LUTHER MANOR RETIREMENT & NURSING CENTER

3170 HIGHWAY 61 NORTH, HANNIBAL, MO 63401 (573) 221-5533
Non profit - Corporation 64 Beds Independent Data: November 2025
Trust Grade
25/100
#415 of 479 in MO
Last Inspection: October 2023

Over 2 years since last inspection. Current conditions may differ from available data.

Overview

Luther Manor Retirement & Nursing Center has a Trust Grade of F, indicating significant concerns about the quality of care provided, which is among the poorest ratings available. In Missouri, the facility ranks #415 out of 479, placing it in the bottom half, and it is the lowest-ranked nursing home in Marion County. While the facility is showing some improvement-reducing serious issues from 11 in 2023 to 7 in 2025-there are still 27 deficiencies noted, including three serious incidents where residents were harmed due to inadequate oversight. Staffing is a potential strength, with a 0% turnover rate and no fines recorded, but the overall staffing rating is poor, which may impact the quality of care. Specific incidents include a resident suffering a leg laceration during a manual transfer due to equipment failure and another resident who experienced a fracture after falling out of bed when fall prevention measures were not properly implemented.

Trust Score
F
25/100
In Missouri
#415/479
Bottom 14%
Safety Record
High Risk
Review needed
Inspections
Getting Better
11 → 7 violations
Staff Stability
○ Average
Turnover data not reported for this facility.
Penalties
✓ Good
No fines on record. Clean compliance history, better than most Missouri facilities.
Skilled Nurses
○ Average
RN staffing data not reported for this facility.
Violations
⚠ Watch
27 deficiencies on record. Higher than average. Multiple issues found across inspections.
★☆☆☆☆
1.0
Overall Rating
★☆☆☆☆
1.0
Staff Levels
★★☆☆☆
2.0
Care Quality
★★☆☆☆
2.0
Inspection Score
Stable
2023: 11 issues
2025: 7 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 Missouri average (2.5)

Significant quality concerns identified by CMS

The Ugly 27 deficiencies on record

3 actual harm
Oct 2025 3 deficiencies 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

Accident Prevention (Tag F0689)

A resident was harmed · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to provide oversight and prevent injury for two residents...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to provide oversight and prevent injury for two residents (Resident #1 and Resident #44) in a sample of 23 residents. Resident #1 was dependent on staff for transfers. When his/her electronic bed did not function properly, staff manually transferred the resident and caused a laceration to the resident's leg, which required emergency medical care, including sutures, antibiotic use to prevent infection, pain management medication, wound care and wound clinic appointments. Resident #44 had a history of falls and wandering and staff failed to provide oversight, resulting in an elopement that resulted in a fall with injury. The facility census was 55. 1.Review of Resident #1's undated face sheet showed the resident's diagnoses included dementia (a chronic condition that causes a decline in mental functioning, such as thinking, remembering and reasoning, to the point that it interferes with daily life), muscle weakness, difficulty in walking, reduced mobility, need for assistance with personal care, and type 2 diabetes mellitus (a disease that occurs when your blood glucose, also called blood sugar, is too high).Review of the resident's care plan, revised 07/18/25, showed the following:-Potential for alteration in skin integrity related to incontinence, decreased mobility, and multiple disease processes;-Avoid shearing resident's skin during positioning, transferring and turning;-Monitor skin during routine care and notify nurse of any abnormalities;-Provide assist of two staff using hoyer lift for all transfers;-At risk for bleeding due to daily use of antiplatelet medication;-Avoid hitting/bumping extremities during activities of daily living (ADL's) to prevent injury;-Maintain a safe environment to decrease risk of injury;-Observe for signs of active bleeding: sudden changes in mental status, lethargy.Review of the resident's significant change Minimum Data Set (MDS), a federally mandated assessment instrument completed by facility staff, dated 09/04/25, showed the following:-Intact cognition;-The resident was dependent on staff for toileting, bathing, dressing, transfers and mobility;-The resident required a wheelchair for mobility and was dependent on staff for wheeling about. Review of the resident's progress note, dated 09/22/25 at 10:00 A.M., showed the following:-At 6:50 A.M., staff call Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) P to the resident's room. The certified nurse assistant (CNA) was holding the resident's left lower extremity. A moderate amount of blood was seen on the towel. The resident had a large open laceration through several layers of skin and muscle. Staff applied pressure and called 911;-At 7:00 A.M., the resident's bleeding had stopped. The staff reported that the injury occurred with a transfer from the bed to the wheelchair. Staff do not know what could have caused the injury;-At 7:10 A.M., emergency medical services (EMS) arrived, report given and paperwork provided. Staff assisted the resident to the gurney via the hoyer lift. EMS bandaged the resident's left lower extremity;-At 7:15 A.M., EMS left the building. Staff placed a call to the resident's durable power of attorney (DPOA) to notify and to the physician on call for the medical director. Agreeable to send the resident to the hospital emergency room for evaluation and treatment;-At 7:20 A.M., called director of nursing (DON) to update and notify. Review of the facility incident reported, dated 09/22/25, showed the following:-Staff were in the resident's room to get him/her up out of bed for breakfast;-Staff noticed that the bed was not functioning appropriately and were unable to move the bed up and down;-The resident is a hoyer lift;-Staff were unable to get the hoyer lift underneath the bed for proper alignment to safely get the resident out of bed;-Staff provided a two person transfer to his/her wheelchair. During the transfer, the resident received a large open laceration to the left lower extremity;-Physician was notified and received an order to transfer the resident to the hospital for further treatment;-EMS notified and transferred to hospital emergency room (ER);-The resident received a laceration measuring 15 centimeters (cm) long with a depth of 10 millimeters (mm);-The resident will follow up with the wound clinic. Review of the resident's progress note, dated 09/22/25 at 10:06 A.M., showed the following:-Assessment of surroundings from LPN P with assistant director of nursing (ADON), CNA C and CNA S, revealed that injury possibly occurred while transferring the resident from the bed to the wheelchair; -Left lower extremity could have caught onto the wheelchair pedal while pedal was extroverted outward and lock piece was pointed outward. Review of the resident's progress note, dated 09/22/25 at 1:04 P.M. showed the following:-At 12:30 P.M., report received from hospital nurse that the resident will be returning with new orders for the resident to be seen at the wound clinic and to start antibiotic for 10 days, nursing facility to transport;-At 12:45 P.M., the resident returned to the facility via nursing facility transport, call placed to physician for pain management, new orders received for Tylenol (pain medication) 500 milligram (mg) two tablets every six hours as needed (PRN). Review of the resident's hospital record, dated 09/22/25, showed the following:-Patient presented to the emergency department via EMS with a laceration, onset prior to arrival;-Reportedly, staff was helping the resident out of the bed and got his/her leg tangled up with the railing/bar, causing a laceration to the left leg;-Patient had wound repaired;-Patient was given Cefdinir (antibiotic) 300 milligrams (mg) PO (by mouth) to initiate treatment of skin defect;-The wound had a three centimeter (cm) x two cm skin defect with subcutaneous (under the skin) tissue exposed;-Xeroflo packing (a type of dressing that keeps a wound moist) was placed and this will need to be changed twice daily;-Resident will be referred to the wound center for follow up;-Resident will need to have suture removal in 10 days approximately;-The resident will be transported back and is stable for discharge. Review of the resident's progress note, dated 09/23/25 at 12:11 P.M. showed the following:-Continues on antibiotic therapy for left leg laceration;-Leg remains bandaged at this time, left leg elevated to decrease swelling;-Received call from resident's daughter this morning with questions regarding left leg laceration and explained incident occurred with transfer and that possibly occurred from leg pushing against the wheelchair pedal lock as the wheelchair pedal was extroverted at the time of the incident, explained orders from the hospital, informed we are treating any possible infection with oral antibiotics, explained interventions put in place to prevent reoccurrence. Review of the resident's progress note, dated 09/29/25 at 10:12 A.M., showed the following:-A call was placed to the wound clinic to receive and update on his/her appointment; -Education was provided to all nursing staff that if a bed malfunctions, there is a manual crank arm in all closets within the rooms;-Education will be provided to staff that when transferring a resident, the pedals of the wheelchair needs to be removed for transfer then placed back on for transport. Review of the resident's care plan, revised 09/29/25, showed the following:-The resident was on antibiotic therapy related to a laceration of the left lower extremity;-The resident had alterations to his/her skin integrity related to a laceration to his/her left lower extremity;-The resident had potential for alteration in skin integrity related to incontinence, decreased mobility and multiple disease processes;-Avoid shearing resident's skin during positioning, transferring and turning;-Use lifting device when moving him/her in bed;-Provide assist with two staff using hoyer lift (mechanical lift device) for all transfers;-Use wheelchair for mobility; -The resident is at risk for falls related to history of falls and multiple disease processes;-At risk for bleeding due to daily use of antiplatelet medication (medications used to help prevent blood clots from forming in the arteries);-Avoid hitting/bumping extremities during activities of daily living (ADL's) to prevent injury;-Maintain a safe environment to decrease risk of injury;-No documentation of a manual crank being in the resident's closet if the bed would not raise or lower;-No documentation regarding pedals needing to be removed when transferring the resident into the wheelchair or pedals being put on prior to transport. Observation on 10/01/25 at 11:15 A.M. showed there was a manual crank in the resident's closet. Observation on 10/01/25 at 11:15 A.M. showed the following:-LPN P completed the resident's wound treatment to his/her left leg with the assistance of CNA O;-LPN P removed the resident's old dressing (dated 09/30/25) from the resident's LLE that was saturated with serosanguineous dressing (a type of fluid that contains both serum (clear, watery fluid) and blood) and placed it in the trash;-The wound had several sutures and an area at the end of the sutures that had some serosanguineous drainage, measuring 13.5 centimeters (cm.) long. Review of CNA C's written statement, dated 09/22/25, showed the following:-He/She and CNA S transferred the resident from the bed to the wheelchair due to the bed not raising;-Once the resident was in the wheelchair, he/she noticed the resident's leg bleeding. Review of CNA S's written statement, dated 09/22/25, showed the following:-He/She was working with CNA C and when getting the resident up, his/her bed wouldn't move, he/she then tried to unplug and replug the bed in and the bed still wouldn't move;-He/She and CNA C decided to two man the resident and somehow the resident's leg got cut open;-He/She and CNA C instantly started to apply pressure to the area and yelled for the nurse. Review of a written statement by LPN P, dated 09/22/25, showed the following:-He/She was called to the resident's room by staff at 6:50 A.M.;-He/She observed CNA holding the resident's left lower leg, a moderate amount of bleeding seen;-Staff reported that while transferring the resident from the bed to the wheelchair that the resident obtained a large, separated laceration, multiple skin layers seen;-Staff were unable to identify what caused the laceration;-Pressure applied and call placed to 911;-The resident denied pain until pressure was applied;-Bleeding stopped;-At 7:10 A.M., EMS arrived, report and paperwork given;-Staff assisted to gurney and resident left facility;-Assessment of surroundings with ADON and CNA C and CNA S revealed that injury possible occurred while transferring the resident from his/her bed to the wheelchair;-Left lower extremity could have caught onto the wheelchair pedal while pedal was extroverted outward and lock piece of foot pedal was sticking out near where laceration is located;-Orders received to send to ER for evaluation and treatment. During an interview on 10/02/25 at 6:56 P.M., the Director of Nursing (DON) said the following:-She would not expect staff to manually transfer a resident that should be a hoyer lift transfer;-She would expect staff to use the manual crank in the resident's closet if the bed would not raise or lower; -Wheelchair pedals should be removed prior to transferring the resident into the wheelchair to avoid catching in the wheelchair pedals that could cause injury. 2. The facility did not have a policy for wander guards/alarms that addressed ensuring an alarm being loud enough to be heard throughout the building. 3. Review of Resident #44's undated face sheet showed the resident's diagnoses included dementia (a chronic condition that causes a decline in mental functioning, such as thinking, remembering and reasoning, to the point that it interferes with daily life), Alzheimer's disease (a progressive and irreversible brain disorder that gradually destroys memory and thinking skills, eventually leading to the inability to carry out simple daily tasks).Review of the resident's significant change MDS, dated [DATE], showed the following:-The resident had intact cognition;-The resident used a walker mobility device;-The resident required supervision or touching assistance with walking;-Wander/Elopement alarm used daily. Review of the resident's care plan, revised 07/28/25, showed the following:-The resident requires wander guard secondary to increased instances of wandering and increased confusion related to dementia progression;-Check function of alarm every shift;-Personal alarm placed on resident. Review of the resident's nursing note, written by Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) B, dated 08/28/25 at 5:00 P.M., showed the following:-While pharmacy delivery driver was at the facility making a delivery, the driver told this nurse that there was a resident with a walker sitting outside on the porch; -When the driver left, he/she came back into the facility and stated that the same resident was trying to get into his/her car and had fallen;-Upon going outside, this nurse found the resident with wander guard attached to his/her walker; had not heard alarm going off prior; checked and verified that wander guard was working. Review of the resident's nursing note, written by the ADON, dated 08/28/25 at 8:07 P.M., showed the following:-She was in her office working and overheard a conversation in the hallway that someone had fallen outside and then heard several staff members run by;-She followed the staff members outside and saw the resident sitting upright on his/her bottom in the parking lot;-The resident was just off of the sidewalk in the parking lot with his/her back leaned up against a vehicle;-The charge nurse (LPN B) and Certified Nurse Assistant (CNA) H and CNA Q were outside with the resident;-The resident was repeating that he/she fell off of the sidewalk and that his/her lower legs/feet hurt;-She assisted LPN B with assessing the resident; no injury noted in the parking lot; -Assisted the resident to stand with gait belt and assist of two; once standing, pivot transferred the resident to the wheelchair;-The pharmacy driver was standing outside of the vehicle; he/she had seen the resident outside when he/she entered the building and the resident had started walking down the sidewalk; when he/she returned to the parking lot after dropping off the medications, the resident was on the ground in front of the vehicle, so he/she went and informed the nursing team;-Took the resident inside for further assessment; the resident reported his/her wrist hurt; assessment found two injuries, an abrasion to the right hip measuring 5.0 centimeters (cm) x 5.0 cm and a second abrasion to the right elbow measuring 2.0 cm x 1.0 cm;-The resident requested to go to bed; once in bed, the resident began reporting severe pain to his/her lower legs and then reported pain to bilateral (both) hands;-The resident observed to have facial grimacing while informing this nurse about his/her pain;-Call made to resident's durable power of attorney (DPOA) regarding the unwitnessed fall outside and informed no injury noted besides two small abrasions, but that the resident was complaining of severe pain; this nurse would like to send resident out to the emergency room (ER) for evaluation to be safe;-The DPOA stated that the resident had hardware in his/her right hip and would like him/her sent to a specific hospital for evaluation since that is where his/her orthopedic surgeon was located;-ADON called 911, emergency medical services (EMS) arrived, report given, and resident taken to requested hospital ER. Review of the facility incident report, dated 08/28/25, showed the following:-The resident was outside sitting on the front porch when the pharmacy delivery driver came to deliver medications;-LPN B checked in the medications at that time and the delivery driver went back out to leave and found the resident on the ground by a vehicle;-The pharmacy driver came back into the facility to let LPN B know;-Staff then went outside to assess the resident and then placed the resident in a wheelchair to transport him/her back inside the facility;-The ADON reassessed the resident and noted complaints of pain to the resident's wrist and lower extremities;-Abrasions noted to the resident's right hip and right elbow;-The resident's DPOA was notified of the incident and requested the resident be send to the hospital for further evaluation;-The on-call physician was notified;-The resident's wander guard was assessed for proper functioning and it was functioning appropriately;-Education will be provided to all staff on wander guard policy; -When the resident returns to the facility, staff will do hourly visual checks to monitor for safety. Review of a written interview statement dated 08/28/25 at 5:52 P.M., the resident told the ADON the following: -He/She fell off of the sidewalk and he/she hurts so bad;-He/She was just trying to do everything; just walking down the sidewalk and fell off;-He/She was outside enjoying the weather just on a walk. During an interview on 10/02/25 at 12:36 P.M., the resident's family representative said the resident was not supposed to go outside without someone with him/her. Review of the pharmacy deliver driver's written statement, dated 08/28/25, showed the following:-On Thursday, August 28, 2025 at 4:55 P.M., he/she pulled up to the facility to deliver medication;-When he/she pulled up, there was a resident sitting on the porch;-When he/she was getting the medication out of the car, the resident got up with his/her walker and started walking towards his/her vehicle;-He/She went inside and delivered the medication;-He/She let LPN B know there was a resident outside with their walker going towards his/her vehicle;-When LPN B was done signing for the medication, LPN B gave him/her the medication returns and he/she walked out the door to leave;-As soon as he/she walked out the door, he/she saw the resident on the ground and immediately went back into the facility to let LPN B know that he/she needed to get someone because the resident was on the ground;-LPN B got other workers and they all came outside and checked out the resident before getting him/her off of the ground and taking him/her back inside. Review of Dietary Aide W's written statement, dated 08/28/25 at 6:36 P.M. showed the following:-He/She saw the resident in the hallway around 4:45 P.M. coming up the 200 hall;-He/She did not see the resident go outside;-He/She did not hear the door alarm going off;-He/She did notice earlier that day that the resident seemed a little off; the resident seemed to be wandering and was combing his/her hair with a fork at breakfast and he/she reported it to the charge nurses RN D and LPN A. Review of Dietary Aide X's written statement, dated 08/28/25 at 6:29 P.M. showed the following:-He/She did not see the resident outside;-He/She did hear the door alarm go off, but saw a person walking into the building, the person was not the resident;-While looking at the door, while the alarm was going off, he/she did not see the resident anywhere. Review of CNA T's written statement, dated 08/28/25 at 7:03 P.M., showed the following: -He/She saw the resident at 4:45 P.M. when he/she went to get the resident up for supper; The resident was in his/her room, stood up on his/her own, and walked down the 200 hall on his/her own;-When he/she came out of another room, he/she found the resident going down the 300 hall and he/she redirected the resident towards the dining room; he/she did not follow the resident to the dining room because he/she was going to get another resident;-He/She did not hear the door alarm going off at any point. During an interview on 10/27/25 at 3:05 P.M., CNA T said the following:-The resident resided on the 200 hall and was walking down the 300 hall when he/she noticed him/her going the wrong direction;-He/She was halfway down the 300 hall, heading into another resident's room to get another resident up for dinner and redirected the resident into the correct direction of the dining room to go to dinner;-He/She did not walk with, or assist the resident, to the dining room;-He/She never heard the alarm go off down the hallway and didn't realize that the alarm couldn't be heard from down the hallway until after the incident;-He/She does not recall any specific in-servicing or education following the incident regarding the wander guard or any other education on elopement;-He/She was not even aware that the resident had a wander guard on. Review of CNA H's written statement, dated 08/28/25 at 6:57 P.M. showed the following:-He/She did not see the resident outside until he/she was asked to come help the resident up after the fall;-He/She was in the dining room around 4:45 P.M. to assist residents with meal service;-He/She did not hear the door alarm go off at any point. Review of CNA U's written statement, dated 08/28/25 at 6:54 P.M. showed the following:-He/She was in the dining room around 4:30 - 4:45 P.M. to assist residents with meal service;-He/She did not hear the door alarm go off at any point. Review of CNA I's written statement, dated 08/28/25 at 6:51 P.M., showed the following:-He/She went to the dining room around 4:50 P.M. to start assisting residents;-He/She did not hear the door alarm go off at any point. Review of CNA Q's written statement, dated 08/28/25 at 6:48 P.M., showed the following:-He/She did not see the resident outside until he/she was called to help because the resident fell;-He/She went to the dining room at 4:45 P.M. to help assist residents;-He/She did not hear the door alarm go off at any point. Review of LPN B's written statement, dated 08/28/25 at 7:10 P.M., showed the following:-The last time he/she had seen the resident was when he/she had sent CNA T to get the resident and he/she saw the resident going down the hall toward the dining room; the resident was ambulating by himself/herself with his/her walker;-He/She was at the dining room around 4:30 P.M. to finish passing medications;-He/She did not hear the door alarm go off at any point. During an interview on 10/27/25 at 4:11 P.M., LPN B said the following:-All of nursing staff was responsible for keeping an eye on the resident and watching all of the residents;-He/She had CNA T redirect the resident toward the dining room for supper when the resident was walking down the wrong hallway and that was the last he/she saw of the resident until he/she found the resident outside;-CNA T pointed the resident in the direction of the dining room;-The resident was up ad lib (as desired) and did not require stand by or contact guard assistance;-When the pharmacy delivery driver told him/her that there was a resident out on the front porch, he/she did not go out to check on the resident because there are a lot of residents that can go out on the porch;-The pharmacy delivery driver did not tell him/her that the resident was walking toward the vehicle; he/she had just told him/her that the resident was sitting on the porch;-From the time the pharmacy delivery driver entered and alerted him/her that the resident was on the porch, about 15-20 minutes elapsed between checking in the medications and the delivery driver finding the resident on the ground when he/she left;-He/She did not hear the alarm;-He/She would not be able to hear the alarm if he/she was down the 200 or 300 hall; he/she or any staff would have to be in the main area or near the exits/doors in order to hear the alarm;-Staff should be able to hear the alarm if in a room or at least down the hallway;-This is the first time an incident like this has occurred, so no one realized that the alarm could not be heard;-He/She cannot recall any in-servicing or education after the incident. During an interview on 10/02/25 at 1:02 P.M., LPN P said the following:-It is a concern that the wander guard alarm can only be heard if you are near the exit doors; -Even if you can hear it when you are near, it is not loud enough to be noticeable - it's not alarming enough;-If he/she is in a room or down the 200 or 300 hallway, he/she would not be able to hear the alarm. Observation on 10/02/25 at 1:00 P.M. showed CNA LL take the resident's walker to the exit to sound the audible alarm for a test and it was not very loud; could hear it only near the main entrance or near exit door. During an interview on 10/02/25 at 2:00 P.M., the maintenance director said that he checks the door alarms daily. He was unaware staff was not able to hear the alarm sounding throughput the facility. Review of the ADON's written statement, dated 08/28/25 at 7:45 P.M., showed it included the following:-Administrator present in facility and made aware of incident;-Called and updated DON;-Conducted interviews with all in house staff at time of incident;-No staff members report having seen the resident go outside or being outside before being made aware of the fall;-Only dietary staff member reports having heard the door alarm going off this evening but stated when he/she looked at the door, a younger aged person he/she did not know was entering the building; he/she did not see the resident at that time. During an interview on 10/27/25 at 2:32 P.M., the ADON said the following:-She is the one that did all of the interviews with staff after the incident;-She could not recall who the dietary staff member was that did hear the alarm but stated that the dietary aide was a fairly new employee and didn't know what the alarm meant, so he/she did not report the alarm to anyone when he/she heard it go off;-She provided immediate in-servicing and education to the dietary aide and also followed up with more in-servicing for all staff regarding the wander guard policy;-They began doing hourly checks on the resident after the incident;-She believes it was CNA T that was the last person that had seen the resident walking down the wrong hall and pointed the resident in the direction of the dining room to go to dinner, but did not walk with the resident as he/she was going to get other resident's up for dinner;-She is unsure if the wander guard alarm can be heard if you are in a resident's room or down the hallway, but believes that you should be able to hear it from all of the main areas of the building; It can definitely be heard near the exits and in the main areas of the building;-There had been no previous reports or concerns brought to her attention regarding not being able to hear the alarm;-The pharmacy driver had seen a resident outside when he/she walked in (and we have residents that sit outside often), so when the driver reported it to the nurse, they signed in the medications, then the nurse headed to check on the resident, the pharmacy driver had walked out right before him/her and saw the resident on the ground; it was probably only 5 - 10 minutes from the time the driver came in to drop off the medication until the time they went back outside to find the resident on the ground;-The business and main offices are near the front door, but at the time that the incident occurred, all of the main office staff were already gone for the day, so the only staff that were around the front were dietary workers and aides that were coming and going, bringing residents into the dining room;-The facility is not a locked facility, so they do not have staff monitoring the doors at all times. During an interview on 10/02/25 at 6:56 P.M., the Director of Nursing (DON) said the following:-She would expect the wander guard alarm to be heard by all staff in all areas;-The wander guard alarm might not be heard down the hall, but you are able to hear it from the core areas;-They began hourly monitoring of the resident after this incident. MO 2603355MO 2603421MO 2624115
CONCERN (F) 📢 Someone Reported This

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

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

Deficiency F0947 (Tag F0947)

Could have caused harm · This affected most or all residents

Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure nurse aides received the required 12 hours of in-service education annually. The facility census was 55. The facility was not able t...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure nurse aides received the required 12 hours of in-service education annually. The facility census was 55. The facility was not able to provide a policy regarding required in-service training for Nursing Assistants upon request. Review of the facility assessment, dated 05/01/23, showed the following: -Staff competencies and annual training requirements per regulatory authority and/or facility policy: 1. Abuse, neglect, exploitation and misappropriation;2. Advanced directives;3. Behavioral health;4. Communication;5. Compliance and ethics;6. Cardiopulmonary resuscitation;7. Dementia care management;8. Equipment and assistive device training;9. Infection Control;10. -Other areas identified as areas of weakness during annual performance review/competency evaluation;11. Promoting resident's independence;12. Quality assurance and performance improvement;13. Resident rights including confidentiality of resident information, right to dignity, privacy and property;14. -Safety and emergency procedures;15. Job responsibilities and lines of authority;16. Emergency preparedness;17. Facility policies and procedures;18. Change in condition. During an interview on 10/02/25 at 4:05 P.M., the Director of Nursing (DON) said the following: -She and the nurse educator do in-services and education for the Certified Nursing Assistants (CNAs);-The nurse educator provides education during CNA classes;-She does not have documentation of inservices;-She does not track the CNA in-services to ensure they have 12 hours of annual education;-She was aware of the required 12 hours of mandatory training for CNA's, but was not aware of what specific education needed to occur within those twelve hours;-She had not seen a facility assessment indicating what in-service education was identified within that document.
MINOR (C) 📢 Someone Reported This

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

Minor Issue - procedural, no safety impact

Deficiency F0838 (Tag F0838)

Minor procedural issue · This affected most or all residents

Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to update and document a facility-wide assessment to determine what resources were necessary to care for residents competently during both day...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to update and document a facility-wide assessment to determine what resources were necessary to care for residents competently during both day-to-day operations and emergencies. The facility census was 55. Review of the facility's Daily Census Report, dated 09/29/25, showed the facility census was 55. Review of the facility provided, facility assessment, showed the following:-The updated facility assessment of 10/01/25 only included page one that had the facility contact information and facility licensing information;-The remaining facility assessment for review was from 05/01/23 that listed information relating to residents for that date. During an interview on 10/01/25 at 3:30 P.M., the administrator said the following:-He had not updated the facility assessment since he had been at the facility as he was taking care of other things that needed attended to first;-Page one was updated on 10/01/25, after the annual survey began, and nothing else had been addressed on the facility assessment.
Jul 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

Accident Prevention (Tag F0689)

A resident was harmed · This affected 1 resident

Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to document and implement fall interventions to prevent falls for one resident (Resident #1), in a review of five sampled reside...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to document and implement fall interventions to prevent falls for one resident (Resident #1), in a review of five sampled residents. On 07/06/25, staff failed to implement all interventions to prevent falls, including wedge cushions, while the resident was in bed. The resident rolled out of bed which resulted in a fracture of the tibia (a break of the larger of the two bones in the lower leg). The facility census was 55.Review of the facility's Fall Policy, dated 11/14/18, showed the following:-Purpose was to prevent a fall from occurring by identifying conditions and risk factors that typically lead to a fall. Protect the resident from injury in the event a fall does occur, and to provide care to a resident who has fallen by performing assessments, documentation, and early intervention;-Complete comprehensive care plan by day 20 (following admission) using information from Care Area Assessments along with resident and family discussion of interventions if necessary. More individualized risk mitigation techniques based on more comprehensive fall assessment. Update care plan quarterly with resident and family discussion;-Post fall without injury, staff are to utilize the fall investigation form and chart the circumstances of the fall in the electronic medical record;-Fall and injury prevention included keeping call lights and personal items within resident's reach;-Fall interventions include low beds, fall mats, cradle mattress, toileting program, physical therapy screening, increase in assistance, directed activities, and increased monitoring. 1. Review of Resident #1's Care Plan for falls, dated 1/21/25, showed the following:-The resident was at high risk for falls related to a history of falls and multiple disease processes;-An update, dated 4/18/25, for a bolster mattress on the resident's bed;-An update, dated 4/22/25, to make sure the resident's wheelchair cushion was tied to his/her chair or he/she had anti-slip material between cushion and wheelchair; Review of the facility's fall event report, dated 04/26/25, showed the following:-On 04/26/25 at 9:20 P.M., the resident was found on the floor at his/her bedside;-The resident said he/she rolled out of bed;-Staff transferred the resident to the bed and positioned him/her with wedge cushions. Review of the resident's care plan interventions, dated 04/26/25, showed for staff to assure the resident was positioned in the center of his/her bed. (Staff did not document to use wedge cushions to position the resident in bed.) During an interview on 07/24/25 at 11:50 A.M., the Care Plan Coordinator said the following:-The charge nurses documented immediate interventions after a resident fell;-When the interdisciplinary team (IDT) met, they reviewed the interventions that the charge nurse put into place and determined the appropriateness and/or made changes as needed;-Once the IDT determined interventions, they were added to the resident's care plan and verbally communicated to care staff;-After the resident's fall on 04/26/25, the charge nurse documented in the event report to use wedge cushions, but she did not document the use of them in the resident's care plan;-There was no IDT meeting documented to discuss the resident's fall on 04/26/25 or interventions added following the fall;-She was not aware the resident used wedge cushions while in bed. Review of the resident's quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS), a federally mandated assessment to be completed by the facility, dated 04/28/25, showed the following:-His/Her diagnoses included non-traumatic brain dysfunction, aphasia (loss of ability to understand or express speech caused by brain injury), dementia, and Parkinson's disease (a progressive disease of the nervous system marked by tremor muscular rigidity and slow imprecise movements);-He/She was usually understood;-His/Her cognition was moderately impaired;-He/She was dependent on staff for all transfers;-He/She had two non-injury falls since prior assessment (01/28/25);-He/She had one fall resulted in injury since prior assessment (01/28/25). Review of the resident's Fall Risk Assessment, dated 04/28/25, showed the following:-History of one or more falls within the previous six months;-Was on one or more high fall risk drugs;-Required assistance or supervision for mobility, transfer, or ambulation;-High risk for falls. Review of the resident's care plan intervention added on 05/01/25 showed to always keep the call light within the resident's reach in his/her room and to answer all calls for assistance promptly. Review of the facility's fall event report, dated 05/02/25, showed the following:-On 05/02/25 at 2:22 P.M., staff found the resident on his/her hands and knees beside the bed with his/her head resting on the chair cushion next to the bed;-The resident said he/she was trying to reach his/her water;-The resident's water was out of his/her reach;-The resident's call light was pinned to the top of the bed and out of reach. Review of the facility's fall event report, dated 07/06/25, completed by Registered Nurse (RN) F, showed the following:-On 07/06/25 at 9:45 A.M., staff found the resident on his/her right side on the fall mat next to his/her bed;-The resident had been in bed prior to the fall;-Staff noted the interventions were effective, but there was no documentation what interventions were used;-Staff did not review or update the care plan. Review of the resident's nurse's note, dated 07/12/25 at 7:17 P.M., showed the following:-The resident's spouse reported the resident complained of left knee pain;-Assessment showed swelling of the left knee;-Staff notified the physician and sent the resident to the hospital for evaluation and treatment. Review of the resident's nurse's note, dated 07/13/25 at 2:31 A.M., showed the hospital reported the resident had a posterior proximal fracture of the tibia and a fiberglass splint was placed on the resident's foot to the knee. During an interview on 07/23/25 at 12:45 P.M., Certified Nurse's Assistant (CNA) said the following:-He/She had only worked at the facility for a couple of months and had cared for the resident much;-He/She and CNA B assisted the resident to bed on 07/06/25, but did not place wedge cushions next to the resident because he/she did not know to use them and did not see the wedge cushions in the resident's room; -Staff conducted walking rounds, but communication was poor. Staff did not communicate to him/her to use wedge cushions to position the resident in bed;-He/She had not reviewed the care plan for care interventions and relied on what staff reported to him/her when caring for the residents. During an interview on 07/23/25 at 1:04 P.M., CNA B said the following:-He/She was new to the facility and 07/06/25 was the first time he/she assisted with the resident's care;-He/She and CNA A assisted the resident to bed on 07/06/25, but did not place wedge cushions next to the resident because he/she did not know to use them, and he/she did not see the wedge cushions in the resident's room;-He/She received one day of orientation on each hall working with other staff to get to know the residents and the care they required;-He/She could look at the resident's care plan to review specific care interventions, but he/she had not. During an interview on 07/23/25 at 3:00 P.M., Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) C said the following:-The resident's fall interventions included wedge cushions in place when the resident was in bed to prevent the resident from falling out of bed;-The wedge cushions were implemented as an intervention to prevent falls prior to the resident rolling out of bed on 07/06/25;-Staff should know to put the wedge cushions in place when the resident was in bed;-He/She was unsure if the wedge cushions were documented on the resident's care plan since he/she was not responsible for documenting interventions on the care plans. During an interview on 07/24/25 at 2:20 P.M., RN F said the following:-The resident was supposed to have wedge cushions on both sides while he/she was in bed to prevent the resident from rolling out of bed;-CNA A and CNA B, who provided care for the resident on 07/06/25, were new and were not aware to use the wedge cushions;-Failure to use the wedge cushions was partly his/her fault for not providing proper education to the new CNAs;-He/She was unsure if the wedge cushions were documented on the resident's care plan; he/she did not have much to do with the care plans;-The resident could be left unattended in his/her room if all interventions, including low bed, fall mat, and wedge cushions were utilized properly. During an interview on 07/23/25 at 4:00 P.M., the Director of Nursing (DON) said the following:-Staff were to use the wedge cushions to assure the resident was positioned in the center of the bed;-The wedge cushions should be documented in the resident's care plan and should have been utilized on 07/06/25 to prevent the resident from rolling out of bed;-Staff verbally communicated interventions;-All staff had access to the resident's care plan, and he/she expected staff, especially new staff, to review the care plan to understand the interventions the resident required;-Call lights were supposed to always be in reach;-The Care Plan Coordinator was responsible for updating the care plans with new fall interventions after the fall;-After investigation of the resident's fall on 07/06/25, it was determined the fracture occurred because of the resident falling out of the bed on 07/06/25. During an interview on 07/23/25 at 4:18 P.M., the Administrator said he expected staff to follow all interventions identified to prevent the resident from falling.
Jun 2025 1 deficiency
CONCERN (D) 📢 Someone Reported This

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

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

Notification of Changes (Tag F0580)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to notify one resident's (Resident #2) physician timely of hip pain following a fall on 05/21/25. The resident complained of hip pain and rece...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to notify one resident's (Resident #2) physician timely of hip pain following a fall on 05/21/25. The resident complained of hip pain and received pain medication twice on 05/21/25, however, staff did not notify the physician of the resident's pain at the time of the fall until 05/23/25. An x-ray on 05/24/25 showed the resident fractured his/her hip. The facility census was 54. Review of the facility's protocol and procedure regarding nursing assessments, dated July 2012 showed the following: -It was the responsibility of every licensed and registered nurse to perform thorough nursing assessments on residents; -The nurse would notify the physician with any abnormal findings and/or complaints making sure the total assessment was performed and communicated with the physician. 1. Review of Resident #2's undated Continuity of Care Document (CCD) showed his/her diagnoses included hemiplegia (paralysis or inability to move one side of the body) affecting left nondominant side, muscle weakness, need for assistance with personal care, and lack of coordination. Review of the resident's admission Minimum Data Set (MDS), a federally mandated assessment to be completed by the facility, dated 04/18/25, showed the following: -His/Her cognition was moderately impaired; -He/She required substantial/maximum assistance with bathing; -He/She was dependent on staff for transfers; -His/Her range of motion was limited on both upper and lower extremity on one side. Review of the facility's event report, dated 5/21/25 at 2:18 P.M., showed the following: -Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) A documented the resident slid out of the shower chair and landed on the floor on 05/21/25 at 1:00 P.M.; -The resident complained of right hip soreness but was able to move appropriately without increased pain. Review of facility's communication to physician fax, dated 05/21/25, showed LPN A communicated to the resident's physician that the resident slid out of the shower chair and there were no injuries. (Review showed no documentation LPN A communicated the resident's complaint of right hip soreness to the resident's physician.) During an interview on 06/11/25 at 7:50 A.M., Certified Nurse Assistant (CNA) D said he/she was present with the resident when the resident fell out of the shower chair on 05/21/25. The resident initially complained of right leg pain after the fall. During an interview on 06/11/25 at 9:25 A.M., LPN A said the following: -Staff called him/her to the shower room after the resident fell out of the shower chair (on 05/21/25); -Initially, the resident complained of right hip pain, however, the resident did not complain of pain with range of motion; -He/She reassessed the resident approximately one hour after the fall, and the resident did not have any further complaints of pain; -He/She faxed the resident's physician to notify him/her of the resident's fall; -He/She did not notify the physician of the resident's initial complaint of hip pain because the resident did not have pain when he/she reassessed the resident (approximately one hour) after the fall. Review of the resident's progress notes, dated 05/21/25 at 5:38 P.M., showed LPN B documented the resident complained of hip pain and received Tylenol (pain medication). (Review showed no documentation staff notified the resident's physician of the resident's hip pain which required pain medication to treat.) Review of the resident's Medication Administration Record (MAR), dated 05/21/25, showed the resident received two tablets of Tylenol 500 milligrams (mg) at 3:37 P.M. During an interview on 06/11/25 at 12:15 P.M., LPN B said the following: -He/She medicated the resident with Tylenol for complaints of hip pain which he/she believed was following a fall; -He/She did not recall notifying the resident's physician of the resident's complaints of hip pain. Review of the resident's MAR, dated 05/21/25, showed LPN E administered Tylenol 500 mg two tablets at 11:45 P.M. for complaints of pain. Review of the resident's progress notes, dated 05/21/25, showed no documentation related to staff administering Tylenol to the resident at 11:45 P.M. (Review showed no documentation staff notified the resident's PCP of the resident's complaints of pain.) During an interview on 06/12/25 at 11:10 A.M., LPN E said the following: -He/She received report (on 05/21/25) that the resident fell in the shower room; -The resident complained of pain later the evening following the fall; -He/She did not notify the resident's physician of the resident's pain. Review of the resident's progress notes, dated 05/23/25 at 10:12 A.M., showed Registered Nurse (RN) C documented the following was communicated via fax to the resident's physician: -The resident fell in the shower on 05/21/25; -The resident complained of pain in his/her right hip after the fall, but did not have pain in the hip at this time; -The resident now complained of left shoulder pain which he/she thought was due to the fall. Review of the resident's progress notes, dated 05/23/25 at 10:41 A.M., showed RN C documented the following: -Staff contacted the resident's spouse about the resident's complaint of left shoulder pain and the request for an x-ray of the shoulder; -The resident's spouse questioned if an x-ray of the resident's right hip was requested due to complaints of pain in the right hip on the day of the fall; -Staff contacted the resident's physician's office to request an x-ray order of the right hip. During an interview on 06/11/25 at 9:25 A.M., LPN A said the following: -On 05/23/25, RN C noted the resident complained of pain and requested x-rays of the left shoulder and right hip; -When x-rays were being obtained on 05/24/25, the resident said it was his/her left hip that hurt, not his/her right hip; -The x-ray of the left hip revealed a fracture. Review of the resident's progress notes, dated 05/24/25 at 12:15 P.M., showed LPN A documented the following: -Mobile x-ray results of the left hip showed a mildly displaced fracture (broken bone) of the femoral neck (hip fracture); -Physician notified the resident said it was his/her left hip that hurt not the right hip. Review of the resident's left hip x-ray report, dated 05/24/25, showed a mildly displaced left subcapital femoral neck fracture (left hip fracture). During an interview on 06/16/25 at 12:10 P.M., the resident's nurse practitioner (NP) said the following: -He expected staff to notify him of the resident's initial complaint of hip pain following the fall (on 5/21/25); -He would have ordered an x-ray on 05/21/25 if staff had notified him the resident complained of hip pain. During an interview on 06/16/25 at 1:07 P.M., the Director of Nursing said she expected staff to notify the resident's physician of any complaints of pain, including the resident's initial hip pain following the fall. During an interview on 06/16/25 at 1:07 P.M., the Administrator said he expected staff to notify the resident's physician of any complaints of pain, including the resident's initial hip pain following the fall. MO254765 MO254949
May 2025 2 deficiencies 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

Accident Prevention (Tag F0689)

A resident was harmed · This affected 1 resident

Deficiency Text Not Available

Read full inspector narrative →
Deficiency Text Not Available
CONCERN (D) 📢 Someone Reported This

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

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

Report Alleged Abuse (Tag F0609)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to report an injury of unknown origin to the state survey agency for one resident (Resident #1), who suffered a fractured humeral shaft (new f...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to report an injury of unknown origin to the state survey agency for one resident (Resident #1), who suffered a fractured humeral shaft (new fracture), in a review of five sampled residents. The facility census was 56. Review of the facility's undated policy, Abuse Prevention Program, showed the following: -Facility management shall promptly and thoroughly investigate all reports of resident abuse, neglect and injuries of unknown source; -Should an incident or suspected incident of resident abuse, mistreatment, neglect or injury of unknown source be reported, the Administrator or his/her designee, will immediately send validated report to the Department of Health and Senior Services, local police or licensing agencies; -If the events that cause the allegation involve abuse or result in serious bodily injury, the allegation must be reported within two hours. 1. Review of Resident #1's nurses note, dated 5/6/25, showed he/she was admitted to the facility from the hospital with a diagnosis of left humerus fracture with open reduction internal fixation (ORIF) from a fall at home. Review of the resident's admission Minimum Data Set (MDS), a federally mandated assessment instrument required to be completed by facility staff, dated 5/13/25, showed the following: -Moderately impaired cognition; -Required moderate assistance of staff for bed mobility, transfers and ambulation; -Required maximum assistance of staff for bathing and dressing; -He/She had physical impairment on one side of his/her upper extremity; -He/She had a fall and fracture prior to admission; -No falls since admission. Review of the resident's nurses' notes, dated 5/15/25, showed Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) A documented the resident had a follow up appointment today to have his/her left arm assessed. He/She had a fracture of the left arm and was to be NWB to left upper extremity (LUE), use ice and elevate the LUE throughout the day. Use the sling for comfort when out the bed/chair. The resident will have surgery on Friday. During interview on 5/22/25 at 8:26 P.M., LPN A said he/she found out the resident had a fracture in his/her arm from the physician's office after the resident's follow-up appointment on 5/15/25. He/She thought it was the initial fracture and they scheduled the resident for surgery. The resident had not had any recent falls or trauma while at the facility and had not complained of any additional pain. Staff transferred the resident with two assist, a gait belt (an safety device used to assist in moving and walking) and a hemi walker (type of mobility device for people who have use of only one hand or arm). He/She reported the fracture to the Director of Nurses (DON) and the Assistant Director of Nurses (ADON) on 5/15/25. Review of the resident's care plan, dated 5/19/25, showed the following: -Impaired activities of daily living (ADLs) related to recent hospitalization for left humerus fracture/repair; -Non-weight bearing (NWB) to left upper extremity; -Provide assist of one for bathing and dressing; -Provide assist of two for all transfers. Apply arm sling during transfers. Review of the resident's hospital discharge note, dated 5/22/25, showed the discharge diagnosis of fracture of humerus shaft, left. The resident had an initial ORIF (open reduction internal fixation) of the left supracondylar (located in the upper arm near the elbow) humerus on 5/2/25. He/She had further ORIF of the left humeral shaft fracture on 5/16/25. During interview on 5/22/25 at 6:38 P.M., the ADON said the resident was readmitted to the facility today after having surgery on his/her left arm. The resident had had a follow-up appointment on 5/15/25 for his/her fractured arm. The hospital notified the facility on 5/15/25 that there was a fracture that would require surgery. She thought the fracture had not set correctly so that is why the resident had to have surgery (on 5/16/25). The resident had not fallen since he/she was admitted to the facility. The new fracture should have been considered an injury of unknown origin and should have been reported to the state agency. During interview on 5/23/25 at 8:23 A.M., the DON said the following: -She was aware the resident had surgery for a fractured arm prior to his/her original admission to the facility; -She was notified about the second fracture when the physician's office called and told staff the resident had a fracture. She didn't know if it was new because the resident had not had any falls. The physician's office did not give the facility much detail regarding the fracture; -She didn't consider the fracture an injury of unknown origin because she knew the resident had not had any incidents while at the facility; -She wouldn't necessarily have reported the fracture as an injury of unknown origin because she didn't have much information about what happened and why it happened. During interview on 6/3/25 at 1:05 P.M., the Administrator said he found out about the resident's fracture after the resident's follow-up appointment with his/her physician (on 5/15/25), but was not aware it was a new fracture or he would have reported it as an injury of unknown origin. He learned of the new fracture upon the state agency's investigation. MO254546 MO254640
Oct 2023 10 deficiencies
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0700 (Tag F0700)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to conduct ongoing assessments of bed rails per facility...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to conduct ongoing assessments of bed rails per facility policy to evaluate the continued need for the bed rail for two residents (Residents #3 and #4), in a review of 17 sampled residents. The facility census was 52. Review of the facility's undated policy, Resident Positioning Devices, showed the following: -Policy for resident positioning devices that are attached to residents' beds; -If a resident makes a request for a positioning device, our skilled nursing and/or therapy staff shall determine initial necessity; -The resident's primary care physician (PCP) shall be informed of the resident's request and the necessity for the facility to have an order for the device to be placed; -Each resident/durable power of attorney (DPOA) has the right to request equipment that may increase their independence and assist with their mobility; -If a resident/DPOA requests that a positioning device be attached to their bed, the following steps must be taken: 1. Resident or DPOA should be informed of potential risks of having a positioning device attached to the bed and this should be documented in the resident's medical record; 2. An order shall be requested from the PCP for therapy to assess resident's ability to safely use a positioning device; 3. If therapy recommends that a positioning device be installed, an order for the positioning device shall be requested from the resident's PCP; 4. Nursing staff will conduct an initial and quarterly assessments regarding the continued need for the positioning device and showing that it is a positioning device and not a restraint; 5. The resident's care plan shall be updated to include the problem, goal, and approach in utilizing a bed mounted resident positioning device. Review of the Food and Drug Administration's Guide of Bed Safety, Bed Rails in Hospitals, Nursing Homes and Home Health Care: The Facts, revised April 2010, showed the following: -Patients who have problems with memory, sleeping, incontinence, pain, uncontrolled body movement, or who get out of bed and walk unsafely without assistance, must be carefully assessed for the best ways to keep them from harm, such as falling; -Assessment by the patient's health care team will help to determine how best to keep the patient safe; -Potential risks of bed rails may include strangling, suffocating, bodily injury or death when patients or part of their body are caught between rails or between the bed rails and mattress, more serious injuries from falls when patients climb over rails, skin bruising, cuts, and scrapes, feeling isolated or unnecessarily restricted, and preventing patients, who are able to get out of bed, from performing routine activities such as going to the bathroom or retrieving something from a closet; -When bed rails are used, perform an on-going assessment of the patient's physical and mental status and closely monitor high-risk patients; -Use a proper size mattress or mattress with raised foam edges to prevent patients from being trapped between the mattress and rail; -Reduce the gaps between the mattress and rail; -A process that requires ongoing patient evaluation and monitoring will result in optimizing bed safety; -Reassess the need for using bed rails on a frequent, regular basis. 1. Review of Resident #3's face sheet showed the resident was his/her own responsible party. The resident's diagnoses included paraplegia (paralysis of the legs and lower body), pain, muscle spasms, and convulsions. Review of the resident's evaluation for use of bed rail assessment, dated 09/08/22, showed the following: -Medical symptoms requiring use of side rails was paraplegia; -Reason for side rail usage was for bed mobility (assist with turning side-to-side); -Frequency of use, daily for independent bed mobility. Review of the resident's quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS), a federally mandated assessment instrument completed by facility staff, dated 08/27/23, showed the following: -The resident was cognitively intact; -His/Her diagnoses included paraplegia and seizure disorder; -He/She was independent when rolling from left to right in bed; -He/She needed substantial help from staff for sitting to lying on bed and lying to sitting on the side of the bed; -He/She was dependent on staff for transfers. Review of the resident's care plan, edited on 09/06/23, showed the following: -He/She required assistance with mobility and activities of daily living (ADLs)'; -He/She needed control of chronic pain due to muscle spasms; -He/She had self-care deficit due to inability to ambulate/walk secondary to paraplegia; -He/She needed transferred with assistance of two staff members using a Hoyer lift; -He/She is at risk for falls due to inability to control his/her bilateral lower extremities and the need for assistance with all activities of daily living (ADLs) and transfers; -He/She had a mobility bar (grab bar) on bed for independent bed mobility. Record review showed no evidence staff completed quarterly bed rail assessments per the facility's policy. Review of the resident's Physician Order Report, dated October 2023, showed the resident may have mobility bars on bed to assist with positioning. Observation on 10/16/23 at 10:40 A.M., showed 1/8 grab bars in the raised position located on both sides of the resident's bed. The resident had a low-air loss mattress fully inflated. Observation on 10/17/23 at 9:50 A.M. showed the resident sat in bed watching his/her television. The resident had 1/8 grab bars in the raised position located on both sides of his/her bed. Observation on 10/18/23 at 8:40 A.M., showed the resident sat in bed watching his/her television. The resident had 1/8 grab bars in the raised position located on both sides of his/her bed. 2. Review of Resident #4's face sheet showed the resident was his/her own responsible party. The resident's diagnoses included fibromyalgia (a chronic disorder that causes pain and tenderness throughout the body, as well as fatigue and trouble sleeping), chronic pain, osteoarthritis (a degenerative joint disease), and osteoporosis (brittle bones). Review of the resident's evaluation for use of bed rail assessment, dated 1/7/23, showed the following: -Medical symptoms requiring use of side rails was osteoarthritis and difficulty with bed mobility; -Reason for side rail usage was for assistance with transfer and bed mobility (assist with turning side-to-side); -Frequency of use, daily. Review of the resident's quarterly MDS, dated [DATE], showed the following: -The resident was cognitively intact; -His/Her diagnoses included debility (physical weakness); -He/She required maximum assistance when rolling left to right in bed and with transfers. Review of the resident's October 2023 physician orders showed the resident may have mobility bars to assist with positioning. Review of the resident's care plan, updated 10/16/23, showed the following: -He/She required assistance from one to two staff members with positioning for comfort with physical support as needed; -He/She needed assistance from one to two staff members with all transfers; -He/She required assistance for bed mobility due to osteoarthritis of cervical and lumbar spine; -Encourage resident to use repositioning bar on his/her bed to aide with bed mobility. Record review showed no evidence staff completed quarterly bed rail assessment per the facility's policy. Observation on 10/18/23 at 2:25 P.M., showed the resident lay in bed. The resident had 1/8 grab bars in the raised position located on both sides of his/her bed. 3. During an interviews on 10/18/23 at 2:30 P.M., 10/19/23, at 5:05 P.M., and 10/31/23 at 10:13 A.M., the Director of Nurses (DON) said the following: -No one was currently monitoring the bed rails on any resident's bed; -The bed rail consent forms should be done annually; -The bed rail assessments should be done quarterly; -The bed rail assessments are not currently up to date; -The facility currently did not have any residents with bed rails, however, some residents had positioning devices (referring to mobility/grab bars); -She did not consider the mobility bars as bed rails; -The process for assessing positioning devices is explained in the facility policy; -Typically, positioning devices were used based on therapy recommendations to enhance resident independence; -One specific person is not assigned to be in charge of mobility bars/positioning devices.
CONCERN (E)

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

Safe Environment (Tag F0584)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation and interview, the facility failed to ensure ceiling vents were maintained free of a buildup of dust and de...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation and interview, the facility failed to ensure ceiling vents were maintained free of a buildup of dust and debris. The census was 52. Observations on 10/17/23 between 9:20 A.M. and 6:30 P.M., showed the following: -In the biohazard room on the 100 hall, the ceiling vent had a moderate buildup of fuzzy debris; -In the full cylinder oxygen storage room, the ceiling vent had a moderate buildup of fuzzy debris; -In the sitting room (geri center) near the nurse's station, the ceiling vent had a heavy buildup of fuzzy debris; -At the nurses' station, the ceiling vent had a moderate accumulation of dust and debris; -In the unlabeled room, located next to the nurses' station and clean utility room, the ceiling vent had a heavy accumulation of dust; -In occupied resident room [ROOM NUMBER], the bathroom ceiling vent had a moderate accumulation of dust; -In occupied resident room [ROOM NUMBER], the bathroom ceiling vent had a heavy accumulation of dust; -In occupied resident room [ROOM NUMBER], the bathroom ceiling vent had a moderate accumulation of dust; -In the Personal Care room, the ceiling vent had a moderate accumulation of dust; -In occupied resident room [ROOM NUMBER], the bathroom ceiling vent had a heavy accumulation of dust; -In occupied resident room [ROOM NUMBER], the bathroom ceiling vent had a moderate accumulation of dust; -In occupied resident room [ROOM NUMBER], the bathroom ceiling vent had a moderate accumulation of dust; -In occupied resident room [ROOM NUMBER], the bathroom ceiling vent had a heavy accumulation of dust; -In occupied resident room [ROOM NUMBER], the bathroom ceiling vent had a moderate accumulation of dust; -In unoccupied resident room [ROOM NUMBER], the bathroom ceiling vent had a moderate accumulation of cobwebs; -In occupied resident room [ROOM NUMBER], the bathroom ceiling vent had a moderate accumulation of dust; -In occupied resident room [ROOM NUMBER], the bathroom ceiling vent had a heavy accumulation of dust; -In occupied resident room [ROOM NUMBER], the bathroom ceiling vent had a moderate accumulation of dust; -In occupied resident room [ROOM NUMBER], the bathroom ceiling vent had a moderate accumulation of dust; -In occupied resident room [ROOM NUMBER], the bathroom ceiling vent had a moderate accumulation of dust; -In the employee restroom, located across from the main dining room, the ceiling vent had a moderate accumulation of dust. During an interview on 10/17/23 at 11:22 A.M., the Maintenance Supervisor said maintenance staff was responsible for cleaning the ceiling vents monthly.
CONCERN (E)

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

Abuse Prevention Policies (Tag F0607)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to check the Nurse Aide Registry prior to hire for five of ten employees reviewed, to ensure they did not have a Federal Indicator (the indivi...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to check the Nurse Aide Registry prior to hire for five of ten employees reviewed, to ensure they did not have a Federal Indicator (the individual with a Federal Indicator cannot work in a certified long-term care facility). The facility failed to develop a policy to direct staff to check the Nurse Aide Registry prior to hiring new employees. The facility census was 52. Review of the undated facility policy, Employment Procedures, showed prior to employment, the facility is required by state regulation to check the state employment disqualification list, run a criminal record check and file application to the family safety care registry. The facility policy did not address checking the Nurse Aide Registry prior to hiring new staff members. 1. Review of Dietary Aide C's employee file showed the following: -Date of hire 07/21/21; -No record staff checked the Nurse Aide Registry prior to hire. 2. Review of Caregiver D's employee file showed the following: -Date of hire 10/09/23; -No record staff checked the Nurse Aide Registry prior to hire. 3. Review of Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) E's employee file showed the following: -Date of hire 08/28/23; -No record staff checked the Nurse Aide Registry prior to hire. 4. Review of Caregiver F's employee file showed the following: -Date of hire 02/28/22; -No record staff checked the Nurse Aide Registry prior to hire. 5. Review of Dietary Aide H's employee file showed the following: -Date of hire 04/17/23; -No record staff checked the Nurse Aide Registry prior to hire. 6. During interview on 10/18/23 at 2:34 P.M., the human resources (HR) manager said the following: -She had been in the position less than a year; -She only checked the Nurse Aide Registry for newly hired nursing assistants, and had not checked the Nurse Aide Registry for all newly hired employees; -She received training from the previous HR manager and was not sure she was told to check the Nurse Aide Registry for everyone. If she was told, she did not remember. During interview on 10/18/23, at 5:19 P.M., the administrator said the following: -He expected staff to check the Nurse Aide Registry for all new hires; -He was unaware staff was not checking the Nurse Aide Registry on all new hires.
CONCERN (E)

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

Respiratory Care (Tag F0695)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure nursing staff performed acceptable infection c...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure nursing staff performed acceptable infection control practices to prevent contamination of respiratory equipment according to facility policy, when staff failed to protect continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP)/Bilevel positive airway pressure (BiPap) (devices that helps with breathing) equipment and nebulizer treatment equipment when not in use, and failed to change oxygen tubing and ensure proper infection control was utilized according to facility policy for five residents (Resident #47, #152, #33, #4 and #7) in a review of 17 sampled residents. The facility census was 52. Review of the facility's undated Oxygen Tubing Policy, showed the following: -Maintenance: 10:00 P.M. to 6:00 A.M. charge nurses are responsible for ensuring that all e-tanks (portable oxygen tanks) used by the residents are checked every night so the e-tanks are ready when the resident wants to rise in the morning; -Oxygen tubing is changed every month and as needed by the 10:00 P.M. to 6:00 A.M. nursing staff. Review of the facility's undated policy for cleaning and storage of nebulizer and oxygen equipment showed the following: -Purpose of the policy was to reduce the risk of respiratory infections; -All oxygen tubing, nasal canulas, and masks should be stored up off the floor when not in use. Mesh bags were available for easier storage of oxygen tubing if needed; -Nebulizer tubing should be changed monthly and as needed. Tubing should be dated with the date it was changed; (The policy did not direct staff on specific storage of Bi-Pap and C-Pap masks when not in use.) 1. Review of Resident #47's undated continuity of care document (CCD) showed his/her diagnoses included sleep apnea (intermittent cessation of breathing while sleeping). Review of the resident's care plan, dated 9/7/23, showed the resident had respiratory insufficiency and ineffective airway clearance secondary to sleep apnea and used a BiPap with oxygen every night. Review of the resident's physician's order, dated 10/3/23, showed the resident was to use a BiPap with 2 liters of oxygen at bedtime via a nasal pillow mask. Observation on 10/17/23 at 11:20 A.M., showed the resident's BiPap was located on his/her bedside table. The BiPap mask rested on the machine and the tubing was stretched across a gray basin that contained perineal wipes. Observation on 10/17/23 at 12:05 P.M. showed the resident's BiPap mask lay on the resident's bedside table and was uncovered. Observation on 10/18/23 at 5:00 A.M. showed the resident's BiPap mask lay on the resident's bedside table and was uncovered. During an interview on 10/18/23 at 5:20 A.M., Certified Medication Technician (CMT) L said the following: -The resident would start wearing his/her BiPap mask at the beginning of the night, but he/she would remove it and refuse to keep it on; -BiPap/CPap breathing masks should be covered and in plastic bag when not in use; -Oxygen tubing used to be changed weekly on night shift. Residents complained of staff coming in their room to much at night so it was changed to weekly on day shift, but she was not sure if it was. 2. Review of Resident #152's face sheet showed the following: -admitted on [DATE]; -Diagnoses included congestive heart failure (a chronic condition in which the heart does not pump blood as well as it should), chronic cough, atrial fibrillation (and pulmonary hypertension (a type of high blood pressure that affects arteries in the lungs and in the heart). Review of the resident's October 2023 physician order sheet showed an order for ipratropium-albuterol (an inhaled medication used to treat respiratory issues) solution for nebulization (an aerosol breathing treatment), one vial every four hours as needed (original order dated 10/09/23). Observation on 10/16/23 at 10:32 A.M., showed a nebulizer machine (a device used to administer medication in the form of a mist inhaled into the lungs) sat on the resident's bedside table; the nebulizer set up (the mask, reservoir and tubing used with the nebulizer machine) sat on his/ her bedside table uncovered. The nebulizer set up was not stored in the holder of the nebulizer machine. Review of the resident's October 2023 medication administration sheet showed the last administration of the as needed ipratropium-albuterol breathing treatment was 10/16/23 at 3:05 P.M. Review of the resident's care plan, revised 10/17/23, showed the following: -Respiratory insufficiency and ineffective airway clearance secondary to pulmonary hypertension, wheezing and chronic cough; -Administer respiratory medications per physician order. Observation on 10/17/23 at 9:37 A.M., showed the resident's nebulizer set up sat on the resident's bedside table uncovered. The nebulizer set up was not connected to the nebulizer machine. Observation on 10/18/23, at 5:13 A.M., showed the resident's nebulizer set up sat on the resident's bedside table uncovered. The nebulizer set up was not connected to the nebulizer machine. The resident said he/she had not used the nebulizer in a few days. 3. Review of Resident #33's CCD showed the resident's diagnoses included chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD/a group of lung diseases that block airflow and make it difficult to breathe). Review of the resident's care plan, edited 08/24/2023, showed the following: -History of respiratory insufficiency related to COPD; -Administer oxygen per physician orders. Review of the resident's October 2023 physician order sheet showed an order for oxygen, apply continuously at 3 liters per minute per nasal cannula (NC) with a order start date of 02/14/23. Observation on 10/17/23 at 9:34 A.M. showed the resident sat in his/her recliner and received oxygen from an oxygen concentrator. The oxygen tubing was not dated. During an interview on 10/18/23 at 5:24 A.M., Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) B said the following: -When oxygen is not in use, the tubing should be wrapped and stored in a clear bag; -When nebulizer equipment was not in use, staff should place the equipment on the nebulizer machine and cover it with a bag; -Resident #152's nebulizer should be covered. 4. Review of Resident #4's CCD, dated 10/18/23, showed his/her diagnoses included COPD, unspecified asthma, obstructive sleep apnea, dependence on supplemental oxygen and upper respiratory tract hypersensitivity reaction. Review of resident's quarterly MDS, dated [DATE], showed the resident required oxygen therapy and the use of a non-invasive mechanical ventilator (CPAP). Review of the resident's care plan, dated 10/16/23, showed the following: -Respiratory insufficiency secondary to COPD/Asthma; -Use of oxygen (O2) via NC; -CPAP when in bed, diagnoses: dependence on supplemental oxygen, obstructive sleep apnea, congestive heart failure; -Administer O2 per physician order; -Administer respiratory medications per physician orders. Review of the resident's October 2023 physician orders showed the following: -CPAP at bedtime (HS) and as needed (PRN); -Oxygen at 3LPM (liters per minute) via nasal cannula; -Ipratropium-albuterol solution (inhaled lung medication) for nebulization; 0.5 milligrams (mg) - 3 mg/3 milliliters (ml;) Use 1 vial (3 ml) via nebulizer every 4 hours. Observation on 10/16/23 at 10:15 A.M. in the resident's room showed the following: -The oxygen nasal cannula was on top of the resident's bedding, not stored in a storage bag; -The resident's CPAP mask was on the resident's nightstand and not stored in a storage bag; -The nebulizer mask hung from a nebulizer machine on the resident's bedside table, and was not stored in a storage bag. 5. Review of Resident #7's CCD showed his/her diagnoses included dementia, COPD, dyspnea (difficult or labored breathing), cough and acute upper respiratory infection. Review of the resident's quarterly MDS, dated [DATE], showed the resident had an active pulmonary diagnosis of asthma, COPD or chronic lung disease. Review of the resident's care plan, updated 8/25/23, showed the following: -Respiratory insufficiency and ineffective airway clearance secondary to COPD and diagnoses that included malignant neoplasm of bronchus and lung (lung cancer), left upper lobe lung resection for lung cancer (the process of cutting out tissue or part of an organ), dyspnea. Wears oxygen. BiPap started at bedtime on 6/1/23; -Administer respiratory medications per physician order. Review of the resident's October 2023 physician orders showed the following: -BiPap at bedtime; -Ipratropium-albuterol solution for nebulization; 0/5 mg-3mg/3ml; 1 vial; inhalation. Special instructions: Inhale one vial four times daily as needed for shortness of breath; -No specific order as to when to change the nebulizer tubing. Observation in the resident's room on 10/16/23 at 10:40 A.M. showed the following: -Nebulizer tubing dated 8/30/23; (the tubing had not been changed monthly as the facility policy instructed); - The BiPap mask was on top of the resident's bed, uncovered and not in a storage bag; -The BiPap tubing was on the floor and not in a storage bag. Observation on 10/18/23 at 5:23 A.M. showed the following: -The resident's BiPap mask was on top of the bed and uncovered; -The resident's BiPap tubing was on the floor and not in a storage bag. During an interview on 10/18/23 at 5:40 A.M., LPN B said the following: -Some residents have bags on the back of their wheelchairs or on their concentrators to store tubing when not in use, but not everyone has a storage bag; -Nebulizer masks just hang from the machine and are not kept in a storage bag when not in use. During an interview on 10/18/23 at 5:05 P.M., the Director of Nursing said the following: -She expected staff to change oxygen tubing weekly and to date the tubing when changed; -Masks and tubing should be appropriately stored, including up off of the floor; -Nebulizers masks should be attached to the machine. Masks should also be covered with a bag; -CPAP/BiPaps should be stored per the way the durable medical equipment (DME) manufacturer suggests (the facility did not provide manufacturers suggestions for CPAP/BiPap devices).
CONCERN (E)

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

Deficiency F0760 (Tag F0760)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

Based on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to follow standards of practice and ensure proper administration of physician ordered insulin (medication used to treat diabetes)...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to follow standards of practice and ensure proper administration of physician ordered insulin (medication used to treat diabetes) via an insulin pen for one resident (Resident #6), of 17 sampled residents and two additional residents (Resident #10 and Resident #22) when staff did not prime insulin pens prior to administration or hold the insulin pen in place for the appropriate amount of time during administration per policy and per the manufacturer's instructions. Failure to follow these procedure for administration results in residents not receiving the ordered dose of insulin. The facility census was 52. Review of the facility's policy for insulin injections, last revised in October 1990, did not address the procedure for insulin administration via insulin pens. Review of Novolog (fast acting insulin) FlexPen manufacturer instructions, last revised in February 2023, showed the following: -Before each injection, small amounts of air may collect in the cartridge during normal use. To avoid injecting air and to ensure proper dosing; -Turn the dose selector to select 2 units; -Hold your Novolog FlexPen with the needle pointing up and tap the cartridge gently with your finger a few times to make any air bubbles collect at the top of the cartridge; - Keep the needle pointing upwards, press the push-button all the way in. The dose selector returns to 0; -A drop of insulin should appear at the needle tip. If not, change the needle and repeat the procedure no more than six times. If you do not see a drop of insulin after six times, do not use the Novolog FlexPen; -A small air bubble may remain at the needle tip, but it will not be injected (this is considered priming the insulin pen/needle); -Clean the injection site with an alcohol swab and wait for it to dry; -Put the needle into the skin all the way; -Keep the button pressed and slowly count to 10 before taking the needle out of the skin. During an interview on 10/25/23 at 4:59 P.M., the director of nursing said the facility conducted an in-service in June or July, when the facility started using the insulin pens. Most of the nurses completed the inservice. Review of the facility's in-service information on how to use an insulin pen published by learning about diabetes.org dated 2019, showed to clear the air out of the pen prior to administration by the following steps: -Remove the cap from the needle; -Turn on the dose dial to two units; -Hold the pen so the needle is up in the air; -Push the end of the pen to clear the air; -Watch the tip of the needle for a drop of insulin. You may need to do this more than once to see the drop of insulin on the needle. 1. Review of Resident #6's undated continuity of care document (CCD) showed his/her diagnoses included type II diabetes (condition that occurs because of a problem in the way the body regulates and uses sugars); Review of resident's physician's orders for October 2023 showed the following: -Novolog Flex U-100 insulin pen (medication used to treat high blood sugar levels), 100 units/milliliter (ml); administer 5 units subcutaneously (under the skin) three times a day (TID) with meals; -Novolog Flex Pen U-100 insulin pen; 100 unit/mL; administer the following amounts per sliding scale in addition to the scheduled five units at each meal TID; -If blood sugar is 150 to 200, administer two units; -If blood sugar is 201 to 250, administer three units -If blood sugar is 251 to 300, administer four units; -If Blood Sugar is 301 to 350, administer five units; -If Blood Sugar is 351 to 400, give administer six units. Review of the resident's glucose monitoring record, dated 10/17/23 at 12:19 P.M., showed the resident's blood sugar was 266 (The Lippincott Manual of Nursing Practice (a comprehensive manual for all types of nursing care) 7th Edition; Copyright 2001; shows a normal fasting blood sugar range of 60-110). Observation on 10/17/23 at 12:20 P.M. showed Registered Nurse (RN) A dialed up nine units on the resident's Novolog insulin pen and administered the medication into the resident's abdomen. RN A did not prime the insulin pen prior to administering the insulin. 2. Review of Resident #10's undated CCD showed the resident's diagnoses included type II diabetes. Review of the resident's physician's order for October 2023 showed an order for Novolog Flex Pen U-100 100 units/ml; administer 10 units subcutaneously before meals. Observation on 10/17/23 at 12:25 P.M. showed RN A dialed up 10 units on the resident's Novolog insulin pen and administered the medication into the resident's left arm. RN A did not prime the insulin pen prior to administering the insulin. Observation on 10/18/23 at 1:05 P.M. showed RN A dialed up 10 units on the resident's Novolog insulin pen and administered the medication into the resident's left upper arm. RN A did not prime the insulin pen prior to administering the insulin. RN A removed the pen from the skin immediately after injecting the insulin. RN A did not count to 10 before taking the needle out of the skin. During an interview on 10/18/23 at 1:05 P.M., RN A said the following: -He/She is unaware of the proper time to hold insulin in the injection site; -He/She never primed insulin pens. 3. Review of Resident #22's undated CCD showed the resident's diagnoses included type II diabetes. Review of the resident's physician's order, dated 10/9/23, showed an order for Novolog Flex Pen U-100 100 units/ml; administer eight units subcutaneously TID before meals. Observation on 10/17/23 at 12:30 P.M. showed RN A dialed up eight units on the resident's Novolog insulin pen and administered the medication. RN A did not prime the insulin pen prior to administering the insulin. During an interview on 10/18/23 at 5:05 P.M., the director of nursing said the following: -She expected staff to prime insulin pens prior to administration; staff had been educated on priming of the insulin pens in an in-service; -She expected staff to hold insulin after injection into the resident for a little bit to make sure the insulin gets administered.
CONCERN (E)

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

Deficiency F0804 (Tag F0804)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to provide food items at a safe and appetizing temperatu...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to provide food items at a safe and appetizing temperature. The facility census was 52. (The facility was unable to provide a kitchen/dietary policy, food safety requirement policy, or food preparation guidelines policy). 1. During interview on 10/16/23 at 10:37 A.M., Resident #33 said he/she eats meals in his/her room. The morning and noon meals are not usually warm. During interview on 10/16/23 at 10:43 A.M., Resident #41 said he/she eats meals in his/her room. The supper meal is usually not warm when he/she gets her tray. 2. Observation on 10/17/23 at 12:08 P.M., showed the following: -The lunch meal consisted of ham steak, cheesy hash brown casserole, black-eyed peas, apple salad [NAME], corn bread and beverage; -Staff prepared the first plate for residents who received hall trays from the steam table in the kitchen. Staff placed each of the plates in an insulated base and covered the plates prior to placing them on an open cart in the dining room; -The apple salad [NAME] was kept on a cart in the dining room and was not kept in a tray of ice. Staff in the dining room placed the cups of apple salad [NAME] onto the trays on the cart. Observation of the test tray on 10/17/23 at 12:30 P.M., received after the last resident was served from the hall cart, showed the following: -The temperature of the ham steak was 114.0 degrees Fahrenheit; -The temperature of the apple salad [NAME] was 58.0 degrees Fahrenheit. Review of the apple salad [NAME] recipe showed the following: -Ingredients included cream cheese and sour cream; -Maintain holding temperature of 41 degrees Fahrenheit or below. 3. Observation on 10/17/23 at 4:35 P.M., showed the following: -The supper meal consisted of roast beef and Swiss cheese sandwich, carrot and raisin salad, snickerdoodle cookies, and beverage; -Staff began serving the supper meal from the steam table in the kitchen; -The carrot and raisin salad sat on a cart in the dining room and was not kept in a tray of ice. Observation on 10/17/23 at 5:22 P.M., showed the following: -Staff prepared the first plate for residents who received isolation room hall trays from the steam table in the kitchen. Staff served the isolation room trays in Styrofoam take-out containers and placed them on an open cart in the dining room; -Staff in the dining room placed the cups of carrot and raisin salad onto the trays on the cart; -The isolation trays remained in the dining room as staff prepared the regular room trays. Observation on 10/17/23 at 5:25 P.M., showed staff prepared the regular room trays and placed them on an open cart in the dining room. Staff in the dining room placed the cups of carrot and raisin salad onto the trays on the cart. Observation on 10/17/23 at 5:41 P.M., showed staff took the carts containing the hall trays (isolation and room trays) from the kitchen/dining room to the nurses station. Observation on 10/17/23 at 5:43 P.M., showed the isolation room cart was at the nurses station. Staff delivered the trays from the cart to residents (not on isolation). Observation on 10/17/23 at 5:48 P.M., showed nursing staff started serving the hall trays from the isolation cart. Observation of the test tray on 10/17/23 at 6:08 P.M., received after the last resident was served from the regular hall cart, showed the following: -The test tray was served off of the regular hall cart; -The temperature of the roast beef and Swiss sandwich was 101.5 degrees Fahrenheit; -The temperature of the carrot and raisin salad was 64.2 degrees Fahrenheit. Review of the carrot and raisin salad recipe showed the following: -Ingredients included mayo type salad dressing -Maintain holding temperature 41 degrees Fahrenheit or below. 4. Observation in the main dining room on 10/18/23 at 6:00 A.M. showed cups filled with milk and cups of yogurt sat on multiple tables in the dining room. Observation in the main dining room on 10/18/23 at 8:02 A.M., showed the following: -An 8-ounce glass of milk intended for Resident #2, who had not yet arrived to the dining room, sat on the dining room table. The temperature of the milk when measured with a metal stem type thermometer was 63.1 degrees Fahrenheit; -A 4-ounce cup of yogurt, intended for Resident #31, who had not yet arrived in the dining room, sat on the dining room table. The temperature of the yogurt was 68.4 degrees Fahrenheit. During an interview on 10/18/23 at 8:02 A.M., the dietary manager said the following: -She expected Resident #2 and Resident #31 would be coming to the dining room to eat breakfast; -She expected milk, yogurt, and dairy based salads/deserts to be served at 41 degrees Fahrenheit or below; -She expected hot foods to be served at 120 degrees Fahrenheit or above. During an interview on 10/18/23 at 11:00 A.M., the administrator said the following: -He expected staff to serve hot foods at 120 degrees Fahrenheit or above; -He expected staff to serve cold food items at 41 degrees Fahrenheit or below. During an interview on 10/20/23 at 10:26 A.M., the registered dietician said the following: -She expected staff to serve hot foods at 120 degrees Fahrenheit or above; -She expected staff to serve cold foods at 41 degrees Fahrenheit or below.
CONCERN (E)

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

Deficiency F0909 (Tag F0909)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to complete inspection of bed frames, mattresses, and be...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to complete inspection of bed frames, mattresses, and bed rails as part of a regular maintenance program to identify areas of possible entrapment for three residents (Resident #3, #17 and #37), in a review of 17 sampled residents, and for one additional resident (Resident #4). The facility census was 52. Review of the undated facility policy, Resident Positioning Devices, showed no direction to staff regarding inspection of positioning devices for possible entrapment. Review of the Food and Drug Administration's (FDA) Guide to Bed Safety, Bed Rails in Hospitals, Nursing Homes and Home Health Care: The Facts, revised April 2010, showed the following: -Between 1985 and 1/1/09, 803 incidents of patients getting caught, trapped, entangled or strangled in beds with rails were reported to the U.S. FDA; -Of those reported, 480 died and 138 had non-fatal injuries; -Most patients were frail, elderly or confused; -Potential risks of bed rails may include strangulation, suffocation, bodily injury or death when patients or parts of their body are caught between rails and mattresses, more serious injury from falls when patients climb over rails, skin bruising, cuts and scrapes, feeling isolated or unnecessarily restricted, and preventing patients, who are able to get out of bed, from performing routine activities such as going to the bathroom or retrieving something from a closet. 1. Review of Resident #3's quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS), a federally mandated assessment instrument completed by facility staff, dated 08/27/23, showed the following: -His/Her diagnoses included paraplegia (paralysis of the lower limbs), and seizure disorder; -He/She was independent when rolling from left to right in bed; -He/She needed substantial help from staff for sitting to lying in bed and lying to sitting on the side of the bed. Review of the resident's care plan, edited on 09/06/23, showed he/she had a mobility bar (grab bar) on his/her bed for independent mobility. Review of the resident's evaluation for use of bed rail assessment, dated 09/08/22, showed the following: -Medical symptoms requiring use of side rails was paraplegia; -Reason for side rail usage was for bed mobility (assist with turning side-to-side); -Used daily for independent bed mobility. Observation on 10/16/23 at 10:40 A.M. showed 1/8 grab bars in the raised position on both sides of the resident's bed. The resident had a low-air loss mattress that was fully inflated. Observation on 10/17/23 at 9:50 A.M. showed the resident sat in bed watching his/her television. The resident had 1/8 grab bars in the raised position on both sides of his/her bed. Observation on 10/18/23 at 8:40 A.M., showed the resident sat in bed watching his/her television. The resident had 1/8 grab bars in the raised position on both sides of his/her bed. Review of the resident's medical record showed no evidence staff conducted an inspection of the resident's bed frame, mattress and grab bars (bed rails) to identify areas of possible entrapment. 2. Review of Resident #17's admission MDS, dated [DATE], showed the resident was dependent on staff for rolling left to right, sitting to lying, lying to sitting, sitting on the side of the bed, sit to standing, and chair/bed-to-chair transfers. Review of the resident's care plan, dated 09/08/23, showed no indication of bed rails used for mobility. Observation on 10/16/23 at 4:39 P.M. showed 1/8 grab bars in the raised position on both sides of the resident's bed. The resident used both grab bars to turn side to side as staff provided personal care to the resident while in bed. The resident had a low-air loss mattress fully inflated. Observation on 10/17/23 at 9:30 A.M. showed the resident lay in bed. The resident had 1/8 grab bars in the raised position on both sides of the bed. Observation on 10/18/23 at 5:13 A.M. showed the resident lay in bed asleep. The resident had 1/8 grab bars in the raised position on both sides of the bed. Review of the resident's medical record showed no evidence staff conducted an inspection of the resident's bed frame, mattress and grab bars (bed rails) to identify areas of possible entrapment. 3. Review of the Resident #37's significant change MDS, dated [DATE], showed the following: -His/Her diagnoses included arthritis, pain, stroke, seizure disorder and a history of falls; -He/She needed substantial help from staff for rolling left to right, sitting to lying, lying to sitting, sitting on the side of the bed, sit to standing, chair/bed-to-chair transfers. Review of the resident's care plan, revised on 09/14/23, showed the following: -He/She was at risk for injury due to seizures; -He/She has impaired ambulation secondary to history of falls, pain, intermittent vertigo (sudden spinning sensation), generalized muscle weakness and repeated falls. Review of the resident's side rails assessment and consent, dated 10/12/23, showed the following: -The resident had diagnoses of muscle weakness, repeated falls, and osteoarthritis; -Therapy recommends a grab bar (bed rail) to assist the resident; -The reason for side rail usage was to assist with transfers and bed mobility to assist with turning side-to-side; -Frequency of use: to be used with in and out of bed transfers and bed mobility. Observations on 10/16/23 at 10:19 A.M. and 10/17/23 at 9:50 A.M., showed a 1/8 grab bar attached to the left side of the resident's bed. The grab bar was in the raised position. Observation on 10/18/23 at 6:27 A.M., showed the resident lay in bed on his/her right side. The resident had 1/8 grab bars in the raised position on the left side of his/her bed. Review of the resident's medical record showed no evidence staff conducted an inspection of the resident's bed frame, mattress and grab bar (bed rails) to identify areas of possible entrapment. 4. Review of Resident #4's evaluation for use of bed rail assessment, dated 1/7/23, showed the following: -Medical symptoms requiring use of side rails was osteoarthritis and difficulty with bed mobility; -Reason for side rail usage was for assistance with transfer and bed mobility (assist with turning side-to-side); -Frequency of use, daily. Review of the resident's quarterly MDS, dated [DATE], showed the following: -His/Her diagnoses included debility (physical weakness); -He/She required maximum assistance when rolling left to right in bed and with transfers. Review of the resident's care plan, updated 10/16/23, showed he/she required assistance for bed mobility due to osteoarthritis of cervical and lumbar spine. Observation on 10/18/23 at 2:25 P.M., showed the resident lay in bed. The resident had 1/8 grab bars in the raised position located on both sides of his/her bed. Review of the resident's medical record showed no evidence staff conducted an inspection of the resident's bed frame, mattress and grab bar (bed rails) to identify areas of possible entrapment. 5. During an interview on 10/18/23, at 8:10 A.M., Maintenance Staff P said he/she checked with his/her supervisor and they were not currently monitoring the bed rails for entrapment zones or needed repairs. When installing bed rails onto a bed, he/she just used the same holes that were on the bed frame to attach the bed rails. He/She did not measure for entrapment zones at the time the bed rails were installed. Staff were not measuring the beds for entrapment zones. During an interview on 10/18/23, at 2:30 P.M. and 10/19/23 at 5:05 P.M., the Director of Nurses (DON) said the following: -If the bed rails had to be measured, she would assume maintenance would be responsible; -There currently were no measurements of entrapment zones for residents who have bed rail; -There currently was no monitoring for bed rails that were on a resident's bed.
CONCERN (F)

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

Food Safety (Tag F0812)

Could have caused harm · This affected most or all residents

Based on observation and interview, the facility failed to ensure dietary equipment was free of an accumulation of grease, oil, dust and debris. Staff failed to ensure the facility's ice machine was c...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation and interview, the facility failed to ensure dietary equipment was free of an accumulation of grease, oil, dust and debris. Staff failed to ensure the facility's ice machine was clean, ice scoops were stored in a clean container, and the ice machine drain contained an air gap. The facility census was 52. (The facility was unable to provide a kitchen/dietary policy, food safety requirement policy, or food preparation guidelines policy). 1. Observations on 10/17/23 from 9:35 A.M. to 5:30 P.M., in the kitchen, showed the following: -A moderate buildup of dust and debris on the walk-in cooler fan cover; -A moderate buildup of grease, dust and debris on the top, front, and sides of the oven, with buildup of grease and liquid runs on the inside front glass, doors, and sides of the oven; -A moderate buildup of grease, dust, and debris on the outside and inside surfaces of the kitchen range hood system; -A moderate buildup of grease, dust, and debris on the 10 baffle filters in the range hood; -A buildup of grease and debris on all surfaces of the deep fryer; -A buildup of grease, debris, and dark stains on the left and right sides of the gas stove top and griddle unit; -A buildup of dust and debris on the coiled power cord to the serving window fire curtain drop. Observation on 10/17/23 at 10:36 A.M., of the ice machine located in the staff break room, showed the following: -A light buildup of dust on the top surface of the ice machine; -A white plastic scoop and a metal scoop lay on the top surface of the ice machine and were not stored in a scoop holder or container; -A white scaly substance on the front of the ice machine, along the approximately 36 inch vinyl door hinge; -A white scaly substance on the right side of an approximately 2 inch flat vinyl edge, where the ice machine door sealed when closed; -Two, approximately 1 inch plastic ice machine drain pipes inside of and touching an approximately 4 inch plastic bell flange drain. There was no air gap between the ice machine drain pipe and the drain. During an interview on 10/17/23 at 1:26 P.M., the dietary manager said the following: -Dietary staff should keep the the walk-in cooler fan cover clean and free of dust and debris; -She expected dietary evening staff to clean the outside surfaces of the oven each night, and inside the oven weekly; -She expected evening dish washing staff to run the range hood filters through the dishwasher and to clean the surfaces inside and outside the range hood each Friday; -She expected dietary evening staff to clean the surfaces of the deep fryer each night; -She expected dietary evening staff to clean the stove top unit each night; -She expected dietary staff to clean the coiled power cord to the serving window fire curtain drop weekly or as needed; -She did not know who was responsible for the ice machine or the scoops in the staff break room; -Dietary staff were responsible for the ice machine in the dining room. During an interview on 10/18/23 at 12:05 P.M., the maintenance director said the following: -He did not know who was responsible for the daily/weekly cleaning of ice machine in the staff break room; -The outside of ice machine should be cleaned weekly or as needed to prevent the white powdery substance on the machine; -He was aware there was to be an air gap between the ice machine drain pipes and the drain; -He was not aware the drain pipes to the ice machine in the break room were inside of and touching the bell flange drain; -He expected the ice machine drain pipes not to touch the drain pipe and be above it, creating an air gap. During an interview on 10/20/23 at 10:26 A.M., the registered dietician said she expected staff to keep the kitchen and dietary equipment and the kitchen area to be kept clean and sanitized. During an interview on 10/18/23 at 11:00 A.M., the administrator said he expected dietary staff to clean and sanitize the kitchen and dietary equipment daily, weekly, and as needed.
CONCERN (F)

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

Infection Control (Tag F0880)

Could have caused harm · This affected most or all residents

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure proper infection control techniques were follow...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure proper infection control techniques were followed when staff failed to wash their hands when they removed contaminated gloves while performing post-incontinence care for two resident (Resident #9 and Resident #25), who had been incontinent of bowel, in a review of 17 sampled residents. The facility failed to post signs to alert staff and visitors to use precautions and appropriate personal protective equipment (PPE) for four residents (Resident #34, #35, #39 and #302) who were on isolation precautions and failed to close the door of one resident's room (Resident #39) who was on isolation precautions. The facility failed to maintain the prevention of communicable disease in regards to Tuberculosis (TB) (a communicable disease that affects the lungs characterized by fever, cough, and difficulty breathing) when the facility failed to ensure Tuberculin Skin Tests (TST) for four new employees (Dietary Aide C, Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA) G, CNA I and Caregiver J), of ten new employee files reviewed, were completed in accordance with the general requirements for TB testing for long-term care employees. The facility census was 52. Review of the undated facility policy, Employment Procedures, showed each employee is required by state regulation to take a TB screening upon hire and on an annual basis thereafter. Review of the facility's policy and procedure for droplet isolation, dated February 2007, showed the following: -In addition to standard precautions, droplet precautions for a resident documented or suspected to be infected with microorganisms transmitted by droplet that could be generated by the resident coughing, sneezing, talking, or by the performance of procedures such as suctioning; -A yellow sign on the door would be hung to alert visitors to go to the nurses's station for instructions; -Staff would inform visitors about wearing masks before entering room and hand hygiene before leaving room, and have hand gel sanitizer available and in sight for visitors and staff to use. Review of the facility policy and procedure for Contact Isolation, dated September 2011, showed the following: -Contract isolation is a procedure that is done in order to keep different infections localized and to prevent the spread of infection to other residents and staff; -Contact isolation procedure involves hand washing, sanitizing and gloving procedure or universal precautions when performing direct care needs; -Procedure: When an infection has been identified by the physician that requires contact isolation, the following procedure will be executed: Place an orange contact isolation sign on the outside of the resident's door. Review of the Centers for Disease Control website for the Implementation of PPE, updated 7/12/22, showed when implementing Contact Precautions, it is critical to ensure that staff have awareness of the facility's expectations about hand hygiene and gown/glove use, initial and refresher training, and access to appropriate supplies. To accomplish this, post clear signage on the door or wall outside of the resident room indicating the type of precautions and required PPE (e.g., gown and gloves) are to be used. Review of the CDC guidance for COVID-19 (a contagious viral illness caused by the SARS-CoV-2 virus), dated 5/8/23, showed facilities should provide instruction, before visitors enter the patient's room, on hand hygiene, limiting surfaces touched, and use of PPE according to current facility policy. Review of the facility's hand washing policy, dated March 2010, showed staff were to wash their hands as follows: -Before and after contact with a resident; -Always after glove use; -When hands come in contact with blood and/or body fluids and mucous membranes; -Whenever hands were visible soiled; -When moving from a contaminated body site to a clean site during care activity; -After contact with objects including equipment in the resident's room. 1. Review of Resident #35's comprehensive Minimum Data Set (MDS), a federally mandated assessment instrument completed by staff, dated 7/18/23 showed the following: -Alert and oriented and able to answer questions; -Able to make self understood and able to understand others; -Requires limited assistance of one staff member for Activities of Daily Living (ADL's); -Diagnoses of stroke, hypertension, diabetes and urinary tract infection. Review of the resident's nurses notes dated 10/15/23 at 6:30 P.M. showed staff documented the resident continues with cold symptoms. COVID-19 test administered and was positive. Review of the nurses notes, dated 10/16/23 at 5:14 A.M., showed staff documented the resident was in isolation due to a positive COVID test. Observation on 10/17/23 and 10/18/23, at various times of the day, showed the following: -The resident's room door was closed; -A black and white sign posted on the door that said to see the nurse before entering. Observation on 10/18/23 at 6:47 A.M. showed the following: -The Director of Nursing (DON) came out of the resident's room wearing goggles and an N95 (a type of filtering face mask) mask; -She took off the N95 mask and placed it in the front left pocket of her shirt; -She took off her goggles and wiped them down with a sanitizer wipe. 2. Review of Resident #39's quarterly MDS, dated [DATE], showed the following: -Able to make self understood and able to understand others; -Alert and oriented and able to make decision; -Independent with ADL's; -Diagnoses of asthma and low blood pressure. Review of the resident's nurses notes, dated 10/16/23 at 10:00 A.M., showed staff documented the resident tested positive for COVID-19 during house wide testing. He/She was placed on isolation. Observations on 10/16/23 at 10:59 A.M., 11:33 A.M. and 12:19 P.M. showed the following: -The door to the resident's room was open; -There was no sign posted to alert staff and visitors of the isolation or of what PPE should be worn in the resident's room. Observation on 10/17/23 at 12:18 P.M. showed the following: -The door to the resident's room was open; -A black and white sign was posted on the door that read to see nurse before entering; -The resident was at the open door and would place his/her head outside of the door; -Several staff members walked past the resident's room and did not instruct the resident to stay in his/her room or attempt to close the door. Observation on 10/17/23 at 6:10 P.M., showed the following: -The door to the resident's room was open; -A black and white sign was posted on the door that read to see the nurse before entering; -A red PPE bag sat open on the resident's floor and was approximately 1/3 full. Observation on 10/18/23 at 8:22 A.M. showed the following: -The door to the resident's room was open. The resident stood at the door with a plastic cup in his/her hand. A staff member took the plastic cup and placed it on a cart that contained clean plastic cups. The staff member handed the resident a clean plastic cup through the door and did not instruct the resident to close the door; -Another resident came to the door and handed Resident #39 an item while the Assistant Director of Nursing (ADON) and two other staff members stood at the door; -No staff member attempted to stop the other resident from touching Resident #39. During an interview on 10/18/23 at 11:00 A.M., the ADON said the following: -He/She was at Resident #39's door when another resident came and handed Resident #39 a piece of candy; -He/She should have stopped the resident from touching Resident #39; -He/She should have instructed the other resident to wash his/her hands. 3. Review of Resident #302's quarterly MDS, dated [DATE], showed the following: -Alert and oriented and able to make decisions; -Able to make self understood and able to understand others; -Supervision with ADL's; -Diagnoses of coronary artery disease (caused by plaque buildup in the wall of the arteries that supply blood to the heart), hypertension, Parkinson's disease ( a brain disorder that causes unintended or uncontrollable movements, such as shaking, stiffness, and difficulty with balance and coordination). Review of the resident's nurses notes dated 10/16/2023 at 10:21 A.M. showed staff documented the resident has tested positive for COVID. Observations on 10/16/23, 10/17/23 and 10/18/23, at various time of the day, showed no sign posted on the resident's door to alert staff and visitors of the isolation or of what PPE to wear when entering the resident's room. During an interview on 10/18/23 at 6:33 A.M., Registered Nurse (RN) A said the following: -The resident was diagnosed on [DATE] as COVID positive; -There was no sign on the resident's door; -There should be a sign on the resident's door saying to stop and see a nurse. 4. Review of Resident #34's quarterly MDS, dated [DATE], showed the following: -Alert and oriented and able to answer questions; -Able to make self understood and able to understand others; -Independent with ADL's; -Diagnoses of coronary artery disease, hypertension and diabetes. Review of the resident's nurses notes, dated 10/16/23 at 10:30 A.M., showed the resident tested positive for COVID-19 during house wide testing this morning. He/She does have cold symptoms including cough, runny nose and sneezing. He/She has been placed on isolation. Observations on 10/16/23, 10/17/23 and 10/18/23, at various times of the day, showed no sign posted on the resident's door to alert staff and visitors of the isolation or of what PPE to wear when entering the resident's room. 5. Review of Resident #9's quarterly MDS, dated [DATE], showed the following: -He/She was dependent on staff for toilet hygiene, lower body dressing, and rolling from left to right; -He/She was frequently incontinent of bowel and bladder. Review of the resident's care plan, last revised on 9/20/23, showed the following: -He/She was frequently incontinent of bowel and bladder; -Provide assistance of one to two staff with lower/upper body dressing; -Following pericare, apply antifungal cream to buttocks as ordered by his/her physician. Review of the resident's undated continuity of care document (CCD) showed on 10/16/23, his/her physician ordered miconazole nitrate 2% cream (antifungal cream) to be applied as needed to resident's buttocks and thighs for a rash and/or skin breakdown. Observation on 10/18/23 at 7:40 A.M. showed the following: -The DON and ADON entered the resident's room to assist him/her with ADL cares and transfer him/her from bed to the wheelchair; -The resident was incontinent of bowel; -The DON cleaned feces from the resident's buttock area with gloved hands, removed his/her gloves, and without washing and/or sanitizing hands, put on new gloves; -The DON obtained a clean brief and fungal cream from the resident's bedside table, applied the cream to the resident's buttocks, removed his/her gloves, and without washing his/her hands, put on new gloves; -She assisted the resident to dress, transferred the resident to his/her wheelchair, and transported the resident to the dining room; -The DON did not wash her hands before putting on gloves and after removing gloves during resident care. 6. Review of Resident #25's face sheet showed the resident's diagnoses included history of urinary tract infections. Review of resident's quarterly MDS, dated [DATE], showed the following: -His/Her cognition was severely impaired; -He/She was totally dependent on one to two staff for all ADL's; -He/She was always incontinent of bowel and bladder. Review of the resident's care plan, last revised on 7/24/23, showed the following: -He/She wore incontinence briefs at all times to address incontinence; -Provide peri care after each incontinent episode. Observation on 10/18/23 at 8:07 A.M. showed the following: -Certified Nurse Assistant (CNA) Q and CNA K entered the resident's room to assist him/her with ADL cares and transfer from bed to the wheelchair; -The resident was incontinent of bowel; -CNA Q cleaned feces from the resident's buttocks with gloved hands, removed his/her gloves, and without washing and/or sanitizing hands, put on new gloves; -CNA Q then removed the soiled incontinence pad, cleaned the resident's front peri area, applied a clean brief, and removed his/her gloves; -Without washing or sanitizing their hands, CNA Q and CNA K put on new gloves and changed the resident's pants and shirt, and then transferred the resident with the hoyer lift to the wheelchair; -Both CNA Q and CNA F failed to wash hands before putting on gloves and after removing their gloves during resident care. 7. Review of Dietary Aide C's employee file showed the following: -Date of hire 07/21/21; -First step TB test administered on 07/15/21 and read on 07/17/21; -Second step TB test administered on 08/17/21 (33 days after first test); -No documentation staff read the results of the second step TB test. 8. Review of CNA G's employee file showed the following: -Date of hire 11/11/21; -Documentation of a first step TB test and a second step TB test that was administered at a prior place of employment on 10/14/21 and 10/24/21; -There was no documentation of the results of the first and second step TB test from his/her prior place of employment; -No documentation the facility administered the first or second step TB test after CNA G's date of hire. 9. Review of CNA I's employee file showed the following: -Date of hire 08/11/22; -No documentation staff administered the first or second step TB test. 10. Review of Caregiver J's employee file showed the following: -Date of hire 08/09/22; -First step TB test administered on 08/08/22 and read on 08/10/22 with a result of 0 mm of induration; -No record of a second step TB test was found. 11. Review of Dietary Aide H's employee file showed the following: -Date of hire 04/17/23; -First step TB test administered on 04/14/23 and read on 04/17/23 with a result of negative only (no indication of mm of induration assessed); -Second step TB test administered on 05/05/23 and read on 05/08/23 with a result of 0 mm of induration. 12. Review of CNA K's employee file showed the following: -Date of hire, 03/20/23; -First step TB test administered on 03/17/23 and read on 03/20/23 with a result of 0 mm of induration; -Second step TB test administered on 03/31/23 and read on 04/03/23 with a result of negative only (no indication of mm of induration assessed). During interview on 10/18/23, at 2:55 P.M., the infection preventionist/ADON said the following: -Any nurse can administer or read a TB test for a new employee; -She was responsible for making sure the TB tests were completed; -She was the nurse that read the results for Dietary Aide H and CNA K; -She was aware results of the TB test should be documented as millimeters of induration and not just negative. During interview on 10/18/23 at 5:05 P.M., the DON said the following: -New employees should have two step TB tests administered unless they had one in the last year; -TB tests should be read with mm of induration indication and not just as negative; -Staff should wash their hands before and after resident care or after touching anything dirty. Staff can use hand sanitizer or soap and water; -Staff should not place N95 masks in their pocket; staff should remove the mask before leaving the isolation room; -Staff should remove and dispose of gloves before leaving an isolation room; -Staff should monitor residents and attempt to prevent them from touching a resident who is on isolation; -The doors to an isolation room should remain closed. If the resident refused to have the door closed, then staff should educate the resident and care plan that the resident wished for the door to remain open; -When a resident was placed on isolation, a yellow or orange sign should be posted on the door to alert staff and visitors to check with the nurse; -She was unaware a sign with what PPE should be worn should have been posted on the doors.
MINOR (C)

Minor Issue - procedural, no safety impact

Deficiency F0625 (Tag F0625)

Minor procedural issue · This affected most or all residents

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to provide a written notice of bed hold with required information to t...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to provide a written notice of bed hold with required information to the resident and/or resident representative when the facility initiated a transfer to the hospital for three residents (Residents #3, #19, and #25), in a review of 17 sampled residents. The facility census was 52. Review of the facility policy, Bed Hold Policy, revised 11/16/20, showed no instruction for staff as to their responsibility to provide written notice of bed hold to the resident and/or the resident representative. 1. Review of Resident #3's face sheet showed the resident was his/her own responsible party. Review of the resident's nurse notes, dated 02/13/23, showed the following: -The resident was very shaky, his/her skin was cold to touch; -The resident was unable to follow any nursing commands; -Emergency medical services (EMS) was called and the resident was transported to the hospital; -The hospital reported the resident was admitted with a diagnosis of encephalopathy (brain dysfunction) and baclofen (medication to help muscles relax) toxicity. Review of the resident's nurse notes, dated 02/28/23, showed the following: -The resident was dyspneic (short of breath) and had increased difficulty with breathing while lying down; -The resident had edema (swelling) noted to all of his/her extremities and his/her face appeared to be swollen as well; -EMS was called and the resident was transported to the hospital; -The resident refused hospital services and wanted to be returned to the nursing home. Review of the resident's nurse notes, dated 06/19/12, showed the following: -The resident was increasingly confused and said he/she did not feel right; -The resident had generalized muscle twitching and he/she was short of breath; -EMS was called and the resident was transported to the hospital; -The hospital reported the resident was admitted . Review of the resident's medical record showed no documentation staff informed the resident in writing of the facility's bed hold policy prior to transfer to the hospital on [DATE], 02/28/23 or 06/19/23. 2. Review of Resident #25's face sheet showed the resident had a durable power of attorney. Review of the resident's nurses notes, dated 9/19/23 at 11:38 A.M., showed the following: -Called to resident's room at approximately 11:30 A.M. due to the resident having convulsions; -Per staff, they were getting him/her ready for lunch and to get his/her weight, when the resident began convulsing during care; -Resident placed on his/her right side as he/she continued to convulse for several minutes and would not respond to staff; -Respirations shallow, resident's eyes wide with pupils dilated in appearance, did not blink for several minutes; -911 called and arrived at 11:36 A.M.; -Resident with sporadic convulsions in upper extremities and neck upon emergency medical services (EMS) arrival; -The DPOA notified of condition and transport to emergency room (ER), understanding voiced; -Report called to hospital ER. Review of the resident's nurses notes, dated 9/19/23 at 12:02 P.M., showed the following: -The nurse was made aware by facility certified nurse assistant (CNA) that the resident was shaking and not acting like him/herself around 11:00 A.M.; -The resident was convulsing upon the nurse entering the room; -The resident was placed on his/her right side; breathing shallow; -Eyes open but minimally responsive; -911 called around 11:10 A.M.; -The ambulance arrived around 11:30 A.M.; -The resident was taken to ER; -Daughter made aware and meeting the resident at the hospital. Review of the resident's medical records showed no documentation that staff informed the resident's durable power of attorney in writing of the facility's bed hold policy prior to transfer to the hospital on 9/19/23. During an interview on 10/18/23 at 5:40 A.M., Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) B said the following: -When a resident transfers/discharges, they take them out of the census in the computer and make a note in the nurse's note regarding notification of the family; -He/She was unsure about any bed hold notification; -No paperwork or written notice is provided for transfers/discharges as far as he/she was aware. 3. Record review of Resident #19's medical record showed his/her family was his/her responsible party. Review of the resident's nurse's notes, dated 9/13/2023 at 8:59 A.M., showed the resident was sent to the hospital due to a change in his/her condition. Review of the resident's medical record showed no documentation staff informed the resident in writing of the facility's bed hold policy prior to transfer to the hospital on 9/13/23. During an interview on 10/18/23 at 11:50 A.M. and 10/25/23 at 10:06 A.M., the Social Services Director said the following: - There should be a copy of the bed hold policy in the electronic medical record and it should be printed and sent out with residents upon discharge/transfer; - The nurse is responsible for pulling and printing all of the transfer/discharge paperwork; - It was her fault that she hadn't properly documented or included all of the required information for the discharge/transfer/bed hold paperwork; -He/She was responsible for providing the bed hold notices to residents and/or their representatives when a resident left the facility; -If a resident was sent out of the facility on a weekend, the nursing staff are responsible for printing and completing the bed hold notice, but he/she was still responsible to make sure that it was done and documented correctly; -He/She is responsible for monitoring that the bed hold notice forms are completed when a resident leaves the facility; -He/She is responsible for documenting the bed hold notices was completed and signed when a resident leaves the facility. During an interview on 10/18/23 at 5:05 P.M., the director of nursing said social services was responsible for providing bed hold notices. She was not aware that was supposed to be sent with the resident any time they go out. During an interview on 10/18/23 at 5:19 P.M., the administrator said he was not aware that bed hold polices needed to be sent with every discharge. Surveyor: [NAME], [NAME]
Apr 2023 1 deficiency
CONCERN (D) 📢 Someone Reported This

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

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

Transfer Requirements (Tag F0622)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to readmit one resident (Resident # 1), in a review of five sampled re...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to readmit one resident (Resident # 1), in a review of five sampled residents, when the resident required emergent care and was sent to the hospital. The facility denied re-admission to the facility due to inability to find an accepting physician to oversee his/her care and after the appeal process for the 30 day discharge had been requested. The facility census was 52. Review of the facility's undated policy, Facility Initiated Discharge, showed the following: -Upon decision to discharge a resident from the facility against the resident's and/or resident representative's desire, a discharge form letter will be populated and delivered to the resident and/or representative as soon as practicable; -The charge nurse performing the discharge will print out and populate the discharge form; -Unless an emergency situation exists that risks the health or safety of a resident, the resident being discharged will have 30 days after the delivery of the form letter to vacate the facility, unless an appeal has been initiated and the appropriate agency requests that the discharge be stayed; -The resident being discharged will be responsible for all room charges during their stay, including any charges that occur during the 30 day or appeal period. 1. Review of Resident #1's face sheet (undated) showed the following: -admitted to the facility on [DATE] with a readmission dated of 9/12/22; -discharge date of 4/20/23; -Diagnoses included Alzheimer's disease, dementia with behaviors, dysphagia (difficulty swallowing), chronic kidney disease, history of urinary tract infection (UTI), and basal cell carcinoma (cancer) of skin of nose. Review of the resident's progress note, dated 1/18/23, showed the facility sent an email to the resident's family informing them the resident's physician would be retiring on 3/31/23 and a new primary care physician would need to be found. Information was provided to the family about the physicians that comes into the facility and offered to send referrals if they agreed. Awaiting response. Review of the resident's Quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS), a federally mandated assessment instrument required to be completed by facility staff, dated 1/25/23, showed the following: -Severely impaired cognition; -No behaviors or rejection of care; -Required total assistance of two staff for bed mobility, transfers, dressing, toileting, hygiene and bathing; -Required total assistance of one staff for eating; -Always incontinent of bowel and bladder; -Upper and lower limited range of motion on both side of body; -One fall with major injury; -At risk for pressure ulcers; -No open areas. Review of the resident's care plan, last reviewed on 2/17/23, showed the resident's family plans for the resident to remain a permanent resident at the facility. Review of the resident's progress notes showed on 4/12/23 there was a conversation between the Medical Director's nurse and a facility nurse that after the in person care plan meeting between the Medical Director and the resident's family, everything seemed good. However the next day, the resident's family called the Medical Director's office demanding they would not allow him to discontinue the resident's blood thinner and several other things he suggested. The Medical Director in that moment said he would not be accepting the resident as a patient. He directed the facility to issue a 30 day discharge due to the resident not having a physician. Review of the resident's 30 day notice, dated April 13, 2023, showed the following: -The facility has been informed by the Medical Director that he will not be following the resident in the facility and his last primary care physician terminated care as of 3/31/23. As the resident has not had a primary care physician this month, the facility has no choice but to discharge. As the resident was needing fairly little care, and the family has been providing and directing care, the facility felt it would be in the best interest for the resident to be discharged home with family to provide that care; -The effective date of this discharge will be no later than 30 days from delivery of this letter; -At that time the resident will be discharged to his/her family's address; -You have the right to appeal this decision within 30 days of receipt. If an appeal is made, we are required to allow the resident to remain in the facility until a hearing is held unless a hearing official finds otherwise. Review of a letter provided to the resident's family on 4/13/23 showed the discharge notice was rescinded due a physician being found to oversee care for the resident. Review of the resident's progress notes showed on 4/14/23, the administrator was notified the resident had not established care with a new physician and was issued a 30 day discharge letter. The resident's durable power of attorney (DPOA) was verbally notified and voiced understanding. Review of the resident's progress notes showed the following: -On 4/18/23, an updated 30 day discharge notice was produced and sent electronically and in person today. The previous letter was dismissed due to outdated contact information regarding appeals. Facility staff handed the discharge notice to the resident's family member; -On 4/20/23 at 8:44 A.M., the administrator received a discharge hearing request form regarding Resident #1; -On 4/20/23 at 9:06 A.M., the resident was noted to not be swallowing and was drooling. The resident had increased secretions, gurgling and harsh cough due to the secretions. The resident's lung sounds were observed to have rubs (adventitious breath sound heard on auscultation of the lung) and slight crackles (occur if the small air sacs in the lungs fill with fluid and there's air movement in the sacs) with auscultation. One of the resident's DPOAs was notified and the resident was sent to the hospital for evaluation; -On 4/20/23 at 1:47 P.M., the facility was notified of the resident being admitted to the hospital for urinary tract infection and a heart attack; -On 4/20/23 at 4:30 P.M., the administrator attempted to visit the resident in the hospital to serve an emergency discharge notice. The administrator was not allowed inside the room per family's request, therefore the notice was unable to be delivered. Emergency discharge notice has been sent electronically and via certified letter to addresses on file. Review of the resident's immediate discharge letter provided to the resident's family on 4/20/23 showed the following: -This letter is to inform you the facility has made the decision to permanently discharge the resident from the facility. Due to symptoms of possible aspiration pneumonia, the resident was transferred to the hospital on 4/20/23 at 8:40 A.M. At 1:30 P.M. The facility was notified the resident had suffered a heart attack and was admitted for care. Due to the admission at the hospital, the facility has discharged the resident as of 4/20/23 at 1:45 P.M. As the resident is still without a physician to follow his/her care, the facility will be unable to re-admit him/her to our facility; -The effective date of this discharge is immediate; -The resident was discharged to a local hospital; -You have the right to appeal this decision within 30 days of receipt. If an appeal is made, we are required to allow the resident to remain in the facility until a hearing is held unless a hearing official finds otherwise. During interview on 4/26/23 at 9:20 A.M. and 12:00 P.M., the administrator said he was told by the resident's family that a physician had been found and was agreeing to care for their family member. When facility staff called the physician's office for orders, the physician's nurse said the resident had an appointment on 4/28/23 for evaluation and the physician would assess him/her then and assume care. The physician was not currently assuming the resident's care. He said at that time, he re-issued a 30 day discharge notice. The resident then had a change in condition and was sent to the hospital where he/she was admitted with a UTI and heart attack. He went to the hospital to issue an immediate discharge, but was denied entry to the resident's room by the family so he sent the notice by certified mail and electronically. He said he felt the resident's readmission to the facility with no physician to provide care would be an unsafe admission. During interview on 5/2/23 at 9:00 A.M., the Medical Director said he had met with the resident's family on 3/31/23 regarding realistic goals for their family member's care. He discussed with them some options for treatment including some medication changes. He had not accepted the resident's care at the end of the meeting as the family needed to decide if they were on board with the changes he suggested. He said he had not been involved in the discharge process, but that there was no restriction from him in regards to not readmitting the resident to the facility. He would have expected the facility to defer to him as Medical Director for orders or in the case of a change in condition where a physician was needed until the resident's family had chosen their own physician. MO217105 MO217362
Feb 2020 2 deficiencies
CONCERN (E)

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

Abuse Prevention Policies (Tag F0607)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to obtain Nurse Aide (NA) registry/background screenings for four new employees, in a review of six newly hired employees prior to employment ...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to obtain Nurse Aide (NA) registry/background screenings for four new employees, in a review of six newly hired employees prior to employment to determine if any had a Federal indicator with the nurse aide registry that would prohibit employment at the facility. The facility census was 54. 1. During interview on 2/7/20 at 11:55 A.M. the administrator said the facility did not have a policy regarding NA registry or background screenings. He did not know they needed to check the NA registry for non-nursing new hires since they checked the EDL (Employee Disqualification List) and FCR (Family Care Registry). The facility should follow the state regulation requirements. Review of the facility policy Employment Procedures showed the following employment procedures apply to all facility employees: 1. Hiring practices b) Prior to employment, the facility is required by state regulation to check the State Employee Disqualification List, run a criminal record check and file application to the Family Care Registry. The facility will pay the cost of these items. An applicant will not be placed on the schedule until the criminal record check is returned and approved by the administrator. The policy did not address checking the NA registry. 2. Review of maintenance/driver A's employee file showed the following: -Date of hire 4/29/19; -There was no record of a NA registry check for the employee. 3. Review of dietary/cook B's employee filed showed the following: -Date of hire was 9/10/19; -There was no record of a NA registry check for the employee. 4. Review of laundry/ housekeeper C's employee file showed the following: -Date of hire was 2/4/19; -There was no record of a NA registry check for the employee. 5. Review of activity personnel D's employee file showed the following: -Date of hire was 1/20/20; -There was no record of a NA registry check for the employee. During interview on 2/7/20 at 10:35 A.M. the business office manager said the following: -He/She was responsible for completing background checks, including the NA registry checks on new employees; -He/She usually completes the NA registry check before the first day the employee is in the facility (date of hire); -He/She did not perform a NA registry check for non-nursing employees.
CONCERN (F)

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

Food Safety (Tag F0812)

Could have caused harm · This affected most or all residents

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure food items were labeled, dated or discarded whe...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure food items were labeled, dated or discarded when appropriate, failed to maintain the range hood from an accumulation of grease and debris and failed to maintain the freezer at 0 degrees Fahrenheit (F). The facility census was 54. 1. Observation on 2/4/20 at 11:26 A.M. of the walk-in cooler in the facility kitchen showed the following items: -A clear container with a green lid was labeled with masking tape lima beans 1/20/20; -A clear container with a red lid was labeled with a sticker chicken dumplings 1/21/20; -A clear container held pasta salad and was not labeled and was dated 1/24/20; -A clear container held sliced beets was not labeled or dated; -A clear container with a green lid was labeled with masking tape noodles 1/23/20; -A clear container with a green lid was labeled with a yellow sticky note pork chops 1/31/20; -A clear container with a red lid was labeled roasted cauliflower 1/28/20; -A breakfast plate with scrambled eggs, toast and a small bowl of ground meat with gravy on top was not labeled or dated; -A clear container with a red lid contained some kind of elbow macaroni dish and was not labeled or dated; -A large round metal bowl contained possibly macaroni salad and was dated 1/24/20; -A large chunk of cooked turkey breast, was dated 1/29/20; -A large piece of cooked beef, wrapped in plastic wrap, was labeled roast and dated 1/29/20; -A large metal bowl of torn lettuce leaves with lots of brown lettuce pieces visible inside the bowl was covered with plastic wrap and was not labeled or dated. Observation on 2/4/20 at 4:20 P.M. of the refrigerator in the solarium showed a clear plastic cup was 1/4 full of liquid/juice with some pieces of fruit on top of the liquid. The cup was covered with an open zip lock bag. The food item was not labeled or dated. A piece of folded Kleenex lay next to the cup. A resident's first name and the first letter of the resident's last name was written on the Kleenex. Observation on 2/5/20 at 3:05 P.M. showed all items listed above in the kitchen walk-in cooler were still visible in the walk-in cooler, except the large metal bowl of lettuce was missing. During an interview on 2/6/20 at 8:50 A.M., the Dietary Manager said leftover food items should be labeled, dated and discarded when expired. Leftovers should be discarded or used three days from the date marked on the container. Once a week, staff were to clean out the walk-in cooler and discard expired items on a weekly basis. Observation on 2/4/20 at 10:33 A.M. showed a sticker on the outside of the range hood indicated the most recent cleaning had been performed on 11/26/19 and the next cleaning was due again in May 2020. Observation and interview on 2/4/20 at 11:27 A.M. showed the kitchen range hood had an accumulation of yellow grease and fuzzy debris on the baffle filters. Dietary Staff A said the filters were cleaned weekly by running the filters through the dish machine. Dietary staff were responsible for performing the cleaning. Observation on 2/5/20 at 2:59 PM showed the range hood baffle filters had an accumulation of yellow grease and fuzzy debris. Further observation showed the heaviest buildup was located on the filters that were positioned over the fryer. During an interview on 2/6/20 at 8:50 A.M., the Dietary Manager said the range hood baffle filter cleaning was not documented. She was unsure when the last cleaning had been performed or how often the filters should be cleaned. Observation on 2/4/20 at 1:51 P.M. of the walk-in freezer in the kitchen showed the external digital display read +7 degrees F. The thermometer inside the freezer showed an internal temperature of +8 degrees F. Observation on 2/4/20 at 1:51 P.M. of the temperature log sheet for the freezer showed the following temperatures: -On [DATE] A.M. +10 degrees F and P.M. +11 degrees F; -On [DATE] A.M. +4 degrees F and P.M. +9 degrees F; -On [DATE] A.M. +10 degrees F and P.M. was left blank. Observation on 2/4/20 at 4:13 P.M. of the walk-in freezer showed the external digital display read +12 degrees F and the thermometer inside the freezer showed an internal temperature of +13 degrees F. Observation on 2/5/20 at 3:01 P.M. of the walk-in freezer showed the external digital display read+7 degrees F and the thermometer inside the freezer showed an internal temperature of +8 degrees F. Observation on 2/5/20 at 3:01 P.M. of the temperature log sheet for the freezer showed the following temperatures: -On [DATE] A.M. +10 degrees F and P.M. +11 degrees F; -On [DATE] A.M. +4 degrees F and P.M. +9 degrees F; -On [DATE] A.M. +10 degrees F and P.M. was left blank; -On [DATE] A.M. +2 degrees F and P.M. +3 degrees F; -On [DATE] A.M. +4 degrees F and P.M. was left blank. Observation on 2/6/20 at 8:22 A.M. of the walk-in freezer showed the external digital display read +8 degrees F and the thermometer inside the freezer showed an internal temperature of +8 degrees F. Further observation showed the temperature log sheet indicated an A.M. temperature for [DATE] of +10 degrees. During an interview on 2/6/20 at 8:50 A.M., the Dietary Manager said the walk-in cooler should be maintained at 0 degrees Fahrenheit. She was unaware that the freezer was not staying at 0 degrees or colder. Staff should use the inside thermometer when documenting the temperature. She glanced at the log sheet periodically, but doesn't monitor it on a daily basis. Staff usually come to her directly with any issues regarding kitchen equipment. The freezer fan kept freezing up and causing issues approximately three or four months ago but that issue had been repaired.
Dec 2018 7 deficiencies
CONCERN (D)

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

Incontinence Care (Tag F0690)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to provide incontinence care with a urinary catheter (a ...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to provide incontinence care with a urinary catheter (a sterile tube inserted through the urethra into the bladder to drain urine) consistent with acceptable standards of practice, failed to keep the catheter drainage bag off the floor, and failed to provide appropriate treatment and services to prevent urinary tract infections (UTIs) for two residents with a urinary catheter (Residents #34 and #35), in a review of 14 sampled residents. The facility reported five residents with urinary catheters. The facility census was 53. 1. Review of the facility's policy, Catheter Care with Peri Care, dated 2/23/10, showed the following: -Catheter care is performed with peri-care, before rising in the morning, with evening cares, upon check and changing for incontinency, and whenever the catheter is soiled; -Check catheter and drainage bag for leaks, kinks, level of bag, color and character of urine, and make sure bedside drainage bag is attached to the frame of the bed; -Separate the labia of the female resident and gently wash around the opening of the urethra with soap and water or you may use non-rinse peri-spray. Using different portions of the wash cloth like in peri-care; -If the male resident is uncircumcised, gently pull back the foreskin and wash around the opening of the urethra with soap and warm water or you may use the non-rinse peri-spray. Cleanse in circular motion around penis using different portions of washcloth like in peri-care; -Wash the catheter tubing from the opening of the urethra outward four inches or further if needed. Do not pull on catheter. Repeat process using different portions of washcloth; -Using a fresh washcloth, continue to wash and rinse peri-area. Dry the peri-area; -Make sure to return foreskin to its natural position; -Make sure catheter is secure, coiled and draining properly. 2. Review of the Nurse Assistant in a Long Term Care Facility, 2001 revision, showed the following: -The bladder is considered sterile, the catheter, drainage tubing and bag are a sterile system; -Drainage tubing/bags must not touch the floor; -The drainage bag should always be below the level of the bladder; -If moved above, urine could flow back into the bladder. 3. Review of Resident #35's Physician Order Sheet (POS), dated September 2018, showed the following: -Diagnoses included benign prostatic hypertrophy (enlargement of the prostate), chronic kidney disease, history of urinary tract infections, and retention of urine; -On 9/5/18, an order for a urinalysis with culture and sensitivity. Review of the resident's urinalysis report, dated 9/5/18, showed the following: -Moderate amount of leukocytes esterase (normal is negative, indicates infection); -Nitrite positive (normal is negative, indicates presence of bacteria); -Large amount of blood (normal is none); -Greater than 50 white blood cells (WBC) (normal is 0-5/high power field (hpf)); -Greater than 50 red blood cells (RBC) (normal is 0-5/hpf); -Many bacteria (normal is negative). Review of the resident's POS, dated September 2018, showed an order dated 9/7/18 for Cefuroxime (antibiotic) 250 milligrams (mg) by mouth twice a day for seven days for UTI. Review of the resident's urine culture and sensitivity report, dated 9/8/18, showed greater than 100,000 colony forming units (cfu)/milliliter (ml) of Escherichia coli (bacteria found in the intestine). Review of the resident's POS, dated September 2018, showed an order dated 9/10/18 to discontinue the Cefuroxime and to start Augmentin (antibiotic) 500 mg every 12 hours by mouth for seven days. Review of the resident's quarterly MDS, dated [DATE], showed the following: -Required total care of two staff for personal hygiene and toileting; -Indwelling catheter. Review of the resident's care plan, dated 9/7/17 and last reviewed 12/5/18, showed the following: -Requires an indwelling catheter related to urinary retention; -Avoid laying the resident on top of the tubing causing pinching/clogging of the tube and reflux of urine into the bladder; -Do not allow tubing or any part of the drainage system to touch the floor; -Manipulate tubing as little as possible during care; -Position the bag below the level of the bladder; -Provide total assistance for catheter care every shift; -Store collection bag inside a protective dignity pouch. Observation on 12/04/18 at 11:47 A.M. showed the resident sat in his/her broda chair (specialized reclining wheelchair) in the dining room. The resident's urinary drainage bag lay on the leg rest behind the resident's legs. The resident's legs lay directly on the urinary drainage bag. The urinary drainage bag was not in the protective dignity bag as directed by the resident's care plan. Observation on 12/4/18 at 5:14 P.M., the resident sat in his/her broda chair in the dining room. The resident's urinary drainage bag lay on the resident's foot rest between the resident's legs and the leg rest of the chair. The resident's legs lay directly on the urinary drainage bag. The urinary drainage bag was not contained in the protective dignity bag. Observation on 12/5/18 at 6:09 A.M., showed the following: -CNA D and CNA E entered the resident's room; -The resident lay in bed; his/her urinary drainage bag hung on the bed frame; -CNA D picked up the resident's urinary drainage bag, raised the bag above the level of the resident's bladder, and laid the urinary drainage bag at the foot of the resident's bed; -The urinary drainage bag was not covered by a protective dignity bag; -The urinary drainage bag and catheter tubing contained urine; -CNA D and CNA E dressed the bottom portion of the resident; -CNA D picked up the urinary drainage bag, raised it above the level of the resident's bladder, and weaved it through the resident's pant leg, and laid it on the bed; -CNA D cleaned both of the resident's groin areas with a washcloth, folded the wet washcloth, cleaned around the catheter insertion site two times in a circular motion, then cleaned the resident's front genitalia using the same cloth surface; -Staff did not clean the catheter tubing; -CNA D and CNA E rolled the resident to his/her side; -The resident was soiled with fecal matter; -CNA D provided incontinence care to the resident's rectal area, and applied a clean incontinence brief on the resident; -CNA D and CNA E attached the lift pad to the mechanical lift; -CNA D picked up the resident's urinary drainage bag, raised it above the level of the resident's bladder, and laid the urinary drainage bag on the resident's lap; -Urine was noted in the catheter bag and tubing; -CNA D and CNA E transferred the resident to his/her broda chair; -The urinary drainage bag slid down to the resident's feet and the catheter tubing touched the floor; -CNA D picked up the urinary drainage bag and placed the bag on the resident's leg rest behind the resident's legs. The resident's legs lay on the urinary drainage bag. Observation on 12/5/18 at 7:08 A.M., showed the resident sat in his/her broda chair in the TV room. The resident's urinary drainage bag rested on the leg rest behind the resident's legs. The resident's legs lay on the urinary drainage bag. The urinary drainage bag was not contained within a protective dignity bag. During interview on 12/5/18 at 9:52 A.M., CNA D said he/she lays the urinary drainage bag on the resident's lap during a mechanical lift transfer as that is how he/she has always done it. The urinary drainage bag, tubing or dignity bag should not touch the floor. The urinary drainage bag should remain below the level of the bladder because the urine will not drain into the bag. He/she did not know if he/she should be cleaning the catheter tubing during cares. 4. Review of the Resident #34's urinalysis report, dated 9/22/18, showed the following: -Clarity: cloudy (normal: clear); -Blood: moderate; -Leukocytes: Large; -Culture ordered, per established criteria. Review of the resident's culture report, dated 9/26/18, showed the following: -Greater than 100,000 CFU/ml of pseudomonas aeruginosa (a group of bacteria that can cause various infections including UTIs); -On the bottom of the report was a typed note from the physician, dated 9/26/18, which showed very resistant species of pseudomonas and MRSA (a bacterium that causes infection in the body that is resistant to many antibiotics making it difficult to treat) so treat with nitrofurantoin (antibacterial agent used to treat urinary tract infections) 100 mg one twice a day for ten days and Ciprofloxacin (use to treat bacterial infections including UTIs) 250 mg one twice a day for ten days. Review of the resident's quarterly MDS, dated [DATE], showed the following: -Totally dependent on two staff members for toileting; -Required extensive assistance from two staff members for personal hygiene; -Diagnosis of neurogenic bladder (dysfunction of the bladder caused by neurologic damage); -Indwelling catheter. Review of the resident's care plan, last revised 11/7/18, showed the following: -Palliative care provided by the facility and Hospice services; -Urinary catheter in place; -Assess urinary catheter every shift for patency; -Empty, document output, clean insertion site with perineal care and as needed to promote perineal hygiene; -Ensure the tubing is off the floor and use a dignity bag to hold the collection bag. Observation on 12/4/18 at 11:03 A.M. showed the following: -The resident lay in bed; -The hospice nurse entered the resident's room to provide wound care; -The hospice nurse pulled back the resident's blanket, and noted the catheter tubing was twisted and the resident's right leg was positioned on top of the tubing; -The urinary drainage bag lay in the bed beside the resident; -The hospice nurse lifted the resident's right leg from off of the catheter tubing, uncoiled the twisted tubing and dark cloudy urine immediately began to flow into the urinary drainage bag. Observation on 12/4/18 at 12:14 A.M. showed the following: -The resident sat in his/her broda chair in his/her room; -CNA I removed a blanket that covered the resident's legs; -The urinary drainage bag was positioned at the bottom of the leg rest of the resident's broda chair and the resident's legs rested against the urinary drainage bag; -CNA D placed the urinary drainage bag, without a protective dignity bag, on the resident's abdomen. The resident rested his/her hand on top of the bag of urine; -CNA I and CNA D transferred the resident to his/her bed using a mechanical lift; -The urinary drainage bag remained on the resident's abdomen while staff raised the height of the resident's bed, positioned the resident in bed, and adjusted the resident's bed linens; -CNA I hooked the urinary drainage bag on the side of the bed. During interview on 12/16/18 at 11:00 A.M., CNA I said he/she had found the urinary drainage bag in the resident's bed before. If the catheter bag was left in the bed after a transfer, it wouldn't drain right and could back up. The urinary drainage bag should be hooked on the side of the bed. Staff placed the drainage bag on the resident's foot rest when the resident was in his/her broda chair. There was not a lot of catheter tubing to reach around to the side of the chair and hook the drainage bag. Staff tried to center the urinary drainage bag between the resident's legs on the foot rest. The urinary drainage bag was dirty. During interview on 12/6/18 at 2:08 P.M., CNA D said he/she normally put the urinary drainage bag on the resident's chest or abdomen during transfers; he/she really didn't know where else to put it during the transfer. 5. During interview on 12/6/18 at 3:47 P.M., the Director of Nursing said staff should clean the catheter tubing from the insertion site away from the resident. The urinary drainage bag should remain below the level of the bladder and all parts of the catheter bag, tubing or dignity bag should not touch the floor due to contamination. Staff should hold on to the catheter bag, below the level of the resident's bladder, during a mechanical lift transfer and should not place the urinary drainage bag on the resident's lap or chest. Staff should keep the urinary drainage bag covered in a dignity bag and should not hook the urinary drainage bag under the resident's legs on the foot rest of the chair as it could impede the flow of urine. Staff should not lay the urinary drainage bag in the bed and the catheter tubing shouldn't be coiled up under the resident's legs.
CONCERN (D)

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

Drug Regimen Review (Tag F0756)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to develop policies and procedures for monthly medication regimen reviews that included time frames for the different steps in the medication ...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to develop policies and procedures for monthly medication regimen reviews that included time frames for the different steps in the medication review process; and failed to ensure two residents (Residents #7 and #37), in a review of 14 sampled residents, received a gradual dose reduction (GDR), and/or a rationale from the physician as to why the GDR was not attempted after the pharmacist identified irregularities in the residents' medication regimen. The facility census was 53. 1. Review of the facility's policy and procedure regarding the use of antipsychotic medications, dated 11/17/17, showed the following: -Psychotropic medications will only be used under the direct supervision of that resident's physician or psychiatrist and only used as a last resort to provide the resident comfort from behavioral episodes. Psychotropic medications are medications that cause an altered state of being that specifically targets uncontrolled behavior that causes the resident discomfort. -Physician: The charge nurse or director of nursing services will keep the physician updated on the resident's condition if side effects or worsening of condition arises plus will update the physician on ordered labs that are required with psychotropic use if applicable; -Pharmacy Consultant: The pharmacy consultant will review each resident medical record to ensure that diagnosis for psychotropic is given on a routine or as needed (PRN) basis. The date the GDR was last attempted, or documentation by the physician that GDR is clinically contraindicated will be documented in the chart. (The facility's policy and procedure for the drug regimen reviews did not address the specific time frames for the different steps in the medication review process.) 2. Review of Resident #7's physician order sheet, dated December 2018, showed an order for fluoxetine HCL (anti-depressant) 10 milligrams (mg) every day for diagnosis of major depressive disorder. The medication was originally ordered on 11/15/16. Review of the resident's Consultant Pharmacist Communication to Physician form, dated 9/19/18, showed the following: -The pharmacist recommended an antidepressant GDR for the fluoxetine HCL 10 mg every day; -The form did not indicate the physician had reviewed the recommendation and there was no physician response to the recommendation. Review of the resident's medical record showed no evidence further drug regimen reviews had been completed to address the fluoxetine in the past year. Review of the resident's care plan, edited 12/5/18, showed the following: -Problem: At risk for side effects related to daily use of antidepressant medication for treatment of major depressive disorder; -Staff to administer fluoxetine 10 mg by mouth daily per physician's order to address depression; -Staff to monitor for changes in cognitive and functional status every shift; -Monitor for signs and symptoms of increase in depression every shift and document any that are noted; -Pharmacy consultant review per protocol. During interview on 12/12/18 at 1:55 P.M., the resident's physician's nurse said she was unable to find evidence a pharmacy recommendation for a gradual does reduction for the resident's fluoxetine HCL, dated 9/19/18, was received in their office. The facility faxes pharmacy recommendations to the physician, the physician addresses it and faxes it back to the facility. If the pharmacist recommended a gradual dose reduction, the facility faxed the recommendations to the physician's office. The recommendations come from the nursing home and not from the pharmacist. They did not usually talk to the pharmacist. 3. Review of Resident #37's Consultant Pharmacist Medication regimen review log showed the following: -On 7/17/18, note to physician was checked, alprazolam (antianxiety medication) and paroxetine (anti-depressant) GDR was written in by the pharmacist; -The form did not indicate the physician had reviewed the recommendation and there was no physician response to the recommendation. Review of the resident's medical record showed no evidence further drug regimen reviews had been completed to address the alprazolam and the paroxetine medications in the past year. Review of Resident #37's September 2018 POS showed the following: -Diagnoses included anxiety and depression; -Paroxetine 20 mg one tablet by mouth daily with original start date of 4/27/15; -Alprazolam 0.5 mg with an original order date of 5/22/15. Review of the resident's care plan, last revised on 10/31/18, showed the following: -The resident is at risk for side effects related to daily use of antianxiety and anti-depressant medication, diagnoses of depression and anxiety; -Administer alprazolam 0.5 mg by mouth three times a day; -Paroxetine 20 mg by mouth daily; -Monitor or side effects of alprazolam: dizziness, dry mouth, nausea/vomiting, fatigue; -Monitor for side effects of paroxetine: change in appetite, diarrhea, dizziness, headache, GI upset and fatigue; -Assess /record effectiveness of drug treatment; -Monitor and report any signs of sedation, hypotension, or anticholinergic symptoms, dizziness, confusion; -Monitor the residents' mood and response to medication; -Pharmacy consultant review per protocol. Review of the resident's medical record showed no evidence further drug regimen reviews had been completed to address the alprazolam and the paroxetine medications in the past year. 4. During interview on 12/6/18 at 3:49 P.M., the Director of Nursing said the infection control nurse, Registered Nurse (RN) A, was responsible for sending the medication regimen reviews to the residents' physicians to get their response. She expected to hear back from the physicians within five to seven days. She was not sure if all of the recommendations had been followed up. 5. During interview on 12/6/18 at 11:26 A.M. and 12/14/18 at 1:17 P.M., RN A said he/she became responsible for the medication regimen reviews/recommendations and GDRs for residents in October 2018. He/she only received the October recommendations in an unopened envelope from the DON and had not received the November pharmacy recommendations. For the October 2018 pharmacy recommendations, the physicians faxed their responses back within a few days. He/she was unable to locate any previous pharmacy recommendations requested. 6. During interview on 12/13/18 at 2:18 P.M., the pharmacist said when he reviews a resident's medical record at the facility, he signs the log sheet and mails any recommendations to the facility. He leaves a note of the visit and of any recommendations in the electronic medical record. The facility faxes the recommendations to the physician's office or may wait until the physician comes in to see the resident which may be up to 60 days. Since initiation of the new electronic medical record system, it is hard to determine if staff have reviewed the recommendations. The pharmacist doesn't always send out the recommendation immediately depending on the event. The actual recommendation was printed or mailed to the director of nursing. The pharmacist feels the physician should address the pharmacy recommendations within 30 days. 7. During interview on 12/18/18 at 11:10 A.M., the medical director's nurse said the physician was not aware there was any issues with follow-up to the pharmacist's recommendations and/or the GDRs being completed appropriately. The physician was unaware the facility was missing any of the pharmacist's recommendations or that recommendations had not been addressed. The physician would expect all recommendations and/or GDRs be addressed. The pharmacist sent the recommendations and GDR reports to the facility and the facility would forward the reports to the physician. The turn around time for the office was usually around 48 hours.
CONCERN (E)

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

ADL Care (Tag F0677)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure four residents (Residents #2, #23, #35, and #4...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure four residents (Residents #2, #23, #35, and #43), who were unable to perform their own activities of daily living, in a review of 14 sampled residents, received the necessary care and services to maintain good personal hygiene and prevent body odor. The facility census was 53. 1. Review of the facility's policy, Pericare for Residents using Wet Wipes and No Rinse Spray or Washcloth Soap and Water, dated 8/17/10, showed the following: -Personal care or peri-care is to be provided whenever the resident is: soiled; with morning care; with bedtime care; after toileting; with every check and change; and throughout the day and night as needed; -For female: Expose peri-area. Gently wash the inner legs and outer peri-area along the outside of the labia. Apply peri spray to wet wipe before cleansing or use soap and water; Wash the outer skin folds from front to back; Wash the inner labia from front to back; Gently open all skin folds and wash the inner area from front to back; Rinse the area well, starting with the inner most area and proceeding outward if using washcloth and soap; Wash and rinse the anal area if using soap and water. Rinsing is not required if using no rinse peri spray; Pat area dry; Assist resident to side lying position; Cleanse each buttock from front to back; Cleanse the rectum using front to back strokes; -For male: Expose perineal area. Using circular motion, gently wash the penis by lifting it and cleansing from tip downward using peri spray and wet wipe or soap and water. If resident is uncircumcised, retract (pull back) the foreskin, wash rinse, and dry; the pull the skin over the end of the penis; Cleanse the scrotum; Wash the anal area with soap and water or no rinse peri spray and wet wipe; Pat area dry; Assist to side lying position; Cleanse each buttock from front to back; Cleanse the rectum using front to back strokes; -NOTE: Use a clean portion of washcloth or wet wipe for each wipe of peri area. 2. Review of the facility's policy, Oral Hygiene, dated November 1994, showed all residents will receive care of the mouth and teeth every morning and night and as needed to maintain good oral hygiene. 3. Review of the Nurse Assistant in a Long Term Care Facility manual, revised November 2001, showed the following: -Give oral care before breakfast, after meals, and also at bedtime; -A clean mouth is very important to the physical and mental well-being of the resident. Oral care can prevent infections, the buildup of plaque, and bad breath. It can even influence the resident's appetite. Remember to observe the resident during oral care to identify potential problems. 4. Review of Resident #43's annual Minimum Data Set (MDS), a federally mandated assessment instrument required to be completed by facility staff, dated 11/9/18, showed the following: -Severely impaired cognition; -Required extensive assistance of two staff for toileting and personal hygiene; -Always incontinent of bowel and bladder. Review of the resident's care plan, dated 8/24/17 and last reviewed on 12/5/18, showed the following: -Keep peri-area clean and dry with routine toileting and pericare every shift; -Provide incontinence care after each incontinent episode. Observation on 12/4/18 at 11:01 A.M., showed the following: -Certified Nurse Assistant (CNA) E and CNA F entered the resident's room, -The resident lay in bed; -The resident was incontinent of bowel and bladder; -CNA F wiped the resident's front genitalia from the rectal area forward to the frontal genitalia one time; -CNA E rolled the resident to his/her right side in bed; -CNA F wiped up the resident's gluteal crease; -CNA F did not cleanse the resident's buttocks and groin areas which had been in contact with the soiled incontinence brief, and failed to cleanse the front genitalia from front to back. During interview on 12/6/18 at 8:06 A.M., CNA F said staff should cleanse any area that had been in contact with urine or feces. Staff should cleanse the front genitalia from front to back. 5. Review of Resident #2's quarterly MDS, dated [DATE], showed the resident required extensive assistance from one staff for personal hygiene. Review of the resident's care plan, edited 11/27/18, showed the following: -The resident had dentures but didn't usually wear them; -Staff was to provide limited assistance with grooming as the resident allowed. Observation on 12/5/18 at 6:52 A.M., showed CNA G and CNA H assisted the resident to the toilet, provided perineal care, washed the resident's face, and brushed the resident's hair. Further observation showed the resident was not wearing his/her dentures. His/her mouth appeared dry and crusty. Staff did not offer or provide oral or mouth care to the resident before taking the resident to the dining room for breakfast. During interview on 12/5/18 at 1:15 P.M., CNA G said he/she was in a hurry to get the resident to the dining room for breakfast and did not offer to provide oral or mouth care at that time. 6. Review of Resident #23's admission MDS, dated [DATE], showed the resident was totally dependent on staff for personal hygiene. Review of the resident's care plan, edited 11/13/18, showed the following: -Staff was to provide oral care every shift and as needed to promote oral hygiene. -Staff to provide total assistance of one staff to complete oral care. Observation on 12/5/18 at 7:20 A.M., showed CNA G and CNA H entered the resident's room to get the resident up for breakfast. The resident did not have his/her own teeth and was not wearing dentures. His/her mouth was dry and his/her lips were crusty. Staff provided personal cares, transferred the resident from the bed to the broda chair, and took the resident to the dining room. Staff did not provide oral or mouth care to the resident before taking the resident to the dining room for breakfast. During interview on 12/5/18 at 1:15 P.M., CNA G said he/she was in a hurry and forgot to provide oral or mouth care for the resident. He/she didn't think the resident had any teeth and would normally swab the mouth with mouthwash. He/she would usually do oral or mouth care after breakfast. 7. Review of Resident #35's quarterly MDS, dated [DATE], showed the resident required total care from two staff for personal hygiene. Review of the resident's care plan, dated 9/7/17 and last reviewed 12/5/18, showed no directions to staff on how or when to provide the resident with oral care. Observation on 12/5/18 at 6:09 A.M., showed CNA D and CNA E provided peri-care, dressed the resident, transferred the resident to his/her broda chair (reclining wheelchair), brushed the resident's hair, and took the resident to the dining room. Observation showed the resident had his/her own teeth. Staff did not offer or provide oral or mouth care to the resident before taking the resident to the dining room for breakfast. During interview on 12/5/18 at 9:52 A.M., CNA D said staff should offer oral care in the morning. He/she just forgot to provide oral care to the resident this morning. 8. During interview on 12/6/18 at 3:47 P.M., the Director of Nursing said staff should cleanse any area of the resident's skin that had been soiled with urine or feces. Staff should cleanse the groin areas, between the folds, buttocks and rectal area. Staff should wipe the resident's perineal area from front to back during incontinence care. Morning cares included brushing the resident's teeth or swabbing the resident's mouth if necessary.
CONCERN (E)

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

Deficiency F0804 (Tag F0804)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to follow the recipes in order to prepare food to conserve flavor for residents on pureed and mechanical soft diets. The facilit...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to follow the recipes in order to prepare food to conserve flavor for residents on pureed and mechanical soft diets. The facility census was 53. 1. Review of the facility's diet roster showed there were eight residents on a pureed diet. 2. Review of the recipe for pureed roast beef showed to add 1 teaspoon of beef base to 1 cup of water and gradually add to the roast beef while it was being pureed until the desired consistency was reached. Some items will require no liquid to be added in order to achieve the desired consistency. If the product needs thickening, gradually add a thickener to achieve a smooth, pudding or soft mashed potato consistency. Observation on 12/04/18 at 11:17 A.M. showed [NAME] J placed an unmeasured amount of chicken base and hot water in a container and mixed. [NAME] J placed meat and a portion of the chicken base broth into the food processor. He/she immediately added thickener before pureeing the mixture and determining if the mixture required thickener. He/she did not measure the roast beef, broth, or thickener. He/she then added more unmeasured chicken broth to the food processor. He/she did not consult nor follow a recipe for the puree. During interview on 12/04/18 at 11:20 A.M., [NAME] J said he/she makes the pureed food based off of how it looks, not by measuring. Observations on 12/04/18 at 12:25 P.M. during the test tray of the meal showed the pureed roast beef tasted very similar to water and was very bland. 2. Review of the facility's diet roster showed five residents were on a mechanical soft diet. Review of the recipe for mechanical soft roast beef directed staff to pulse grind in the food processor until the roast beef was the consistency of finely ground beef. Observations on 12/04/18 at 10:17 A.M. showed [NAME] J placed a large, unmeasured chunk of roast beef into the food processor and turned on the processor. He/she placed the resulting product in a pan and placed it on the stove. Observations on 12/04/18 at 11:17 A.M. showed [NAME] J placed an unmeasured amount of chicken base and hot water into a container and mixed. He/she added the liquid to the mechanical soft meat on the stove, and then placed the meat on the steam table. The roast beef had very large and stringy chunks in it and looked like shredded beef. Observations on 12/04/18 at 12:25 P.M. during the test tray of the meal showed the mechanical soft roast beef was watery, bland, and very chewy with large stringy chunks. The mechanical soft required more chewing than the sliced roast beef. 3. During interview on 12/05/18 at 01:37 P.M., the dietary supervisor said pureed and mechanical soft should still have good flavor. Residents should not have to chew mechanical soft in order to be able to swallow the food.
CONCERN (E)

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

Deficiency F0883 (Tag F0883)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview and record review, the facility failed ensure the policy for pneumococcal vaccinations was consistent with th...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview and record review, the facility failed ensure the policy for pneumococcal vaccinations was consistent with the current Centers for Disease Control (CDC) guidelines; failed to offer and vaccinate eligible residents with the pneumococcal vaccines as indicated by the current guidelines, unless the resident had previously received the vaccines, refused, or had a medical contraindication present; and failed to ensure the medical record included evidence education was provided to the resident or the resident's representative on the benefits and potential side effects of the pneumococcal vaccination for two residents (Residents #255 and #21), in a review of 14 sampled residents. The facility census was 53. 1. Review of the facility Pneumococcal Vaccine Policy, dated 3/2012, showed the following: -Upon admission to the facility, the resident will be assessed for eligibility to receive the pneumococcal vaccine, and when indicated, will be offered the vaccination within thirty days of admission to the facility unless medically contraindicated or the resident has already been vaccinated; -Assessment of the pneumococcal vaccination status will be conducted within five working days of the resident's admission if not conducted prior to admission; -Before receiving the pneumovax, the resident or legal representative shall receive information and education regarding the benefits and possible side effects of the pneumococcal vaccine; -Before giving the vaccine, the resident's physician will be contacted and facility will receive verbal, written, or faxed orders for the resident to receive the pneumovax; -Those orders will be processed on the resident medical record. Once the physician's orders and resident or resident's legal representative have signed and returned all required forms, the nurse will then give the pneumovax and monitor for side effects; -Residents and or representative have the right to refuse vaccination. If refused, appropriate entries will be documented in each resident's medical record indicating the date of the refusal of the pneumococcal vaccination. (Review showed the policy did not address the current CDC guidelines for administering the pneumococcal vaccine.) 2. Review of the US Department of Health and Human Services CDC Pneumococcal Vaccine Time for Adults, dated 11/30/15, showed the following: -Two pneumococcal vaccines were recommended for adults: 13-valent pneumococcal conjugate vaccine (PCV13, PREVNAR 13) and 23-valent pneumococcal polysaccharide vaccine (PPSV23, Pneumovax 23): -One dose of PCV13 was recommended for adults 65 years or older who had not previously received PCV13; -One dose of PPSV23 was recommended for adults 65 years or older, regardless of previous history of vaccination with pneumococcal vaccines. Once a dose of PPSV23 was given at age [AGE] years or older, no additional doses of PPSV23 should be administered; -For those age [AGE] years or older who had not received any pneumococcal vaccines, or those with unknown vaccination history, administer one dose of PCV13. Administer one dose of PPSV23 at least one year later for most adults or at least eight weeks later for adults with immunocompromising conditions; -For those age [AGE] years or older who previously received one dose of PPSV23 and no doses of PCV13, administer one dose of PCV13 at least one year after the dose of PPSV23 for all adults regardless of medical conditions. 3. Review of Resident #255's face sheet showed the resident was over age [AGE]. Review of the resident's Immunization Record showed the following: -Pneumococcal is usually only given once. A second dose required if the resident is less than [AGE] years old when they received the first dose and if five or more years since that dose; damaged or no spleen; sickle cell; HIV or AIDS; cancer; leukemia; lymphoma; multiple myeloma; kidney failure; nephrotic syndrome; organ or bone marrow transplant; or taking medication that lowers immunity (such as chemotherapy or long-term steroids); -Staff wrote 10/12 above the space for the pneumococcal vaccine, however, the spaces within the section (trade name, site, lot number, nurses initials) were left blank. Review showed no evidence the resident had received the vaccination at the facility or at another location. Review of the resident's medical record showed no evidence the resident or the resident's representative received current education about the PPSV23 and PCV13 pneumococcal vaccinations. Review of the resident's significant change Minimum Data Set (MDS), a federally mandated assessment instrument completed by the facility staff, dated 11/28/18 showed the resident's pneumococcal vaccine was up to date. During interview on 12/12/18 at 2:00 P.M. the resident's representative said he/she would want the resident to be up to date on his/her pneumonia vaccinations. He/she would want the resident to have whatever he/she could have to keep him/her healthy. The resident had a cough and was at risk for pneumonia due to recent fractures. He/she didn't recall going over pneumonia education at the facility. During interview on 12/12/18 at 1:21 P.M., Registered Nurse (RN) A, the infection control nurse, said he/she did not know what the date 10/12 was in reference to on the resident's immunization record. 4. Review of Resident #21's face sheet showed the resident was over age [AGE]. Review of the resident's immunization record showed the resident received the pneumonia vaccine on 10/4/05 in a physician's office. There was no evidence to show which pneumococcal vaccine the resident received, and no evidence a second vaccine had been offered to the resident. Review of the resident's medical record showed no evidence the resident or resident's representative received current education about the PPSV23 and PCV13 pneumococcal vaccinations. Review of the resident's significant change MDS, dated [DATE], showed the following: -Intact cognition; -Pneumococcal vaccine was up to date. During interview on 12/6/18 at 10: 50 A.M., the resident said he/she did not remember getting a pneumonia vaccine and had not been offered one at the facility. If his/her physician recommended he/she take an additional pneumonia vaccine, he/she would be agreeable. 5. During interview on 12/5/18 at 2:53 P.M., Registered Nurse (RN) A, the infection control nurse, said he/she was new at the facility as of September 2018. He/she had not received any training on the pneumonia vaccination program upon hire. Currently, the vaccine consents were not provided to the residents or their representatives upon admission. He/she needed to contact all the residents' physicians to obtain pneumonia vaccination history. He/she was unaware if the facility previously administered the pneumonia vaccine at the facility or if the residents received the vaccination at the physicians' office. 6. During interview on 12/6/18 at 3:49 P.M., the director of nursing said the facility was currently not administering the pneumococcal vaccine. The facility would have to contact each resident's physician to see if the resident had received the pneumonia vaccine in the past and what they had received. RN A was responsible for the immunization program which included the pneumococcal vaccine. She would expect the facility to follow the CDC guidelines for administering the pneumococcal vaccine. 7. During interview on 12/12/18 at 1:12 P.M., the medical director said he would expect staff to follow the CDC guidelines for administering the pneumococcal vaccine. The medical director was unaware there was any issue with the pneumonia vaccination program.
MINOR (C)

Minor Issue - procedural, no safety impact

Transfer Notice (Tag F0623)

Minor procedural issue · This affected most or all residents

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to provide a written notice of transfer to the resident and/or residen...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to provide a written notice of transfer to the resident and/or resident representative when two residents (Residents #21 and #255), in a review of 14 sampled residents, were transferred to the hospital. The facility also failed to notify the ombudsman (a resident advocate who provides support and assistance with problems and/or complaints regarding the facility) of the transfers. The facility census was 53. 1. Review of the facility's policy Resident Discharge, dated January 2014, showed the following: -Notify the family to inform of resident change in status and physicians orders; -Notification to all department supervisors, pharmacy, the hospital lab, and dietary of a resident's transfer and discharge to the hospital. The policy did not address notifying the state ombudsman office of the resident's transfer to the hospital. 2. Review of Resident #21's physician order sheet (POS) showed the facility transferred the resident to the emergency room on 9/14/18, and the resident was admitted to the hospital. Review of the resident's medical record showed no evidence the facility notified the resident, the resident's representative, or the ombudsman in writing of the resident's transfer to the hospital on 9/14/18. 3. Review of Resident #255's admission/discharge/transfer summary sheet showed the following: -On 11/5/18, the resident was transferred to the emergency room and admitted to the hospital; -On 11/9/18, the resident was readmitted to the facility. -On 11/16/18, the resident was transferred to the emergency room and admitted to the hospital on [DATE]. Review of the resident's medical record showed no evidence the facility notified the resident, the resident's representative, or ombudsman in writing of the resident's transfers to the hospital on [DATE] and 11/16/18. 4. During interview on 12/06/18 at 9:44 A.M., the social service director said nursing staff notifies the family when a resident is transferred to the hospital, but staff does not provide a written notice of the transfer to the resident or representative. During interview on 12/6/18 at 10:00 A.M., the administrator said he was unaware the facility was to notify the ombudsman when a resident was transferred to the hospital and then returned to the facility. He emailed the numbers, not names, to the ombudsman of residents discharged to home or to another facility but did not include residents transferred to the hospital. The facility did not provide residents and their representatives with a written notice upon transfer to the hospital.
MINOR (C)

Minor Issue - procedural, no safety impact

Deficiency F0625 (Tag F0625)

Minor procedural issue · This affected most or all residents

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to notify the resident or resident representative in writing of the be...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to notify the resident or resident representative in writing of the bed-hold policy upon transfer to the hospital for two residents (Residents #21 and #255), in a review of 14 sampled residents. The facility census was 53. 1. Review of the facility's Bed Hold Policy, revised 1/1/18, showed the following: -There will be a charge for each day a particular bed was being held. The bed hold may be requested due to hospitalization, vacations, absences or reservation prior to an admission; -The bed hold charge will be placed at the minimum rate of $160.00 per day for any reservation prior to admission; -The charge will be placed at the minimum rate of $160.00 per day for that bed due to an absence after admission; -The minimum rate of $160.00 per day is subject to change with any board approved rate increase. If there should happened to be an increase, you will receive notice of the rate increase 30 days prior to the effective date. 2. Review of Resident #21's physician order sheet (POS), showed the resident was transferred to the emergency room on 9/14/18, and was admitted to the hospital. Review of the resident's medical record showed no evidence the facility provided the resident or the resident's representative with written notice which specified the duration of the facility's bed-hold policy at the time of transfer on 9/14/18. 3. Review of Resident #255's admission/discharge/transfer summary sheet showed the following: -On 11/5/18, the resident was transferred to the emergency room and was admitted to the hospital; -On 11/16/18, the resident was transferred to the emergency room and was admitted to the hospital. Review of the resident's medical record showed no evidence the facility notified the resident or the resident's representative in writing of the bed hold policy upon transfers to the on hospital on [DATE] and 11/16/18. 4. During interview on 12/06/18 at 09:44 AM, the social service director (SSD) said the facility's admission packet included the bed-hold policy. If the facility was filled to a 97% capacity of residents, they would begin charging for a bed-hold. Otherwise, they were not charging residents for a bed-hold. The facility did not notify the resident or the resident's representative of the facility policy for bed-hold when a resident was transferred to the hospital. 5. During interview on 12/6/18 at 10:00 A.M., the administrator said the facility was not utilizing bed-holds and had not given a written notice of the bed-hold policy to the resident or the resident representative when a resident was transferred to the hospital.
Understanding Severity Codes (click to expand)
Life-Threatening (Immediate Jeopardy)
J - Isolated K - Pattern L - Widespread
Actual Harm
G - Isolated H - Pattern I - Widespread
Potential for Harm
D - Isolated E - Pattern F - Widespread
No Harm (Minor)
A - Isolated B - Pattern C - Widespread

Questions to Ask on Your Visit

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

Our Honest Assessment

Strengths
  • • No fines on record. Clean compliance history, better than most Missouri facilities.
Concerns
  • • Multiple safety concerns identified: 3 harm violation(s). Review inspection reports carefully.
  • • 27 deficiencies on record, including 3 serious (caused harm) violations. Ask about corrective actions taken.
  • • Grade F (25/100). Below average facility with significant concerns.
Bottom line: Trust Score of 25/100 indicates significant concerns. Thoroughly evaluate alternatives.

About This Facility

What is Luther Manor Retirement & Nursing Center's CMS Rating?

CMS assigns LUTHER MANOR RETIREMENT & NURSING CENTER an overall rating of 1 out of 5 stars, which is considered much below average nationally. Within Missouri, 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 Luther Manor Retirement & Nursing Center Staffed?

CMS rates LUTHER MANOR RETIREMENT & NURSING CENTER's staffing level at 1 out of 5 stars, which is much below average compared to other nursing homes.

What Have Inspectors Found at Luther Manor Retirement & Nursing Center?

State health inspectors documented 27 deficiencies at LUTHER MANOR RETIREMENT & NURSING CENTER during 2018 to 2025. These included: 3 that caused actual resident harm, 20 with potential for harm, and 4 minor or isolated issues. Deficiencies causing actual harm indicate documented cases where residents experienced negative health consequences.

Who Owns and Operates Luther Manor Retirement & Nursing Center?

LUTHER MANOR RETIREMENT & NURSING CENTER is owned by a non-profit organization. Non-profit facilities reinvest revenue into operations rather than distributing to shareholders. The facility operates independently rather than as part of a larger chain. With 64 certified beds and approximately 54 residents (about 84% occupancy), it is a smaller facility located in HANNIBAL, Missouri.

How Does Luther Manor Retirement & Nursing Center Compare to Other Missouri Nursing Homes?

Compared to the 100 nursing homes in Missouri, LUTHER MANOR RETIREMENT & NURSING CENTER's overall rating (1 stars) is below the state average of 2.5 and health inspection rating (2 stars) is below the national benchmark.

What Should Families Ask When Visiting Luther Manor Retirement & Nursing Center?

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

Is Luther Manor Retirement & Nursing Center Safe?

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

Do Nurses at Luther Manor Retirement & Nursing Center Stick Around?

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

Was Luther Manor Retirement & Nursing Center Ever Fined?

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

Is Luther Manor Retirement & Nursing Center on Any Federal Watch List?

LUTHER MANOR RETIREMENT & NURSING 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.