 and confirmed the feeding tube assessment by artificial route was coded incorrectly. The DON verified the assessment is a MDS discrepancy. On 03/21/22 at 3:34 PM, during an interview with the MDS Coordinator LPN #1, she explained she is new to MDS has only been working in MDS at the facility for one month. She reviewed Resident #43's quarterly MDS and confirmed the tube feeding by artificial route assessment was coded incorrectly. On 03/24/22 at 09:10 AM, during an interview with the Dietary Manager, she explained she completes the section of the MDS for nutrition which is Section K, swallowing and nutritional status. She reviewed the Quarterly MDS with an ARD of 02/21/22 for Resident #43 and confirmed she completed the assessment on 2/02/2022. The Dietary Manager first reviewed section K0300 weight loss, which was coded weight loss not on prescribed weight-loss regimen. She reviewed Resident #43's weights and reported she used the weight for 01/17/22 of 203.4 and compared to the weight of admission on 208.0 and explained that is not a 5% weight loss and the assessment was coded in error. She also reviewed section K510 and confirmed it is also coded incorrectly because the resident does have a PEG tube in his stomach and was admitted with the PEG tube. She explained she would have included the water flushes on part K710. She reported she marked all the sections in error and must had been having a bad day. She reported the assessment for Quarterly MDS is a discrepancy and does not accurately reflect the resident's status. She explained after she completes her assessments for the MDS the MDS coordinator reviews her assessments and then the DON reviews and signs off before submitting MDS, and if there are any discrepancies noted they will come back to her and ask her to make corrections. At 9:35 AM on 03/24/22, during an interview with the DON, she reported she had to train the MDS Coordinator, and she does not know everything about MDS, but both worked together to get MDS assessments completed and submitted. During training, she would review the MDS assessment for accuracy with the coordinator, but now the MDS Coordinator reviews the MDS assessments herself and then she will sign off for completion. She confirmed the assessment for Resident #43's nutrition was coded incorrectly and is a MDS discrepancy. She confirmed Resident #43 has not had a significant weight loss of 5% in a month, after reviewing the resident's weights since admission. She reported the facility uses the RAI manual for instructions on completing MDS assessments.
CONCERN (D)

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

Incontinence Care (Tag F0690)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on observations, staff interviews, record reviews, and facility policy review, the facility failed to secure the catheter strap and failed to use the correct technique to insert an indwelling ca...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observations, staff interviews, record reviews, and facility policy review, the facility failed to secure the catheter strap and failed to use the correct technique to insert an indwelling catheter for one (1) of five (5) care observations. Resident #1. Findings include: Record review of the facility's policy, Policy: Catheterization of Female, dated 2021, revealed, Urinary catheterizations will be performed in accordance with current standards of practice to minimize risk for bacterial contamination or urethral trauma. Policy Explanation and Compliance Guidelines .Procedure for Catheterization of a Female .7.g. Place the catheter tray on the sterile towel (under pad) and open the lubricant container. Avoid contamination .u. For indwelling catheterization: .ii. Secure the catheter to the resident's thigh . On 3/23/22 at 9:25 AM, the State Agency (SA) observed indwelling catheter care performed by Certified Nursing Assistant #1 (CNA) and CNA #2. There was no leg strap to secure the catheter. CNA #1 stated that she always tells the nurse when the resident does not have a leg strap on. On 03/23/22 09:28 AM, in an interview with RN #2, she confirmed there was no leg strap on the catheter tubing last night or this morning. She stated she forgot to get one and put it on. She confirmed the purpose of the leg strap is to keep the catheter in place and to keep it from becoming dislodged and causing trauma or discomfort by tugging on the tubing. On 3/23/22 at 10:10 AM, the SA observed Resident # 1's indwelling catheter being inserted per physician orders, by Registered Nurse #1 (RN)/Charge Nurse. RN #1 did not open the lubricant and add it to the sterile tray. She asked CNA #1 to open the packet of lubricant. As CNA #1 held the lubricant packet in her hand, RN #1 attempted to insert the catheter tip into the lubricant packet. She allowed the sterile catheter tip to come in contact with the contaminated outer portion of the lubricant packet. RN #1 did not secure the catheter with a leg strap. On 3/23/22 at 10:40 AM, in an interview with RN #1, she stated she probably did a lot of things wrong and she knows she messed up. She confirmed she did not inflate the balloon before she inserted the catheter. She also confirmed she should have put the lubricate in the sterile tray. She stated her actions could cause the resident to get a bacterial infection. On 3/23/22 at 4:33 PM, in an interview with the Director of Nursing (DON), she stated RN #1 did not follow policy on indwelling catheter insertion. She stated RN #1 could have caused the resident to get an urinary tract infection and she confirmed the purpose of the leg strap is to keep the catheter in place and keep it from coming out. A record review of the admission Record revealed the facility admitted Resident #1 on 10/7/2016. He had diagnoses including Chronic Kidney Disease Stage 3, Personal history of Urinary Tract Infection (UTI) and Acute Pyelonephritis. A record review of the Medication Review Report revealed a physician order dated 3/23/22 to Foley Cath (Catheter) 16 FR(French)/10 ML (Milliliter) - change every 21 day sand prn (as needed) for obstruction, dislodgement, or leakage every 21 day(s). A record review of the Annual Minimum Data Set (MDS) with an Assessment Reference Date (ARD) of 3/10/22 revealed a Brief Interview of Mental Status (BIMS) was not completed. A record review BIMS Staff Interview - dated 12/15/21, revealed a BIMS score of 99. Resident was unable to participate in the cognition interview. A record review of the facility's Inservice for the Month of January 2022 with topics including Infection Control w(with)/Universal Precautions revealed RN #1 signed the inservice on 1/20/22 which indicated she received training on infection control. A record review of the facility's Inservice for the Month of October 2021 with topics including Cath and G-tube Insertion revealed RN #1 signed the inservice on 10/7/21 which indicated she received training on catheter insertion.
Understanding Severity Codes (click to expand)
Life-Threatening (Immediate Jeopardy)
J - Isolated K - Pattern L - Widespread
Actual Harm
G - Isolated H - Pattern I - Widespread
Potential for Harm
D - Isolated E - Pattern F - Widespread
No Harm (Minor)
A - Isolated B - Pattern C - Widespread

Questions to Ask on Your Visit

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

Our Honest Assessment

Strengths
  • • 40% turnover. Below Mississippi's 48% average. Good staff retention means consistent care.
Concerns
  • • Multiple safety concerns identified: 1 life-threatening violation(s). Review inspection reports carefully.
  • • 9 deficiencies on record, including 1 critical (life-threatening) violation. These warrant careful review before choosing this facility.
  • • $11,625 in fines. Above average for Mississippi. Some compliance problems on record.
  • • Grade C (56/100). Below average facility with significant concerns.
Bottom line: Mixed indicators with Trust Score of 56/100. Visit in person and ask pointed questions.

About This Facility

What is Billdora Senior Care's CMS Rating?

CMS assigns BILLDORA SENIOR CARE an overall rating of 3 out of 5 stars, which is considered average nationally. Within Mississippi, this rating places the facility higher than 99% of the state's 100 nursing homes. This mid-range rating indicates the facility meets federal standards but may have areas for improvement.

How is Billdora Senior Care Staffed?

CMS rates BILLDORA SENIOR CARE's staffing level at 4 out of 5 stars, which is above average compared to other nursing homes. Staff turnover is 40%, compared to the Mississippi average of 46%. This relatively stable workforce can support continuity of care. RN turnover specifically is 57%, which is notably high. RNs provide skilled clinical oversight, so turnover in this role can affect medical care quality.

What Have Inspectors Found at Billdora Senior Care?

State health inspectors documented 9 deficiencies at BILLDORA SENIOR CARE during 2022 to 2025. These included: 1 Immediate Jeopardy (the most serious level, indicating potential for serious harm or death) and 8 with potential for harm. Immediate Jeopardy findings are rare and represent the most serious regulatory concerns. They require immediate corrective action.

Who Owns and Operates Billdora Senior Care?

BILLDORA SENIOR CARE is owned by a for-profit company. For-profit facilities operate as businesses with obligations to shareholders or private owners. The facility operates independently rather than as part of a larger chain. With 60 certified beds and approximately 49 residents (about 82% occupancy), it is a smaller facility located in TYLERTOWN, Mississippi.

How Does Billdora Senior Care Compare to Other Mississippi Nursing Homes?

Compared to the 100 nursing homes in Mississippi, BILLDORA SENIOR CARE's overall rating (3 stars) is above the state average of 2.6, staff turnover (40%) is near the state average of 46%, and health inspection rating (4 stars) is above the national benchmark.

What Should Families Ask When Visiting Billdora Senior Care?

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

Is Billdora Senior Care Safe?

Based on CMS inspection data, BILLDORA SENIOR CARE has documented safety concerns. Inspectors have issued 1 Immediate Jeopardy citation (the most serious violation level indicating risk of serious injury or death). The facility has a 3-star overall rating and ranks #1 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 Billdora Senior Care Stick Around?

BILLDORA SENIOR CARE has a staff turnover rate of 40%, which is about average for Mississippi nursing homes (state average: 46%). Moderate turnover is common in nursing homes, but families should still ask about staff tenure and how the facility maintains care continuity when employees leave.

Was Billdora Senior Care Ever Fined?

BILLDORA SENIOR CARE has been fined $11,625 across 1 penalty action. This is below the Mississippi average of $33,195. While any fine indicates a compliance issue, fines under $50,000 are relatively common and typically reflect isolated problems that were subsequently corrected. Families should ask what specific issues led to these fines and confirm they've been resolved.

Is Billdora Senior Care on Any Federal Watch List?

BILLDORA SENIOR CARE 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.