RIVERSIDE NURSING & REHABILITATION CENTER, LLC

4700 NW CLIFFVIEW DRIVE, RIVERSIDE, MO 64150 (816) 741-5105
For profit - Limited Liability company 180 Beds NORBERT BENNETT & DONALD DENZ Data: November 2025 1 Immediate Jeopardy citation
Trust Grade
0/100
Last Inspection: April 2025

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

Overview

Riverside Nursing & Rehabilitation Center has received a Trust Grade of F, indicating significant concerns about the quality of care provided. It ranks last in both Missouri and Platte County, meaning there are no other facilities in the area that perform worse. While the facility's trend is improving, having reduced issues from 30 in 2024 to 12 in 2025, the high staff turnover rate of 73% is alarming, significantly exceeding the state average. Additionally, the facility has incurred $145,591 in fines, which is concerning as it is higher than 86% of Missouri facilities, suggesting ongoing compliance issues. Specific incidents include failing to properly evaluate changes in residents' conditions, which put them at risk, and administering unnecessary medications that adversely affected a resident’s behavior. Overall, while there are some signs of improvement, serious weaknesses in care and staffing raise red flags for families considering this nursing home.

Trust Score
F
0/100
In Missouri
#112/223
Top 50%
Safety Record
High Risk
Review needed
Inspections
Getting Better
30 → 12 violations
Staff Stability
⚠ Watch
73% turnover. Very high, 25 points above average. Constant new faces learning your loved one's needs.
Penalties
✓ Good
$145,591 in fines. Lower than most Missouri facilities. Relatively clean record.
Skilled Nurses
⚠ Watch
Each resident gets only 6 minutes of Registered Nurse (RN) attention daily — below average for Missouri. Fewer RN minutes means fewer trained eyes watching for problems.
Violations
⚠ Watch
47 deficiencies on record. Higher than average. Multiple issues found across inspections.
☆☆☆☆☆
0.0
Overall Rating
☆☆☆☆☆
0.0
Staff Levels
☆☆☆☆☆
0.0
Care Quality
☆☆☆☆☆
0.0
Inspection Score
Stable
2024: 30 issues
2025: 12 issues

The Good

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

Facility shows strength in fire safety.

The Bad

Staff Turnover: 73%

27pts above Missouri avg (46%)

Frequent staff changes - ask about care continuity

Federal Fines: $145,591

Well above median ($33,413)

Significant penalties indicating serious issues

Chain: NORBERT BENNETT & DONALD DENZ

Part of a multi-facility chain

Ask about local staffing decisions and management

Staff turnover is very high (73%)

25 points above Missouri average of 48%

The Ugly 47 deficiencies on record

1 life-threatening 1 actual harm
Apr 2025 12 deficiencies
CONCERN (D)

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

Resident Rights (Tag F0550)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure staff treated residents in a manner to maintai...

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 staff treated residents in a manner to maintain their dignity when staff failed to knock on a resident's door and wait for a response before entering which affected four of 23 sampled residents, (Resident #1, #30, #104, and #165) and additionally when staff opened Resident #1's door exposing the resident's bare skin from the waist down, in view of the hallway. The facility also failed to shower one resident (Resident #32) per his/her preference. The facility census was 112. Review of the facility's policy titled, Resident [NAME] of Rights, revised 1/23, showed: - Each resident has a right to a dignified existence, self-determination, and communication with and access to persons and services inside and outside the facility in a manner and in an environment that promotes maintenance or enhancement of his/her quality of life, regardless of diagnosis, severity of condition or payment source and to exercise those rights as a citizen of the United States, without interference or coercion. -Receive services in the facility with reasonable accommodation of resident needs and preferences; -Self-determination, which the facility must provide and facilitate through support of resident choice, assessments, and plan of care and make other choices about aspects of his or her life that are significant to the resident, including: activities, health care schedules (including sleeping, waking, bathing, and eating times). Review of facility policy, Resident [NAME] of Rights, dated January 2023, showed: -Resident had a right to a dignified existence. Review of facility policy, A.M. Care, dated October 2009, showed: -A.M. care will be provided to residents daily. -Provide and assist with shaving (male and female) as needed. 1. Review of the resident's Quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS), a federally mandated assessment instrument completed by facility staff, dated 4/2/25, showed: - Cognitive skills intact; - Upper and lower extremities impaired on both sides; - Dependent on the assistance of staff for eating, oral care, toilet use, dressing, personal hygiene and transfers; - Had a supra pubic catheter ( a catheter surgically inserted through the wall of the abdomen; - Always incontinent of fecal material; - Diagnoses included neurogenic bladder ( a dysfunction that results from interference with the normal nerve pathways associated with urination), anxiety, depression and MS. Review of Resident' #1's care plan, revised 11/18/24 showed: - The resident has an activities of daily living (ADL) self-care performance deficit related to Multiple Sclerosis (MS, a chronic, autoimmune disease that affects the central nervous system (brain and spinal cord), depression, muscle weakness, and anxiety; - The resident is totally dependent on one staff for repositioning and turning in bed; - The resident has contractures of the hands and feet; - The resident required physical assistance of one staff for dressing, personal hygiene and oral care; - Required the use of a mechanical lift and the assistance of two staff for transfers. Observation on 4/8/25 at 10:20 A.M., showed: - The resident's door was open; - Certified Nurse Aide (CNA) I and CNA J entered the resident's room without knocking or announcing themselves; - CNA I and CNA J were providing incontinent and catheter care when Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) A opened the resident's door to talk and the resident's incontinent brief and lower extremities were exposed to the opened doorway; - Staff Development knocked on the door and opened it while the resident was turned on his/her side with his/her bare buttocks and lower extremities exposed to the opened doorway. During an interview on 4/7/25 at 1:32 P.M., Resident #1 said: - Staff open his/her door without knocking and the resident has to remind the staff to close his/her door; - The resident felt like staff were disrespectful and he/she did not like it. 2. Review of Resident #165's admission MDS, dated [DATE] showed; - Cognitive skills intact; - Independent with toilet use, dressing, personal hygiene and transfers; - Diagnoses included anxiety, arthritis, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. Review of the resident's care plan, revised 4/2/25, showed: - The resident had an ADL self-care performance deficit related to impaired balance and weakness; - The resident is independent with toilet use and transfers. Assist as needed with toileting and transfers. Observation on 4/9/25 at 12:24 P.M., showed: - CNA J lightly knocked and opened the resident's door and did not announce him/herself; - The resident said, Why don't you knock louder and say who you are?. During an interview on 4/10/25 at 11:50 A.M., the resident said he/she would like for the staff to knock on his/her door and say who they are before they open the door. 3. Review of the resident's admission MDS, dated [DATE] showed: - Cognitive skills intact; - Independent with toilet use, personal hygiene and transfers; - Diagnoses included anxiety and depression. Review of Resident #104's care plan, revised 3/21/25 showed; - The resident had an ADL self-care performance deficit related to disease process; - The resident is able to turn and reposition independently; During an interview on 4/7/25 at 11:21 A.M., the resident said; - The staff do not always knock on his/her door and announce themselves; - He/She would prefer for the staff to knock first because it made him/her feel uncomfortable when the staff just walk in to his/her room unannounced. 4. During an interview on 4/10/25 at 11:35 A.M., LPN A said: - Staff should knock and announce themselves before they enter into a resident's room; - The resident's door should not be left opened when the resident's skin is exposed; - The staff should ensure the privacy curtain is pulled to maintain the residents privacy. During an interview on 4/10/25 at 12:06 P.M., CNA J said: - Staff should always knock and announce themselves before opening the resident's door; - He/she made a mistake when he/she did not knock loud enough and announce him/herself to the resident; - Staff should try and pull the privacy curtain and not open the resident's door when the resident's bare skin is exposed. During an interview on 4/15/25 at 1:08 P.M., Staff Development said: - Staff should knock and announce themselves before they open the resident's door; - The resident's privacy curtain should be pulled so the resident is not exposed if the door is opened. During an interview on 4/15/25 at 1:12 P.M., CNA I said: - Staff should knock on the resident's door and announce themselves before they enter. - The privacy curtain should be pulled so if staff open the door, the resident is not exposed. 6. Review of Resident #25's Quarterly MDS, dated [DATE], showed: -Cognition severely impaired; -She displayed no behaviors related to rejection of care; -She required supervision and one person assist with bathing, personal hygiene, dressing, and toileting, and toilet and shower transfers; -She was independent with most mobility; -Diagnoses included: heart failure, chronic kidney disease, high blood pressure, and dementia. Review of care plan, revised 12/10/24, showed: -She had an ADL self-care performance deficit due to dementia, chronic heart disease and heart failure -Bathing and Showering: The resident required physical assist by one staff with showering on Monday,Thursday, and as necessary; -Personal Hygiene: The resident required physical assist by one staff with personal hygiene and oral care. Observation on 4/7/25 at 8:19 A.M. showed resident scratching at her chin hair. Resident was told by peer at dining table why didn't she take a razor to that. During an interview on 4/7/25 at 8:23 A.M. resident said the chin hair bothered her because she is not man. Observation on 4/7/25 at 11:40 A.M. showed resident continued to grab and pull at her chin hairs. Observation on 4/08/25 at 7:35 A.M. showed resident kept touching her chin hair. Observation on 4/8/25 at 8:17 A.M. showed Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) C telling the resident in the dining room that he/she had take care of the resident's chin hairs today. LPN C was pointing and touching resident's facial hair on her chin. Review of April shower log book, located at the nurses station showed: -The Resident was scheduled to receive showers on Monday and Thursday; -The Resident received two of three scheduled showers during April on 4/1, 4/3, and Refused on 4/7 Review of shower sheets, dated 2/1/25-4/7/25, showed: -During the month of February, she received seven of eight scheduled showers on 2/10, 2/12, 2/17, 2/20, 2/23, 2/24, and 2/27 -During the month of March, she received five of nine scheduled showers on 3/1, 3/3, 3/13, 3/20, and 3/24; -During the month of April, she received shower on 4/3/25 During an interview on 4/9/25 at 11:15 A.M., Certified Nurse Aide (CNA) H said: -the resident liked to be shaved; -she preferred to have a close shave of the chin; -the resident had to be in the mood to be shaved and at times had to be re-approached at a later time; -the resident would pick at her chin if the chin hair was bothering her. During an interview on 4/9/25 at 1:45 P.M., Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) C said: -He/She had shaved resident on 4/4/25; -He/She noted resident was picking her chin hair out; -He/She had observed the residents long chin hairs yesterday; -He/She ensured the resident was shaved when showered; -He/She received a shower and was shaved on 4/9/25. 7. Review of Resident #32's Quarterly MDS, dated [DATE], showed: -Resident is cognitively intact; -Resident requires assistance with showering; -Diagnoses include: heart disease, anemia, kidney failure, diabetes, stroke, traumatic brain injury, asthma, anxiety, and depression. Review of the resident's January, 2025 shower record showed: -Shower was given on 1/15/2025. Review of the resident's February, 2025 shower record showed: -Shower was given on 2/5/2025; -Shower was given on 2/6/2025; -Shower was given on 2/25/2025. Review of the resident's March, 2025 shower record showed: -Shower was given on 3/4/2025; -Shower was given on 3/11/2025; -Shower was given on 3/16/2025; -Shower was given on 3/17/2025; -Shower was given on 3/26/2025. During an interview on 4/07/2025 at 11:10 A.M., the resident said: -He/She was only given a choice to pick two shower days; -He/She would like at least three showers each week; -He/She was not viewed as someone who can make decisions for himself/ herself. During an interview on 4/09/25 at 2:07 P.M., CNA C said residents should be provided with two showers each week, unless the resident asks for more. During an interview on 4/10/25 at 11:10 A.M., LPN D said residents should receive two showers each week or whenever they ask for more. During an interview on 4/10/2025 at 4:15 P.M., the [NAME] President of Operations said he/she expects the number of showers residents get each week to be based on their preferences. 5. Review of Resident #32's Quarterly MDS, dated [DATE], showed: -Resident is cognitively intact; -Diagnoses include: heart disease, diabetes, stroke, traumatic brain injury, anxiety, and depression. During an interview on 4/07/2025 at 11:13 A.M., the resident said: -The nurse walked in the room, unannounced, this morning at 5:30 A.M.; -The nurse did not knock, wait for a response, or introduce themselves; -He/She would prefer staff to knock and wait for a response before entering the room; -He/She feels like they don't count and are treated like second class citizens when staff enters his/her room without knocking or waiting for an invitation to come in. Observation on 4/10/2025 at 10:43 A.M. showed: -CNA B walked into resident #32's room without knocking; -CNA B did not announce him/herself before entering the resident's room. During an interview on 4/10/2025 at 10:53 A.M., CNA B said: -Staff should knock before entering a resident's room, introduce themselves, and let the resident know what they are they for. -Staff should wait for the resident to give permission to enter into the residents room. During an interview on 4/10/2025 at 11:10 A.M., LPN D said staff should knock, announce themselves, and wait for the resident to say it is okay before entering a resident's room. During an interview on 4/10/25 at 4:15 P.M., the [NAME] President of Operations said: - Staff should knock and announce themselves before they enter the resident's room; - The privacy curtain should be pulled so the resident is not exposed when the door is opened.
CONCERN (D)

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

Comprehensive Assessments (Tag F0636)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure accurate and timely update of assessments when...

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 accurate and timely update of assessments when one resident's (Resident #48) change in functional abilities and use of a wheelchair, was not updated with a significant change and when one resident (Resident #86) had a change in cognitive status from cognition intact to cognition severely impaired on the Minimum Data Set (MDS) ( a federally mandated assessment completed by facility staff). This occurred for two of twenty-three sampled residents (Resident #48 and #86). The facility census was 112. The facility did not provide a policy regarding updating the MDS when residents have a change of condition. 1. Review of Resident #48's, Significant change MDS, dated [DATE], showed: -Cognition severely impaired. -Hospice care added, which was not on prior MDS; -He/She was dependent on a walker; -He/She required set up or clean up assistance with eating only; -He/She required partial to moderate assistance with toileting, bathing, dressing, and personal hygiene; -He/She was independent with mobility. Review of Resident #48's, quarterly MDS, dated [DATE], showed: -Cognition severely impaired; -He/She was not on hospice; -He/She was dependent on a walker; -He/She was independent with eating; -He/She required partial to moderate assistance with toileting, bathing, dressing, and personal hygiene; -He/She was independent with mobility; Review of care plan, dated 3/18/25, showed: -He/She was admitted to hospice; -Bed mobility: Resident was independent with bed mobility; -Eating: The resident was able to eat independently. Observation on 4/07/25 at 9:12 A.M. showed resident was wheeled to dining room in a wheelchair. Resident had steri strips (thin adhesive strips used to close wounds) on the right side of forehead. During an interview on 4/7/25 at 9:12 A.M. the resident said he/she fell and hit his/her head. Observation on 4/8/25 at 8:52 A.M. showed resident was wheeled into the dining room in a wheelchair. The Resident was then served his/her breakfast tray. Staff sat next to the resident and fed the resident. Observation on 4/9/25 at 10:21 A.M. showed the resident sitting in dining room in the wheelchair falling asleep at table. Observation on 4/9/25 at 11:39 A.M. showed the resident in dining room sitting in the wheelchair leaning over the side of the chair. Observation on 4/9/25 at 12:58 P.M. showed resident being fed meal by facility staff. Review of 24 hour nursing reports at the nurses' station showed: -3/18/25 - Resident was admitted to hospice; -3/19/25 - Resident was admitted to hospice; -4/9/25 -Resident fell with laceration to his/her head. Review of progress notes, dated 1/1/25-4/8/25 showed: -On 1/3/2025 at 8:42 P.M., Resident very restless and anxious, attempting to stand up alone, generalized weakness, no safety awareness, wheelchair used for mobility. -On 1/4/25 at 2:19 P.M., Resident was found lying on the floor on back. Resident was sitting in a wooden chair and attempted to self-transfer to his/her wheelchair with the brakes unlocked. -On 1/7/25 at 1:18 P.M., wheelchair for mobility and assisted by staff with cares; -On 1/10/25 at 7:46 P.M., Resident assisted with cares and feeding; -On 1/13/25 at 1:11 P.M., Resident when awake self propelling; -On 1/14/25 at 11:30 A.M., Resident was sitting in wheelchair in dining room when he/she reached for another resident and fell out of the wheelchair; -On 1/15/25 at 1:24 P.M., Resident continuing to try and stand up out of the wheelchair; -On 1/15/25 at 8:50 P.M., Resident made several attempts to get up out of the wheelchair without assistance or bending down fidgeting with footwear. Mechanical soft diet with poor intake and refused staff assistance with meal intake; -On 1/19/25 at 4:20 A.M., Resident assisted for meal intake and cares; -On 3/31/25 at 11:31 A.M., Received verbal order from nurse practitioner to downgrade diet to mechanical soft texture thin liquids with a non-spill cup due to aspiration risk related to current diet. -On 4/1/25 at 10:44 A.M., Resident is now requiring feeding assistance and is not able to pick up silverware. Reclining wheelchair would arrive later today or tomorrow for resident; -On 4/2/25 at 6:43 A.M., Residents diet changed to puree with NTL (a type of diet for individuals with swallowing difficulties meanings pureed or smoothed food with no coarse texture, accompanied by thickened liquids); -On 4/2/25 at 9:25 A.M., Resident is assist of one staff with all his/her cares. During an interview on 4/7/25 at 7:40 A.M., Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) C said: -Resident was now on hospice; -He/She had a change in condition after falls occurred. During an interview on 4/9/25 at 11:53 A.M., LPN C said: -Resident was declining; -He/She went from a mechanical soft diet to thin liquids and was now on a puree diet. During an interview on 4/10/25 at 12:45 P.M., LPN C said: -Resident could stand and pivot; -Resident did not ambulate down the halls or use a walker; During an interview on 4/10/25, Certified Nurse Aide (CNA) L said: -Resident had not walked on his/her own. -Resident had always been in a wheelchair. During an interview on 4/10/25 at 1:14 P.M., the MDS Coordinator said: -The MDS should be updated with any significant change in resident's condition; -MDS should be updated when resident went on hospice; -He/She would have expected the resident's functional abilities and goals section to also be updated with resident's significant change of condition; -He/She did not know resident was using a wheelchair and now required feeding assistance; -He/She would have expected the MDS to reflect resident's current ADL ability status and to have been updated. During an interview on 4/10/25 at 4:15 P.M., [NAME] President of Operations said: -He/She expected changes in functional abilities such as eating assistance, mobility, use of a wheelchair to be included in a significant change and update on the MDS; -He/She expected MDS to be completed quarterly and with significant changes to a resident's condition. 2. Review of Resident #86's Quarterly MDS, dated [DATE], showed: -Brief Interview of Mental Status (BIMS) of 12 indicated moderate cognitive loss; -Diagnoses included: heart failure, stroke, dementia, and depression. Review of resident's PPS (prospective payment system) Five Day Scheduled Assessment, dated 3/9/2025, showed: -Brief Interview of Mental Status (BIMS) of 3 indicated severe cognitive loss. Review of Resident's electronic and paper medical records showed: -No quarterly MDS assessment was done in March 2025; -No significant change MDS assessment was completed when resident's cognitive abilities declined. During an interview on 4/10/2025 at 10:53 A.M., CNA B said the resident did not talk or respond to questions. During an interview on 4/10/2025 at 11:22 A.M., CNA D said: -The resident used to go outside to smoke, wheel around independently, and was independent with dressing and toiling; -He/She noticed a decline in the resident's physical and cognitive abilities more than six months ago; -The resident was not able to make decisions. During an interview on 4/10/2025 11:10 A.M., LPN D said the Resident was alert and oriented times two (a person is aware and knows who they are and where they are, but may not know the time or what is happening to them). During an interview on 4/10/2025 at 1:51 P.M., the MDS Coordinator said: -He/She expects the social services director to complete a questionnaire to determine a resident's BIMS score; -A decline in a resident's cognition and ability to carry out ADLs constitutes a need for a significant change MDS assessment; -He/She was not aware of a significant change in the resident's cognitive abilities; -He/She expects staff to fill out Stop and Watch forms to be filled out when a resident has a change of condition; -Staff are educated on the process to fill out the Stop and Watch forms during new employee training and during staff meetings; -He/She expects a resident's change in cognition to be reported to the unit coordinator, who updates the DON and brings the issue to the IDT (interdisciplinary team) meeting; -Resident #86's condition had not been discussed for a long time.
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0657 (Tag F0657)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** 2. Review of Resident #48's, Significant change MDS, dated [DATE], showed: -Cognition severely impaired. -He/She was dependent o...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** 2. Review of Resident #48's, Significant change MDS, dated [DATE], showed: -Cognition severely impaired. -He/She was dependent on a walker; -He/She required set up or clean up assistance with eating only; -He/She required partial to moderate assistance with toileting, bathing, dressing, and personal hygiene; -He/She was independent with mobility. Review of care plan, dated 3/18/25, showed: -Bed mobility: Resident was independent with bed mobility; -Eating: The resident was able to eat independently; -Transfer: The resident was able to transfer independently; -Resident was an elopement risk/wanderer due to dementia; -Care plan did not show resident was dependent on a wheelchair, no longer ambulatory, and required assistance with feeding at meals. Observation on 4/07/25 at 9:12 A.M. showed resident was wheeled to dining room in a wheelchair. During an interview on 4/7/25 at 9:12 A.M. resident said he/she fell and hit his/her head. Observation on 4/8/25 at 8:52 A.M. showed resident was wheeled into the dining room in a wheelchair. Resident then was served his/her breakfast tray. Staff sat next to resident to assist to feed resident. Observation on 4/9/25 at 10:21 A.M. showed resident sitting in dining room in the wheelchair falling asleep at table. Observation on 4/9/25 at 11:39 A.M. showed resident in dining room sitting in the wheelchair leaning over the side of the chair. Observation on 4/9/25 at 12:58 P.M. showed resident being fed meal by facility staff. Review of progress notes, dated 1/1/25-4/8/25 showed: -On 1/3/2025 at 8:42 P.M., Resident very restless and anxious, constantly attempting to stand up, generalized weakness, no safety awareness, wheelchair used for mobility. -On 1/4/25 at 2:19 P.M., Resident was found lying on floor in his/her back. Resident was sitting in a wooden chair and attempted to self-transfer to his/her wheelchair with the brakes unlocked. -On 1/4/25 at 5:00 P.M., Resident using wheelchair and self propelling on unit. -On 1/7/25 at 1:18 P.M., wheelchair for mobility and assisted by staff with cares; -On 1/10/25 at 7:46 P.M., Resident assisted with cares and feeding; -On 1/13/25 at 1:11 P.M., Resident when awake self propelling; -On 1/13/25 at 4:17 P.M., Residents diet order changed per dietary recommendation and medical doctor approval; -On 1/14/25 at 11:30 A.M., Resident was sitting in wheelchair in dining room when he/she reached for another resident and fell out of the wheelchair; -On 1/15/25 at 1:24 P.M., Resident continuing to try and stand up out of the wheelchair; -On 1/15/25 at 8:50 P.M., Resident made several attempts to get up out of the wheelchair without assistance or bending down fidgeting with footwear. Mechanical soft diet with poor intake and refused staff assistance with meal intake; -On 1/17/25 at 11:09 P.M., Resident attempted to get up from wheelchair a couple of times but was easily redirected. He/She was assisted for meal intake and care; -On 1/19/25 at 4:20 A.M., Resident assisted for meal intake and cares; -On 3/31/25 at 11:31 A.M., Received verbal order from nurse practitioner to downgrade diet to mechanical soft texture thin liquids with sippy cup due to aspiration risk related to current diet. Speech therapy to evaluate during next visit; -On 4/1/25 at 10:44 A.M., Resident is now a feeder and is not able to pick up silverware. Reclining wheelchair would arrive later today or tomorrow for resident; -On 4/2/25 at 6:43 A.M., Residents diet changed to puree with NTL (a type of diet for individuals with swallowing difficulties meanings pureed or smoothed food with no coarse texture, accompanied by thickened liquids); -On 4/2/25 at 9:25 A.M, Resident is assist of one staff with all his/her cares. During an interview on 4/09/25 at 11:53 A.M., LPN C said: -The resident was declining; -The resident diet changed from mechanical soft diet to a thin liquid diet and now a puree diet. During an interview on 4/10/25 at 12:45 P.M., LPN C said: -The resident could stand and pivot; -The resident did not ambulate down the halls or use a walker. During an interview on 4/10/25, Certified Nurse Aide (CNA) L said: -The resident had not walked on his/her own since he/she started working in facility; -The resident had always been in a wheelchair. During an interview on 4/10/25 at 1:14 P.M., MDS Coordinator said: -The MDS should be updated with any significant change in resident's condition; -MDS should be updated when resident went on hospice; -He/She would have expected the resident's functional abilities and goals section to also be updated with resident's significant change of condition; -He/She did not know resident was using a wheelchair and required feeding assistance; -He/She would have expected the MDS to reflect resident's current ability status and to have been updated. 3. Review of Resident #25's Quarterly MDS, dated [DATE], showed: -Cognition severely impaired; -He/She displayed no behaviors related to rejection of care; -He/She required supervision or touching assisting with personal hygiene -Diagnoses included: dementia, pain, and reactions to severe stress. Review of care plan, revised 12/13/24, showed: -Personal hygiene: The resident required physical assistance by one staff with personal hygiene and oral care; -Shaving preferences were not care planned. Observation on 4/7/25 at 8:19 A.M. showed the resident scratching at his/her chin hair. The Resident was told by a peer at the dining table that he/she should take a razor to that. During an interview on 4/7/25 at 8:23 A.M. the resident said the chin hair bothered him/her and he/she preferred to not have chin hairs. Observation on 4/7/25 at 11:40 A.M. showed the resident continued to grab and pull at his/her chin hairs. Observation on 4/08/25 at 7:35 A.M. showed the resident kept touching his/her chin hair. During an interview on 4/9/25 at 11:15 A.M., Certified Nurse Aide (CNA) H said: -The resident liked to be shaved; -The resident preferred to have a close shave of the chin; -The resident had to be in the mood to be shaved and at times had to be re-approached at a later time; -The resident would pick at his/her chin if chin hair was bothering him/her. During an interview on 4/10/25 at 1:53 P.M., the MDS Coordinator said: -He/She expected care plans to be updated with resident's current mobility, eating assistance support levels, and their use of a wheelchair; -He/She expected behaviors to have care planned interventions for staff to implement and redirect those behaviors; -He/She expected new fall interventions to be put in place in the he care plan after a fall had occurred for a resident; -He/She expected shaving preferences to be care planned; -The activity director was responsible for the care plan section on activities. During an interview on 4/10/25 at 2:02 P.M., the Activity Director said he/she expected care plans to be personalized to residents interests in regards to activity preferences and likes and dislikes. During an interview on 4/10/25 at 4:15 P.M., the [NAME] President of Operations said: -He/She expected resident's current mobility, eating assistance, and use of a wheelchair to be reflected in the resident's care plan. -He/She expected care plans to include behavioral interventions for staff on how to redirect resident behaviors; -He/She expected new interventions to be added to the care plan after a resident experienced a fall; -He/She expected care plans to be personalized to residents likes and dislikes and include their past preferred activities; -He/She expected care plans to be person centered. Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure staff developed and updated a care plan consistent with resident's specific conditions and needs (Resident #74), resident's shaving preferences (Resident #25), and resident's change in mobility status and need for feeding assistance (Resident #48) which affected three (Resident #74, #25, and #48) of 23 sampled residents. The facility census was 112. Review of facility policy, comprehensive person-centered care plans, dated 1/2025, showed: -Each resident would have a person-centered plan of care to identify problems, needs, strengths, preferences, and goals that would identify how the interdisciplinary team would provide care. -Care plan could be revised at quarterly intervals in conjunction with the completion of MDS quarterly, significant change, and annual assessments per the RAI manual; -The Interdisciplinary team along with resident and or resident's representative will identify resident problems, needs, strengths, life history, preferences, and goals; -For each problem, need or strength a resident-- centered goal is developed. Goals should be measurable; -Upon a change in condition, the comprehensive person-centered care plan or baseline care plan would be updated. 1. Review of Resident #74's Annual Minimum Data Set (MDS), a federally mandated assessment completed by staff, dated 3/2/25, showed: - Resident has moderate cognitive impairment; - Dependent on staff for toileting hygiene, bathing, dressing, personal hygiene, mobility, and all transfers; - Diagnoses: Renal insufficiency (kidney impairment), obstructive uropathy (urine flow is blocked in the urinary tract), septicemia (infection in the bloodstream), arthritis, and schizophrenia. Review of the resident's care plan, revised 3/19/25, showed: - Resident has an ADL self-care performance deficit due to morbid obesity, spinal stenosis, gout, movement disorder and abnormalities of gait and mobility; - Resident requires assistance by two staff with a Hoyer lift for transfers and requires two staff for repositioning; - Resident had chronic pain; - No goals or interventions pertaining to air mattress for the resident. Review of the physician order dated 1/9/25, showed an order for an air mattress to be checked every shift by staff. Review of the resident's Treatment Administration Record (TAR), dated 4/1-4/30/25, showed no requirements listed for nursing staff to check the operation of an air mattress installed in the resident's room. Review of the resident's Medication Administration Record (MAR), dated 4/1-4/30/25, showed: - No requirements listed for nursing staff to check the operation of an air mattress installed in the resident's room. During an observation on 4/7/25 at 1:05 P.M., showed an air mattress installed for the resident with an electronic control board at the foot of the bed for monitoring and adjusting air pressure; During an interview on 4/7/25 at 1:14 P.M., resident said he/she did not remember ever seeing staff check his/her air mattress. If it were to deflate they would know it because it would cause them pain though that has not happened to the resident since they were admitted . During an interview on 4/10/25 at 11:07 A.M., LPN B said nurses do the resident air mattress checks for flow rate and inflation and then log it into the MAR or TAR electronically. This should be accomplished according to the orders put in place by the physician. Currently there are no requirements in the MAR or TAR to do checks for the resident. He/she would expect checks to be in place for a resident that has an order for an air mattress.
CONCERN (D)

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

Accident Prevention (Tag F0689)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility staff failed to ensure residents remained free from accident ha...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility staff failed to ensure residents remained free from accident hazards when staff pushed residents in their wheelchairs without foot pedals in place for three residents (Resident #29, #83, and #79) of the 23 samples residents. The facility census was 112. Review of the facility policy, Resident [NAME] of Rights, dated January 2023, showed the facility shall provide a safe environment. Facility did not provide a policy on regarding accident prevention. Review of facility policy, Accident and incident documentation and investigation, dated July 2018, showed: -Accidents and/or incidents involving resident care will be investigated and documented on there resident incident report entry form in the long term care system. An incident is defined as an occurrence which is not consistent with routine operation of the facility or the routine care of a particular resident. Accidents and incidents will be analyzed for trends or patterns to enable the facility to enhance preventative measures to reduce the occurrence of incidents. 1. Review of Resident #29's Quarterly minimum data set (MDS), a federally mandated assessment tool completed by facility staff, dated 1/11/25, showed: -Cognition severely impaired; -He/She had no impairment to upper or lower extremity range of motion; -He/She was dependent on a wheelchair; -He/She was dependent for all mobility; -Diagnoses included: dementia and Alzheimer's disease. Review of care plan, revised 3/20/25, showed: -Bed mobility: The resident is independent with bed mobility; -Transfers: The resident required physical assist of 2 staff to move between surfaces. Observation on 4/7/25 at 8:16 A.M., showed Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) C pushed the resident out of the dining room to his/her room without foot pedals on the wheelchair. Observation on 4/07/25 at 12:45 P.M., showed the resident without foot pedals on his/her wheelchair and was pushed out of the dining room by LPN C to complete his/her blood sugar. Observation on 4/10/25 at 12:58 P.M., showed the resident did not have leg rests on his/her wheelchair. 2. Review of Resident #83's 5-day MDS assessment , dated 1/29/25, showed: -Cognition severely impaired; -He/She used a wheelchair and was dependent for mobility for 50-150 feet; -He/She had history of fall, had a fall prior to admission, and in last 2-6 months; -He/She had a fracture related to a fall; -He/She had surgery in last 100 days; -Diagnoses included fracture of neck of right femur, dementia, and edema. Review of care plan, revised 2/10/25, showed: -Bed mobility: Resident was independent with bed mobility; -Transfers: Resident was able to transfer independently with roller walker; -Resident to be assisted to wheelchair upon awakening in the morning; -Ensure the resident is wearing appropriate footwear non-skid socks when mobilizing in wheelchair. Observation on 4/8/25 at 8:47 A.M., showed the resident was pushed into the dining room without foot pedals on his/her wheelchair. Observation on 4/10/25 at 12:58 P.M., showed the resident was pushed into the dining room and did not have foot pedals on the wheelchair. During an interview on 4/9/25 at 11:15 A.M., CNA H said the resident would not allow him/her to put foot pedals on his/her wheelchair. 3. Review of Resident #79's Annual MDS, dated [DATE], showed: - Resident was cognitively intact; - Resident uses a wheelchair for mobility; - Resident was independent for self-care activities of daily living; - Resident was independent for mobility and transfers and requires supervision for shower transfers; - Resident was independent for wheelchair mobility for at least 150 feet; - Diagnosis: atrial fibrillation (heart rhythm disorder), diabetes, hip fracture, and Parkinson's disease. Review of the care plan, revised 11/12/24, showed: - Resident requires physical assist by one staff with showering; - Resident is to wear appropriate footwear shoes or non-skid socks when ambulating or mobilizing in wheelchair; Observation on 4/9/25 at 11:05 A.M., showed CNA A pushed the resident's wheelchair to the shower room without foot pedals in place. The resident was observed raising his/her feet up off the ground while being pushed down the hall. At 11:25 A.M., the resident returned from the shower room being pushed again by CNA A to their room without foot pedals in place. Observation on 4/9/25 at 12:25 A.M., showed CNA K pushed a resident (unidentified) in a wheelchair through wings F and B with the resident holding up his/her feet and no foot pedals attached to the wheelchair. During an interview on 4/9/25 at 11:15 A.M., Certified Nurse Aide (CNA) H said it was not safe to push residents in their wheelchairs without foot pedals. During an interview on 4/9/25 at 1:45 P.M., LPN C said residents in wheelchairs should have foot pedals in place before they were propelled by staff. During an interview on 4/10/25 at 4:15 P.M., the [NAME] President of Operations said he/she expected foot pedals to be on wheelchairs for residents who were propelled by staff.
CONCERN (D)

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

Unnecessary Medications (Tag F0759)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure staff administered medications with an error rate of less than five percent (5%). Staff made two errors out of 25 oppo...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure staff administered medications with an error rate of less than five percent (5%). Staff made two errors out of 25 opportunities for error, which resulted in an error rate of 8%. This affected one of the 23 sampled residents, (Resident #72). The facility census was 112. Review of the facility's policy titled, Medication administration-general guidelines, revised 8/16, showed: - Medications are administered as prescribed, in accordance with good nursing principles and practices and only by persons legally authorized to do so; - Personnel authorized to administer medications do so only after they have familiarized themselves with the medication; - Prior to administration, the medication and dosage schedule on the resident's medication administration record (MAR)/eMAR (electronic MAR) is compared with the medication label; - Information on the medication should be checked against the MAR/eMAR or treatment administration record (TAR)/electronic TAR (eTAR) at least three times during the med preparation and administration process; - If the label and MAR/eMAR or TAR/eTAR are different and the container is not flagged indicating a change in directions or if there is any other reason to question the dosage or directions, the physician's orders are checked for the correct dosage schedule prior to administering. Review of the facility's policy titled, Nasal Inhalation Administration Procedures, reviewed 8/16 showed: - To administer nasal inhalation medications in a safe and accurate manner; - Have resident gently blow nose to clear the nostrils to ensure that nasal passages are not blocked by mucous material; - Shake inhaler well and remove cap from nozzle; - Hold the inhaler in upright position between second and index fingers, with thumb on bottom of canister; - With resident's head tilted back, carefully insert nozzle into one nostril and close the other nostril with one finger; - While resident gently inhales through open nostril, activate medication canister with thumb; - Instruct resident to hold breath for five to ten seconds, then breathe out through the mouth; - If more than one inhalation is ordered, repeat steps in each nostril for the number of inhalations ordered. Review of the manufacturer guidelines for Flonase Sensimist use show: - In order for FLONASE Sensimist to work the way it was meant to, it ' s important you get a full dose every time. - Before each use, shake the bottle of FLONASE Sensimist vigorously, and with your thumb and your forefinger, gently squeeze the sides of the cap, and pull it straight off. - Before using FLONASE Sensimist, blow your nose gently to clear your nostrils. - Put the tip of the spray bottle into your nostril, and tilt your head forward while keeping the bottle upright. Only the tip should go inside. Be sure to aim slightly away from the center of your nose. -While sniffing gently, press the button all the way in twice. Breathe out through your mouth and repeat in the other nostril. - When used daily, FLONASE Sensimist Allergy Relief continues to provide powerful relief 24 hours a day. Review of Resident #72's Physician Order Sheet (POS), dated 4/9/25 showed: - Start date: 11/1/24 - Aspirin tab delayed release 81 milligrams (mg.), one tab daily for hypertensive heart disease; - Start date: 4/9/25 - Flonase Sensimist Nasal Suspension 27.5 microgram (mg.)/spray, two sprays in both nostrils daily for allergies. Review of the resident's Medication Administration Record (MAR), dated 4/9/25 showed: - Aspirin tab delayed release 81 mg., one tab daily for hypertensive heart disease; - Flonase Sensimist Nasal Suspension 27.5 mg./spray, two sprays in both nostrils daily for allergies. Observation on 4/9/25 at 10:34 A.M., showed: - Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) G administered Aspirin 81 mg. chewable to the resident instead of the delayed release; - LPN G removed the cap from the Flonase Sensimist Nasal Spray and gave the resident one spray in each nostril; - LPN G did not have the resident blow his/her nose, did not close either side of the nostril and did not give two sprays. During an interview on 4/10/25 at 4:15 P.M., the [NAME] President of Operations said: - Staff should follow the manufacturer's guidelines for the administration of nasal sprays (have the resident blow their nose, close one side of the nostril). - If the order was for Aspirin delayed release, staff should not have administered Aspirin chewable. - Staff should administer what the physician has ordered.
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0761 (Tag F0761)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** 2. Review of Resident #26's Quarterly MDS, dated [DATE], showed: -He/She was cognitively intact; -He/She had clear speech and he...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** 2. Review of Resident #26's Quarterly MDS, dated [DATE], showed: -He/She was cognitively intact; -He/She had clear speech and he/she usually made self-understood and usually understood others; -He/She required nursing staff to administer medications; -Diagnoses included renal failure, stroke, dementia, depression, and glaucoma. Review of physician's orders, dated April 10, 2025, showed: -Ordered 9/10/24, Started on 11/1/24, Artificial tear 0.1-0.2-0.3%, Give 1 drop into eye every 6 hours as needed for instill 1 drop in both eyes every 6 hours; -Ordered 4/4/25, started 4/4/25, Timolol Maleate PF Ophthalmic solution 0.5%, Instill 1 drop in both eyes two times a day for glaucoma; -Ordered 4/4/25, started 4/4/25, Travoprost Ophthalmic Solution 00.4% (Benzalkonium Free), give 1 drop into eye at bedtime for instill 1 drop in both eye at bedtime daily related to unspecified glaucoma. Review of care plan, revised 12/4/24, showed: -Resident had impaired cognitive function/dementia, anxiety/depression, bipolar, and panic disorder. -Administer medications as ordered. monitor and document for side effects and effectiveness; -Resident had impaired visual function due to glaucoma Observation on 4/07/25 at 7:50 A.M., showed the resident had eye drops observed on his/her nightstand. Observation on 4/9/25 at 10:28 A.M,. showed the resident had a bottle of eye drops sitting on the nightstand beside the resident's bed. During an interview on 4/9/25 at 1:45 P.M., Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) C said the resident should not have eye drops at his/her bedside and did not self administer any medications. During an interview on 4/10/25 at 4:15 P.M., [NAME] President of Operations said: -He/She expected residents with medications at bedside to have orders to self-administer; -He/She did not expect residents residing on memory care to have eye drops left at their bedside. Based on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to store medications in a locked storage area to ensure medications were inaccessible to unauthorized staff and residents, when eye drops (Resident #26) and one blue pill (Resident #27) were left at bedside. This affected two out of 23 sampled residents. The facility census was 112. Review of facility policy, Medication Administration General Guidelines, revised August 2016, showed: - Residents are allowed to self-administer medications when specifically authorized by the attending physician and the interdisciplinary team and in accordance with procedures for self-administration of medications; - In the event a non-controlled medication is refused by the resident, the nurse is to waste the medication by placing it in the sharps container or a clearly labeled container or cabinet in a locked secured area designated for that purpose until destroyed; Review of facility policy, Medication Administration General Guidelines, revised August 2016, showed: - Residents are allowed to self-administer medications when specifically authorized by the attending physician and the interdisciplinary team and in accordance with procedures for self-administration of medications; - In the event a non-controlled medication is refused by the resident, the nurse is to waste the medication by placing it in the sharps container or a clearly labeled container or cabinet in a locked secured area designated for that purpose until destroyed; Review of facility policy, Medication Storage, revised November 2010, showed: - Medication supply must be accessible only to licensed nursing personnel, or staff members lawfully authorized to administer medications. All drugs, treatments, and biologicals must be stored securely and following the manufacture's labeled recommendations, or per facility policy. - Medications will be stored on the medication cart, or in other designated area for extra supply of medications, except for those requiring refrigeration. 1. Review of Resident #27's Quarterly minimum data set (MDS), a federally mandated assessment tool completed by facility staff, dated 3/6/25, showed: - He/She was cognitively intact; - He/She was independent for eating, oral hygiene, and upper body dressing; - He/She required nursing staff to administer medications; -Diagnoses: hypertension (high blood pressure) and schizophrenia (a chronic mental disorder characterized by disruptions in thought processes, perceptions, emotions, and social interactions); Review of physician's orders, dated April 10, 2025, showed: - No orders for self-administration of medications; - Physician order for Tramadol 50mg tablet as needed and an order for hydrocodone 325mg as needed. Observation on 4/07/25 at 9:06 A.M. showed the resident had one small blue pill in a plastic clear cup on the bedside table within the resident's reach. During an interview on 4/7/25 at 9:07 A.M., the resident said staff left the cup on his/her table when they came by with medications this morning. During an interview on 4/10/25 at 8:45 A.M., CMT A said: - When handing out medications they wait until the resident takes all medications administered before leaving the room. At no point, unless the resident had an order for self-medication, would he/she leave medications in the room with the resident unattended. During an interview on 4/10/25 at 4:15 P.M., the Administrator said residents with medications at bedside should have orders to self-administer.
CONCERN (E)

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

Deficiency F0569 (Tag F0569)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review and interview, the facility failed to to reimburse residents and/or their responsible parties within the ...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review and interview, the facility failed to to reimburse residents and/or their responsible parties within the 30 day time frame, after the residents were discharged from the facility, which affected eleven residents. The facility's census was 112. The facility did not provide a policy regarding conveyance of personal funds. Review of Interim Aged Analysis Summary, dated [DATE], showed: -Resident #215, discharged on [DATE], had a balance of $1,471.48; -Resident #219, discharged on [DATE], had a balance of $.09; -Resident #217, discharged on [DATE], had a balance of $3,296.00; -Resident #218, discharged on [DATE], had a balance of $1437.00; -Resident #220, discharged on [DATE], had a balance of $573.00; -Resident #221, discharged on [DATE], had a balance of $5450.00; -Resident #222, discharged on [DATE], had a balance of $2,351.26; -Resident #223, discharged on [DATE], had a balance of $204.16; -Resident #224, discharged on [DATE], had a balance of $1584.00; -Resident #225, discharged on [DATE], had a balance of $505.41; -Resident #226, discharged on [DATE], had a balance of $5,886.00; -Resident #227, discharged on [DATE], had a balance of $2,115.08; -Resident #228, discharged on [DATE], had balance of $1,000; -Resident #229, discharged on [DATE], had a balance of $5,065.00; -Resident #230, discharged on [DATE], had a balance of $1,161.38; -Resident #231, discharged on [DATE], had a balance of $2,101.00; -Resident #232, discharged on [DATE], had a balance of $6,126.59; -Resident #233, discharged on [DATE], had a balance of $.09; -Resident #234, discharged on [DATE], had a balance of $2,654.00; -Resident #235, discharged on [DATE], had a balance of $612.00; -Resident #236, discharged on [DATE], had a balance of $1388.52; -Resident #237, discharged on [DATE], had a balance of $3,189.60; During an interview on [DATE] at 8:31 A.M., the Business Office Manager said: -He/She started in the position in February; -Resident #215 was deceased , he/she did not know why funds were not returned to resident; -Resident #219 was deceased , he/she could not see if a medicaid letter went out; -He/she did not have any knowledge of funds being returned to Residents #217, #218, #220, #221, #222, #223, #224, #225, #226, #227, #228, #229, #230, #231, #232, #234, #235, #236, and #237 ; -The facility operator transferred everything over to a new electronic medical record system in November and there had been lots of issues with items not transferring over in the system correctly; -The facility had five days to return funds after a resident discharged from facility or was deceased ; -If resident had funds in their trust account they would notify Medicaid and then send funds back to Medicaid, and then complete a check request with their corporate office; -He/She did not have copies of check requests or knowledge of resident's funds being returned to them since he/she was a new employee with corporation; -He/She would have to check with their corporate office regarding resident funds being returned and follow up. During an interview on [DATE] at 4:15 P.M., [NAME] President of Operations said he/she expects staff to issue a refund to the resident within thirty days of discharge.
CONCERN (E)

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

Deficiency F0574 (Tag F0574)

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 residents received information and contact information for Sta...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation and interview, the facility failed to ensure residents received information and contact information for State and local advocacy organizations when the facility staff did not provide information to the residents on how to file a complaint with the State Survey Agency and did not prominently display this information in the facility for residents to view. The facility census was 112. Review of facility policy, Resident [NAME] of Rights, revised [DATE], showed facility residents shall have the right to receive from the facility a written description of legal rights including a list of names, addresses, (mailing and email), and telephone numbers of all pertinent State regulatory and informational agencies such as the State Survey Agency for information for filing grievances and complaints. 1. Review of Resident #80's admission Minimum Data Set (MDS), a federally mandated assessment completed by staff, dated 3/11/25, showed the resident is cognitively intact. During an interview on 4/9/25 at 12:56 P.M., the resident said he/she doesn't remember where in the facility the phone number is posted or when the facility last trained the residents about contacting the state to file a grievance. 2. Review of Resident #18's Quarterly MDS, dated [DATE], showed the resident is cognitively intact. During an interview on 4/9/25 at 12:59 P.M., the resident said he/she does not know how to contact the state survey agency and did not know that he/she could file a complaint with the state survey agency. 3. Review of Resident #89's Quarterly MDS, dated [DATE], showed the resident is cognitively intact. During an interview on 4/9/25 at 1:00 P.M., the resident said he/she does not know where the number to contact the State survey agency is located in the building. During a group interview on 4/8/25 at 2:04 P.M., the residents said: - Nine of nine residents did not know where the State Survey Agency contact information for filing a complaint was displayed in the building; - Five of nine residents did not have knowledge of the phone number to the State Survey Agency for filing a complaint. During a Record Review of Resident Council Minutes on 4/8/25, showed: - 1/5/25 Resident Council meeting under the section review of resident rights there was no training on how to contact the State Agency to file a complaint; - 2/19/25 Resident Council meeting under the section review of resident rights there was no training on how to contact the State Agency to file a complaint; - 3/19/25 Resident Council meeting under the section review of resident rights there was no training on how to contact the State Agency to file a complaint; - 4/2/25 Resident Council meeting under the section review of resident rights there was no training on how to contact the State Agency to file a complaint; During an interview on 4/10/25 at 4:15 P.M., Administrator said the plaque with the State Survey Agency's phone number is located in the front lobby and it should be bigger than the one currently there. Signs should also be posted throughout the facility, though they are not currently. Resident council information is provided on reporting complaints to the State quite frequently and Social Services is responsible for providing that information to the residents.
CONCERN (E)

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

Notification of Changes (Tag F0580)

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 a resident representative was notified of a cha...

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 a resident representative was notified of a change in condition for two of the 23 residents sampled (Residents #102 and #86). The facility census was 112. Review of facility's Notification of Change In a Resident's Status Policy, dated 11/2017, showed: -The attending physician/physician extender and the resident representative will be notified of a change in a resident's condition, per standards of practice and Federal and/or State regulations; -Responsibility: all licensed nursing personnel; -Guideline for notification of physician and responsible party (not all inclusive): a) Onset of pressure sores; b) Any accident or incident; -Documentation of notification of responsible party in the Interdisciplinary Team Notes. 1. Review of Resident #86's Quarterly MDS (minimum data set), a federally mandated clinical assessment, completed by facility staff), dated 12/20/2024, showed: -Cognition not intact. -Dependent on staff for all ADLs (activities of daily living); -Diagnoses include: heart failure, stroke, dementia, and depression. Review of resident's PPS (prospective payment system) Five Day Scheduled Assessment, dated 3/9/2025, showed: -Brief Interview of Mental Status (BIMS) of 3 indicated severe cognitive impairment. Review of resident's progress notes, dated 12/9/2024, showed: -Patient continued on antibiotic therapy for pressure wound. Review of the resident's electronic and paper medical records showed no documentation of the resident's representative being notified of the onset of a pressure injury. Review of the resident's progress notes showed no documentation of an attempt to contact the resident's representative regarding the resident's pressure injury prior to 12/13/2024. During an interview on 4/7/25 at 1:03 P.M. Resident Representative A said: -He/She was not notified about a pressure injury until after it healed; -He/She was concerned with the facility's lack of communication. 2. Review of Resident #102's Quarterly MDS, dated [DATE], showed: -Severe cognitive impairment; -Dependent on staff for all ADLs; -Diagnoses include: depression and risk for malnutrition. Review of resident's progress notes, dated 2/2/2025, showed: -The Nurse Practitioner was notified and agreed to send the resident to the hospital; -The resident was sent to the hospital for a ripped feeding tube per Nurse Practitioner. Review of resident's progress notes showed no documentation of an attempt to contact the resident's representative regarding the resident's 2/2/2025 hospitalization. During an interview on 4/9/25 at 1:34 P.M., Resident Representative B said: -There was no communication from the facility regarding resident's 2/2/2025 hospitalization; -He/She expects communication from the facility regarding hospitalizations. 3. During an interview on 4/10/25 11:10 A.M., LPN D said: -Resident representatives should be notified immediately of a resident's change in condition; -Calls to resident representatives should be documented in the resident's chart; -The documentation should include who was contacted, time and date of contact. During an interview on interview on 4/10/2025 at 4:15 P.M., the [NAME] President of operations said: -The resident's representative should be notified immediately of a hospitalization or injury; -He/She expects the charge nurse to contact the resident's representative; -He/She expects notification to be documented in the progress notes when a resident representative is contacted; -He/She expects notification to be documented for a follow up on a 24 hour report when a resident representative cannot be reached.
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** 1. Review of Resident #29's Quarterly minimum data set (MDS), a federally mandated assessment tool completed by facility staff, ...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** 1. Review of Resident #29's Quarterly minimum data set (MDS), a federally mandated assessment tool completed by facility staff, dated 1/11/25, showed: -Cognition severely impaired; -He/She was dependent on a wheelchair; -Diagnoses included: dementia and Alzheimer's disease Observation on 4/7/25 at 8:02 A.M. showed the resident's wheelchair arm was cracked on right side arm of his/her wheelchair. The wheelchair seat cushion had food residue on it. Observation on 4/9/25 at 10:19 A.M. showed resident's arm rest on his/her wheelchair had black plastic fabric peeling off and foam was showing through. 2. Review of Resident #83's 5-day assessment MDS, dated [DATE], showed: -Cognition severely impaired; -He/She was dependent on manual wheelchair; -He/She used a wheelchair and was dependent for mobility for 50-150 feet; -Diagnoses included fracture of neck of right femur, dementia, and depression. Observation on 4/7/25 at 6:48 A.M. showed the resident had food on his/her wheelchair cushion. No meal had been served yet for the day. 3. Review of Resident #21's Quarterly, MDS, dated [DATE], showed: -Cognition severely impaired; -He/She was dependent on a wheelchair; -Diagnoses included dementia, asthma, and depression. Observation on 4/7/25 at 6:48 A.M. showed food stuck on resident's seat of his/her wheelchair. 4. Review of Resident #26's Quarterly minimum data set (MDS), a federally mandated assessment tool completed by facility staff, dated 12/17/24, showed: -Cognition intact; -Resident makes needs known. -He/She was dependent on a wheelchair; -He/She was independent with wheeling 50 feet and 150 feet; -Diagnoses included stroke, dementia, and hearing loss. Review of care plan, revised 12/4/24, showed: -Resident required assistance by one staff to move between surfaces as necessary. Observation on 4/07/25 at 10:09 A.M. showed the armrests of wheelchair had fabric that was coming away from the on the right side of wheelchair. 5. Review of Resident #48's Significant change MDS, dated [DATE], showed: -Cognition severely impaired; -He/She was dependent on a wheelchair; -He/She required partial to moderate assistance with sitting to lying, and rolling mobility; -He/She was dependent for wheeling 50 feet and wheeling 150 feet in the wheelchair; -Diagnoses included dementia, arthritis, stroke, and abnormalities of gait and mobility. Review of care plan, revised 4/3/25, showed the resident was able to transfer independently; Observation on 4/07/25 at 9:12 A.M. showed both of arm rests of Resident's wheelchair were torn and foam was coming through the arm rest, and fabric was missing from the foam. 6. Review of Resident #315's admission MDS, dated [DATE], showed the resident dependent on a wheelchair for mobility. Review of resident's face sheet, dated 3/25/2025, showed diagnoses included: injury of popliteal artery, right leg; open wound, right knee; fracture of lower end of right femur. Observation on 4/7/20255 at 10:35 A.M., showed both arms of wheelchair were covered with duck tape. During an interview on 4/09/25 at 11:15 A.M., CNA H said: -The night shift was responsible for cleaning resident's wheelchairs; -Wheelchairs were cleaned on the same day as a resident's shower days were scheduled. During an interview on 4/9/25 at 1:45 P.M., LPN C said: -The wheelchairs were to be cleaned during the night shift; -Administration took hydration off of night shift's to do list and added the wheelchair cleaning; During an interview on 4/10/25 at 4:15 P.M., [NAME] President of Operations said he/she expected resident's medical equipment to be cleaned and maintained and free of spills. He/she expected resident's wheelchairs to be in good operational condition and free from tears to the armrests. 7. Observation of the sunshine unit on 4/07/25 at 8:08 A.M., showed the dining room floor had spilled food including food crumbs laying under table. No meals had been served yet for the day. Observation of the sunshine unit on 4/07/25 at 8:58 A.M., showed the walls of the dining room had streaks of running liquid that had dried on the wall. Observation on sunshine unit on 4/9/25 at 11:15 A.M. showed: -The window seals at end of hallways and entry to sunshine unit had missing paint with rust coming through; -Lower chair rail ledges have visible dirt and dust standing on them; -Vent returns in hallway by shower have dirt caked on the registers; -Chair rails in hallway had paint missing; -Doorframes to dining room had missing paint and metal was showing through; -room [ROOM NUMBER] had paint missing from the door; -room [ROOM NUMBER] the upper rubber seal was hanging down from doorway; -room [ROOM NUMBER] had paint missing off blue door with orange showing through; -Edges of tile and baseboards had dirt and grime built up; -Varnish finishing on tables in dining room had worn off; -Sanitizer dispenser outside of room [ROOM NUMBER] has no sanitizer in it; -Doorway next to shower room has paint missing on the door; -Dayroom curtain at end of hall had stain on it. During an interview on 4/9/25 at 10:41 A.M., Housekeeper B said: -He/She was supposed to sweep dining room after breakfast and lunch; -He/She would sweep after breakfast and if floor was not dirty he/she would wait to mop the floors until after lunch; -There was no housekeeping staff working after 4:30 P.M.; -It was the CNA's responsibility to clean up messes after housekeeping hours ended at 4:30 P.M.; -His/Her cleaning routine including going to resident's rooms and wiping down counters, cleaning mirrors, looking at air units, and seeing if anything needed wiped down; -He/She would look at windows and see if they needed wiped down; -He/She would wipe down the walls in the bathroom and in resident bedrooms; -If he/she knew of spills or items running down walls he/she would wipe them down; -He/She had wiped dining room walls down twice since he/she had worked in facility; -He/She wiped down dining room tables daily. During an interview on 4/9/25 at 1:45 P.M., LPN C said: -Dining room should be cleaned after dinner by the floor staff working on sunshine unit. During an interview on 4/10/25 at 4:15 P.M., [NAME] President of Operations said: -He/She expected walls in resident's living environment to be free from spills, missing paint, and scrapes and in good condition. 8. Observation of the sunshine unit on 4/07/25 from 6:40 A.M. showed two residents in dining room and loud door alarms were sounding. The marquee at end of hall showed the TCU dining room exit door was open. During a continuous observation of the sunshine unit beginning at 7:15 A.M. showed: -7:42 A.M., Loud beeping noise sounding on the on unit. Marque at end of hallways showed 'TCU dining room exit' and 'end of hall exit' scrolling across the screen; -7:54 A.M., Loud beeping noises continues to sound on unit. Marque showed 'TCU dining room exit' and 'end of hall exit' scrolling across the screen; -8:09 A.M., loud beeping noises continuing to sound, marque continues to show 'dining room exit' scrolling across the screen; -8:21 A.M., loud beeping noises continuing to sound on the unit; -8:44 A.M., loud beeping alarm sounding that could be heard in the dining room. Observation showed staff in dining room went and put in code on key pad and alarm began going off again immediately; -8:58 A.M., RN A said He/She put the code in the door alarm key bad the but alarm will keep going off because all the residents are located in the dining room; -9:02 A.M., Director of Nursing (DON) observed put code in the door alarm, and door alarm began going off again within five seconds of the code being entered into key pad; -9:04 A.M., DON said he/she escalated the alarm issue because he/she did not know why the alarm kept triggering in the dining room but had notified people of the issues; -9:05 A.M., loud beeping alarm continued to sound, marque showed TCU dining unit scrolling across the screen; -9:06 A.M., Maintenance Director arrived to sunshine unit and was observed entering the alarm code into key pad. Maintenance Director said the alarm would not shut off because of the wander guard system and staff were right by it; -9:09 A.M., Maintenance Director observed using a screw driver to alarm key code panel. Maintenance Director continued to enter the key code to the pad of alarm system. He/She then was observed disconnecting a wire to the key pad. -9:11 A.M., Alarm stopped sounding after wire disconnected. Maintenance Director was observed removing keypad and leaving wires exposed and left the dining room. -9:21 A.M., Maintenance Director came back to sunshine unit and placed a plate over the key pad where wires had been exposed from the disconnected wires; -9:26 A.M., Alarm going off on sunshine unit, the marque showed 'TCU dining exit'. During an interview on 4/7/25 at 9:16 A.M., LPN C said: -Alarm in dining room always sounded when residents were in dining room; -The residents could not hear the television, do activities, and could not hear over the alarm during meals. During an interview on 4/7/25 at 9:21 A.M., Maintenance Director said: -He/She disconnected the alarm; -The system would still alarm to the marque; -He/She had been waiting on a part for three weeks to a month; -The door that was alarming also had its own alarming box; -Someone would hear that other alarm if a resident tried to go out of that door; -He/She had just disconnected the horn part of the alarm, but the door alarm was still activated. During an interview on 4/7/25 at 9:26 A.M., CNA N said: -The alarm in dining room was not pleasant; it would frequently alarm; -Every time he/she entered the code on the key pad the alarm would go back off again in five seconds. During an interview on 4/9/25 at 10:41 A.M., Housekeeper B said: -Staff would shut off the alarms on key pad; -Every time a resident would walk by the exit the alarm would start sounding again; -Residents were observed getting agitated by the audible alarms; -Residents would say what is that noise? turn it off. During an interview on 4/09/25 at 11:15 A.M., CNA H said: -The alarm on sunshine unit would go off anytime a resident with a wander guard went to close to the door; -He/She had to enter a code on the keypad to get the alarm to stop sounding; -If resident chose to stay by the exit doors in dining room, or end of hall exits, then the alarm would begin sounding again. During an interview on 4/9/25 at 1:45 P.M., LPN C said: -Maintenance Director had just messed with the door alarms the prior week; -Maintenance Director said he had to do something to the alarm and ever since he/she had worked on them the alarms had been sounding; -He/She had heard residents #11 and #16 complain regarding the door alarm noises; -Resident #90 had told him/her the alarm was annoying. Based on observation and interviews, the facility failed to ensure a clean, comfortable, and homelike environment and comfortable sound levels. Additionally, the facility failed to ensure resident wheelchairs were clean and maintained in good repair. This affected six sampled residents (Resident #26, #29, #48, #83, #21, and #315) out of 23 sampled residents. The facility census was 112. Review of the facility policy, Resident Rights, dated 1/2023, showed residents have the right to a clean and homelike environment. The facility did not provide a policy on maintaining resident medical equipment. Review of the facility policy, Resident Room Cleaning, dated 6/2018, showed: -Spot clean walls; - Remove trash.
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** Review of the facility's policy titled, Incontinent Care, reviewed 1/15 showed: - To provide routine, preventive skin, perineal ...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Review of the facility's policy titled, Incontinent Care, reviewed 1/15 showed: - To provide routine, preventive skin, perineal care to residents after an incontinent episode; - Wash the resident's entire perineal area, and all areas affected by incontinence with a washcloth, soap, warm water, peri-wash or wipes; - Avoid unnecessary exposure of the resident during the procedure; - When washing perineal area, wash the entire area moving from front to back; - Rinse the perineal area and other skin surfaces washed with warm water and a washcloth from front to back; - If using no-rinse perineal wash or wipes, no rinsing is required; - Place a clean incontinent brief on the resident. 1. Review of Resident #165's admission MDS, dated [DATE] showed; - Cognitive skills intact; - Independent with toilet use, dressing, personal hygiene and transfers; - Always continent of urine; - Had a colostomy (a surgical procedure that creates an opening (stoma) in the abdominal wall to bring out part of the large intestine (colon); - Diagnoses included anxiety, arthritis, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and blood clots. Review of the resident's care plan, revised 4/2/25, showed the resident had an ADL self-care performance deficit related to impaired balance and weakness. Staff are directed to assist as the resident as needed with ADLs. Observation on 4/8/25 at 12:03 P.M. showed; - Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) A entered the resident's room wearing a gown and gloves with medication; - The resident laying in bed and was incontinent of urine and his/her colostomy bag had leaked onto the bed; - The resident had a coat and a jacket on underneath the coat and both were wet and soiled; - The resident did not have on an incontinent brief or pants; - LPN A assisted the resident to stand and the resident used his/her seated rolling walker and ambulated to the bathroom and urinated; - LPN A stripped the resident's bed and placed in a pile in the middle of the bed; - LPN A removed gown and gloves, sanitized and left the room to get clean linens; - The resident washed his/her hands, removed the wet and soiled jacket and coat and placed on the bag in his/her room and the jacket fell onto the floor; - The resident was naked and sat down on the side of his/her bed; - The resident pulled his/her colostomy bag off and threw in the trash; - LPN A came in with supplies; - The resident remained naked and moved to sit on his/her seated rolling walker; - LPN A donned a gown and gloves, bagged the soiled linens and cleaned the mattress with a super sani wipe (a disinfectant wipe used to control germs); - LPN A did not clean the area of the mattress where the resident had sat and did not clean the seat of the resident's rolling walker; - The resident used a perineal wipe to cover the stoma; - CNA J and LPN A brought supplies into the resident's room; - CNA J made the resident's bed; - LPN A placed a new colostomy bag on the resident; - LPN A assisted the resident to put on a clean pair of pants and assisted the resident to get under the covers; - LPN A and CNA J did not put a gown on the resident and did not clean any areas of the skin where the urine or feces had touched. During an interview on 4/10/25 at 11:35 A.M., LPN A said he/she should have cleaned the resident's skin where the urine and feces had touched. During an interview on 4/10/25 at 12:06 P.M., CNA J said since the resident was wet with urine and feces, he/she should have cleaned the resident's skin where the urine or feces had touched. During an interview on 4/10/25 at 4:15 P.M., the [NAME] President of Operations said the staff should have cleaned the resident's skin where urine and feces had touched. 2. Review of Resident #10's Annual Minimum Data Set (MDS), a federally mandated assessment instrument completed by facility staff, dated 3/20/25 showed: - Cognitive skills intact; - Upper and lower extremities impaired on both sides; - Required set up and clean up assistance for eating and oral care; - Dependent on the assistance of staff for toilet use, showers, dressing. personal hygiene and transfers; - Always incontinent of bowel and bladder; - Diagnoses included RA, muscle spasms, muscle weakness, vitamin deficiency and thyroid disorder. Review of the resident's care plan, revised 11/26/24 showed: - The resident had an Activities of Daily Living (ADLs) self-care performance deficit related to rheumatoid arthritis (RA, a chronic inflammatory disorder usually affecting the small joints in the hands and feet), muscle spasms, dizziness, muscle weakness, vitamin deficiency and fatigue; - The resident was independent with bed mobility; - The resident had contractures (shortening of a muscle that causes decreased flexibility) of the right hand. - Staff to provide skin care as needed to keep clean and prevent skin breakdown; - The resident required physical assistance of one staff for dressing, showers and personal hygiene; - The resident was able to eat independently. Review of the resident's call light log showed the call light was on for the following amount of time: - 4/9/25 at 1:50 P.M., 33 minutes and 31 seconds; - 4/8/25 at 5: 32 A.M., 17 minutes, five seconds; - 4/8/25 at 11:00 A.M., 17 minutes, 51 seconds; - 4/8/25 at 3:24 P.M., 17 minutes, 57 seconds. Observation on 4/9/25 at 2:04 P.M., showed: - The resident's call light came on; - At 2:25 P.M., the call light was answered. During an interview on 4/10/25 at 12:28 P.M., the resident said: - It made her upset when it took so long for the call light to get answered; - His/Her call light had been on for over an hour before. 3. Review of Resident #35's admission MDS, dated [DATE] showed: - Cognitive skills intact; - Upper extremity impaired on one side; - Required partial to moderate assistance with toilet use, dressing, and transfers; - Dependent on the assistance of staff for showers. Review of Resident #35's care plan, revised 11/26/24 showed: - The resident had an ADLs self-care performance deficit related to dementia, atrial fibrillation (A-fib, a condition where the upper chambers of the heart (atria) beat irregularly and rapidly), lumbago with sciatica (low back pain (lumbago) accompanied by nerve pain that radiates down the leg and buttocks), and muscle weakness; - The resident required physical assistance of one staff for showers, dressing, personal hygiene, toilet use and transfers; Review of the resident's call light log showed the call light was on for the following amount of time: - 4/9/25 at 6:47 P.M., 20 minutes, 47 seconds; - 4/9/25 at 2:03 P.M., 21 minutes, 11 seconds; - 4/9/25 at 11:10 A.M., 15 minutes, 34 seconds; - 4/9/25 at 10:49 A.M., 18 minutes; - 4/8/25 at 1:44 P.M., 150 minutes, 41 seconds; - 4/8/25 at 7:44 A.M., 25 minutes, 48 seconds. Observation on 4/9/25 at 2:04 P.M., showed: - The resident's call light came on; - At 2:25 P.M., the call light was answered. During an interview on 4/7/25 at 7:57 A.M., the resident said: - He/she had waited for hours for the call light to get answered; - It made him/her feel very anxious when it took so long for staff to answer the call light. 4. Review of Resident #3's Annual MDS, dated [DATE], showed: - Resident is cognitively intact with difficulty speaking needs; - Resident is dependent on staff for toileting hygiene, mobility, transfers, and bathing; - Diagnosis: diabetes stroke, bipolar, anxiety and PTSD. Review of Resident's care plan, revised 2/10/25, showed: - Resident has an Activities of Daily Living (ADL) self-care performance deficit. Resident can't transfer and toilet independently; - Resident has mood and mental health conditions and triggers include loud noises such as call light continually alarming and being left soiled for too long; During an interview on 4/10/25 at 10:21 A.M., the resident said: - Resident requires help from staff to use the toilet; - He/she has had to wait for his/her call light to be answered at night sometimes three to four hours at least three times a month, which results in him/her having an accident in bed and lying in his/her own waste. - He/she feels filthy when this happens and it triggers his/her PTSD and childhood issues which causes panic and fear. - Night staff does not consistently check on him/her at night so it's important when the call is used, it is answered. During a group interview of the resident council on 4/8/25 at 2:04 P.M., several residents said: - Call light time waits of over 20 minutes in the last week and sometimes they have had to wait two to four hours before being helped; - They had been helping other residents with their care issues because staff were taking too long to answer call lights; - Call light response times are the worst from 2 P.M. to 10 P.M. with B hall reporting the longest waits. 5. Review of Resident #34's Quarterly MDS, dated , 3/13/2025 showed: -Cognition was intact; -Required set up and clean up assistance with oral care and meals; -Dependent on nursing staff for toileting, transfers, showers, dressing, and rolling from left to right; -Diagnoses include: respiratory failure, asthma, depression, seizure disorder, and kidney failure. During an interview on 4/8/2025 at 9:13 A.M., the resident said: -Sometimes it took over 30 minutes for the call light to be answered; -He/She had resorted to yelling out to get assistance when the call light is not answered in a reasonable amount of time; -When the call light took a long time to be answered, he/she felt abandoned; -He/She was miserable and in pain when his/her back hurt and had to wait a long time for the call light to be answered so a wedge could be placed behind his/her back. 6. Observation on 4/08/2025 from 11:15 P.M. to 11:25 P.M. showed: -Two aides were sitting at a table in the back of the B hall dining room; - LPN E was on a personal cell phone for ten minutes discussing personal matters at the nurse's station; -A resident came to the nurse's station and waited for the nurse to notice him/her; - LPN E told the person on the phone to hold on, asked the resident what he/she needed, then gave the resident medication, and got back on the phone call; -CNA F was sitting in a chair out of the line of sight of the [NAME] call light system; -Three call light nursing staff pagers were sitting on the nurse's station desk unattended. During an interview on 4/8/2025 at 11:32 P.M., CNA's E, F, and G said he/she was not wearing a call light pager , but stated it was required to be worn when working. During an interview on 4/9/2025 at 1:06 A.M., LPN E said: -CNAs must wear pagers at all times unless they were on break; -CNAs should not all go on break at the same time. During an interview on 4/10/2025 at 11:10 A.M., LPN D said he/she expected call lights to be answered within five minutes. During an interview on 4/10/25 at 11:35 A.M., LPN A said; - Sometimes the staff will leave the resident's call light on until the resident's need is met (example- if a resident wanted a pain pill), then it would get shut off; During an interview on 4/10/25 at 12:06 P.M., CNA J said: - He/She tried to answer the call lights as quick as possible; - He/She thought they should try and be answered within five to ten minutes. During an interview on 4/15/25 at 1:12 P.M., CNA I said he/she tried to answer the call lights right away. During an interview on 4/10/25 at 4:15 P.M., the [NAME] President of Operations said: - Call lights should be answered in a reasonable amount of time, meal times could impact that time; - Sometimes staff do not reset the call light until they finish cares which could be 15 minutes; - All staff should be carrying their pagers; - They have a total of 13 pagers, one for each Charge Nurse (CN) and for CNAs who have room assignments; - Call lights go on the marquee signs and then it goes to the CNAs and it should go to the nurse if not answered within five minutes; - Two of the marquees have been replaced; - The pagers will escalate to upper management to help monitor call lights once they arrive; - If staff are assigned rooms, then they should have a pager; - At night, they should all have pagers; - No exceptions to carrying pagers if they are assigned a room; - If the staff clock out, they can take the pager off, but if they stay on the premises, they keep the pagers on their person; - Staff do not take breaks at the same time, they are staggered. Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure dependent residents who were unable to carry out activities of daily living (ADLs) received the necessary services to maintain good personal hygiene when staff failed to provide complete perineal care for Resident #165 after an incontinence episode. In addition, the facility failed ensure call lights were answered timely for four residents (Resident #3, #10, #34, and #35). This affected five of 23 sampled residents The facility census was 112. Review of the facility policy, Resident [NAME] of Rights, dated 1/2023, showed: -Receive services in the facility with reasonable accommodation of resident needs and preferences; -Self-determination, which the facility must provide and facilitate through support of resident choice, assessments, and plan of care and make other choices about aspects of his or her life that are significant to the resident, including: activities, health care schedules (including sleeping, waking, bathing, and eating times). Review of the facility policy, A.M. Care, dated 10/2009, showed: -A.M. care will be given to residents daily; -Provide nail care as needed. The facility did not provide a policy regarding call lights.
CONCERN (E)

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

Infection Control (Tag F0880)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure staff provided care in a manner to prevent inf...

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 staff provided care in a manner to prevent infection or the possibility of infection when staff failed to clean and disinfect a resident's mattress and seated rolling walker after being soiled with urine and feces, which affected one of the 23 sampled residents, (Resident #165), failed to use and failed to use personal protective equipment (PPE, equipment worn to minimize exposure to a variety of hazards, examples included gloves, gowns and masks) for residents who were on Isolation for Contact requirements or Enhanced Barrier Precautions (EBP, infection control measures that go beyond standard precautions and focus on reducing the transmission of multidrug-resistant organisms (MDROs), for Resident #1 and #103. The facility census was 112. Review of the facility's policy titled, Enhanced Barrier Precautions, dated 4/24 showed: - Enhanced Barrier Precautions are indicated for residents with infections or colonization with a Centers for Disease Control (CDC)-targeted MDRO when contact precautions do not apply or for residents with wounds and/or indwelling medical devices without secretions /excretions that are unable to be covered/contained and are not known to be infected/colonized with any MDRO during high-contact resident care activities as these residents are at an increased risk of being infected; -Enhanced Barrier Precautions are an infection control intervention designed to reduce transmission of multi-drug resistant organisms, (MDROs), in Nursing Homes; - EBP involve gown and glove use during high-contact resident care activities for residents known to be colonized or infected with a MDRO as well as those at increased risk of MDRO acquisition; - EBP only require use of gown/gloves when performing high contact resident activities: dressing, bathing/showering, transferring (in room, shower/tub rooms and therapy gyms), AM/PM care, changing linens, changing briefs or assisting with toileting, device care or use: central line, urinary catheter (sterile tube inserted into the bladder to drain urine), or feeding tube; wound care: any skin opening requiring a dressing; - EBP are intended to remain in effect for the duration of the residents stay or until the wound is closed/medical device is removed; - Door sign that reads, Enhanced Barrier Precautions or Visitors Must See Nurse Before Entering; - A private room is not required; - No special precautions are needed for dishes, glasses, cups or eating utensils. The facility did not provide a policy for disinfecting mattresses or equipment. 1. Review of Resident #165's admission Minimum Data Set (MDS), a federally mandated assessment instrument completed by facility staff dated 4/2/25 showed; - Cognitive skills intact; - Independent with toilet use, dressing, personal hygiene and transfers; - Always continent of urine; - Had a colostomy (a surgical procedure that creates an opening (stoma) in the abdominal wall to bring out part of the large intestine (colon); - Diagnoses included anxiety, arthritis, chronic obstructive pulmonary di and blood clots. Review of the resident's care plan, revised 4/2/25, showed: - The resident had an ADL self-care performance deficit related to impaired balance and weakness; - The resident is able to turn and reposition independently; - The resident is independent with personal hygiene and oral care; - The resident is independent with toilet use and transfers. Assist as needed with toileting and transfers. Observation on 4/8/25 at 12:03 P.M. showed; - Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) A entered the resident's room wearing a gown and gloves with medication; - The resident laying on bed and was incontinent of urine and his/her colostomy bag had leaked onto the bed; - The resident had a coat and a jacket on underneath the coat and both were wet and soiled; - LPN A assisted the resident to stand and the resident used his/her seated rolling walker and ambulated to the bathroom; - LPN A stripped the resident's bed and placed in a pile in the middle of the bed; - LPN A removed gown and gloves, sanitized and left the room to get clean linens; - The resident washed his/her hands, removed the wet and soiled jacket and coat and placed on the bag in his/her room and the jacket fell onto the floor; - The resident was naked and sat down on the side of his/her bed; - The resident pulled his/her colostomy bag off and threw in the trash; - LPN A came in with supplies; - The resident remained naked and moved to sit on his/her seated rolling walker; - LPN A donned a gown and gloves, bagged the soiled linens and cleaned the mattress with a super sani wipe (a disinfectant wipe used to control germs); - LPN A did not clean the area of the mattress where the resident had sat and did not clean the seat of the resident's rolling walker; - The resident used a perineal wipe to cover the stoma (ostomy site); - CNA J and LPN A brought supplies into the resident's room; - CNA J made the resident's bed; - LPN A placed a new colostomy bag on the resident; - LPN A assisted the resident to put on a clean pair of pants and assisted the resident to get under the covers. During an interview on 4/10/25 at 11:35 A.M., LPN A said: - He/She should have cleaned the mattress where the resident had sat and should have cleaned the seat of the resident's rolling walker; During an interview on 4/10/25 at 12:06 P.M., CNA J said: - He/she should have sanitized the mattress where the resident sat and the seat of the rolling walker; During an interview on 4/10/25 at 4:15 P.M., the [NAME] President of Operations said staff should have cleaned the mattress and the seat of the rolling walker. 2. Review of Resident #1's Quarterly MDS, dated [DATE], showed: - Cognitive skills intact; - Upper and lower extremities impaired on both sides; - Dependent on the assistance of staff for eating, oral care, toilet use, dressing, personal hygiene and transfers; - Had a supra pubic catheter ( a catheter surgically inserted through the wall of the abdomen; - Always incontinent of fecal material; - Diagnoses included neurogenic bladder ( a dysfunction that results from interference with the normal nerve pathways associated with urination), anxiety, depression and MS. Review of the resident's care plan, revised 11/18/24 showed: - The resident has an activities of daily living (ADL) self-care performance deficit related to Multiple Sclerosis depression, muscle weakness, and anxiety; - The resident is totally dependent on one staff for all ADLS; - The resident has contractures of the hands and feet; - Required the use of a mechanical lift and the assistance of two staff for transfers; Observation on 4/8/25 at 10:20 A.M., showed: - There was a sign posted outside the resident's door related to EBP and PPE was provided in a container hanging on the door; - The resident was in bed and was incontinent of bowel and had a supra pubic catheter; - CNA I and CNA J donned (put on) gloves after they entered the resident's room and did not don a gown; - CNA J emptied the resident's urinary drainage bag; - CNA I and CNA J donned a gown after emptying the drainage bag. During an interview on 4/10/25 at 12:06 P.M., CNA J said: - He/She should have donned a gown and the gloves before entering the resident's room. During an interview on 4/15/25 at 1:12 P.M., CNA I said: - A gown and gloves should be worn with catheter care. During an interview on 4/10/25 at 4:15 P.M., the [NAME] President of Operations said; - Staff should wear PPE when providing catheter care or wound care. 3. Review of Resident #103's admission MDS, dated , 2/10/25, showed: - Resident is cognitively intact; - Diagnosis: heart disease, inflammatory bowel disease; diabetes, hip fracture, indwelling urinary catheter, and stroke; Review of Resident's Care Plan, revised 3/11/25, showed: - Resident requires Enhanced Barrier Precautions for a catheter and wounds. Staff to apply PPE for high contact care activities; Review of Resident's Face Sheet Diagnosis, dated 4/9/25, showed: - Resident has enterocolitis due to clostridium difficile (antibiotic-associated diarrhea which requires contact precautions by staff); During an observation on 4/8/25 at 8:11 A.M., showed: - HSK A went into resident's room and emptied the trash can within the room without donning any Personal Protective Equipment (PPE). The room had a sign for Contact Isolation which requires anyone entering the room to wash their hands and to don gloves and a gown; During an interview on 4/8/25 at 8:13 A.M., HSK A said: - Even though there was a Contact Isolation sign posted on the resident's room it did not require him/her to don any special protective equipment before entering the room; During an observation on 4/9/25 at 11:40 A.M, showed after a resident transfer with a Hoyer lift was completed in the resident's room, which has Contact Isolation requirements (mask, gown, gloves, at all times when entering the room), HSK A entered the room without PPE and failed to completely sanitize all contact areas on the Hoyer lift before removing the lift from the room and re-locating it to another location within the facility; During an interview on 4/9/25 at 1:35 P.M., LPN F said he/she is the Infection Preventionist for the facility and that housekeeping staff are expected to don PPE when entering isolation contact rooms to clean or sanitize.
Oct 2024 17 deficiencies
CONCERN (D)

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

Resident Rights (Tag F0550)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure residents were cared for in a dignified way when staff tugged on a residents shirt, ignoring the residents repeated req...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure residents were cared for in a dignified way when staff tugged on a residents shirt, ignoring the residents repeated requests for them to stop. Furthermore, staff treated the resident disrespectfully by yelling at the resident when the resident attempted to self propel his/her wheelchair up and down the halls of a secured care unit. This affected one of 21 sampled residents (Resident #85). The facility census was 103 Review of the facility provided Resident [NAME] of Rights dated 01/2023 showed: -Each resident has a right to a dignified existence, in a manner and in an environment that promotes maintenance or enhancement of his/her quality of life -The right to self determination, which the facility must promote and facilitate through support of resident choices about aspects of of his/her life in the facility. Including but not limited to activities, health care schedules and how he/she spends time. -The right to be free of abuse, neglect, exploitation, misappropriation Review of Resident #85's Quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS: a federally mandated assessment tool completed by facility staff) dated 9/16/24 showed: -Brief Interview of Mental Status (BIMS) of 3, indicated significant cognitive impairment; -Makes himself/herself understood and was able to understand; -No behaviors; -Partial to moderate assist of staff for Activities of Daily Living (ADL's: tasks completed in a day to care for oneself); -Diagnoses of Dementia (a decline in mental abilities that affects a person's ability to perform daily activities and worsens over time) , Generalized anxiety disorder (a mental health condition that causes people to experience excessive and persistent worry about everyday things), Cerebral Infarction (Stroke: occurs when blood flow to part of the brain is stopped, causing injury), Hypertension(high blood pressure); -The resident resided on the locked special care unit (SCU). Review of the resident's undated Comprehensive Care Plan showed: -He/She needed assistance with ADL's due to dementia. Give verbal cues and break tasks into small steps. -He/She had dementia and anxiety. Encourage him/her to socialize with others. Provide a structured environment. Observations on 10/07/24 at 11:33 A.M. showed the resident was sitting in the hallway at the nurses station, he/she wore a red sweatshirt of a local sports team. At 11:39 A.M. Certified Nurse Aide (CNA) A grabbed hold of the resident's shirt at the front, lower 1/3. The CNA fisted the shirt, shaking it back and forth and told the resident he/she could not mess up the shirt that day. The resident said quit. CNA A continued to shake the shirt and the resident again said quit. CNA A continued to shake the residents shirt, said the resident could not mess up the shirt. The resident again said quit, swatted his/her hand at the CNA's hand and brushed the CNA's hand away. The CNA released the shirt, waved his/her hand away from the resident, replied well okay then and walked away. The resident remained sitting at the nurses station. At 12:16 P.M. the resident used his/her feet to propel up the hallway in his/her wheelchair (w/c). Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) A yelled out at Resident #85; come back here, come back. The resident replied he/she did not need to come back, he/she hated just sitting there and there was nothing to do. The resident wheeled back to the nurses station. At 12:20 P.M. The resident was wheeling down the hall near the mailbox. LPN A yelled out, from the nurses station, calling the resident by name and said turn around now. The resident returned to the nurses station, asked LPN A if he/she called the resident. LPN A said no, he/she told the resident to come back because the resident didn't need to go that far. The resident replied that LPN A was ridiculous. At 12:41 P.M. the resident was in the dining room. A door alarm sounded. LPN A said to The resident, he/she needed to stay in the dining room because every time a door alarm went off LPN A thought it was The resident. The resident replied he/she did not do it. At 12:49 P.M. The resident was wheeling near the recreation room. LPN A yelled from the nurses station hallway for the resident to come back toward the nurses station and that he/she did not need to be down there. At 12:51 P.M. the resident was in the dining room and said it was loud and he/she did not want to be there. Staff did not assist the resident out of the dining room. During an interview on 10/7/24 at 12:51 P.M. LPN A said: -The resident will set off the secure door alarms if he/she travels too far up or down the hall; -He/She tried to keep all the residents in the middle of the hall and dining room areas instead of them going up and down the hall; -The residents are on a locked unit for their safety. During an interview on 10/7/24 at 11:42 A.M. CNA said: -He/She was playing with the resident when he/she grabbed and shook the resident's shirt; -He/She did not stop because he/she was just playing. During an interview on 10/10/24 at 6:25 P.M. with the Director of Nursing (DON) and the Administrator said: -The DON said she would not like her shirt to be shook. Someone shaking a resident's shirt and being asked to quit was absolutely a dignity issue. The purpose of the SCU was for resident's to receive specialized care to support their diagnosis. The residents might walk up and down the hall, and she would not expect staff to tell any resident to come back and stay there. She would expect staff to allow the resident to go anywhere on the unit as long as it was safe. -The Administrator said he agreed with the DON.
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0685 (Tag F0685)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on interviews and record review, the facility failed to assist one resident of the 21 sampled residents (Resident #82) with help in obtaining a hearing aide. The facility census was 103. Review...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on interviews and record review, the facility failed to assist one resident of the 21 sampled residents (Resident #82) with help in obtaining a hearing aide. The facility census was 103. Review of the facility's job description for the director of social services, dated 8/1/2012, showed, in part: - Under the direction of the Executive Director, the Social Services Director is responsible for monitoring the residents' mental and psycho-social needs and to provide the services to meet these needs in order to attain or maintain the highest practicable level of physical, mental, and psycho-social well-being; - Utilizes the Resident Assessment Instrument (RAI) process in conducting a psycho-social assessment; - Formulates a care plan which addresses the identified problems, needs, and concerns; - Documents progress toward goals, assessment updates, and interventions; - Reviews the resident's progress toward resolution of problems, needs, or concerns,; evaluates the effectiveness of the staff approaches, evaluates changes in the mental and psycho-social assessment; - Participates in the interdisciplinary assessment reviews and revisions; revises the residents' care plan according to residents' needs; - Coordinates the complaint/grievance program with appropriate disciplines and verifies that complaints/grievances are handled in a timely manner; - Coordinates appointments in the community for various health care visits and therapeutic needs; - Follows up as appropriate with supervisor, co-workers or residents regarding reported complaints, problems and concerns. 1. Review of Resident #82's Quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS), a federally mandated assessment instrument completed by facility staff, dated 8/22/24 showed: - Cognitive skills intact; - Hearing is adequate. Does not use a hearing aide. Able to make self understood; - Required assistance of set up and clean up with eating and oral hygiene; - Dependent on the assistance of staff with toilet use, showers, dressing, personal hygiene and transfers; - Diagnoses included congestive heart failure (accumulation of fluid in the lungs and other areas of the body), high blood pressure and atrial fibrillation (afib- an irregular, often rapid heart rate that commonly causes poor blood flow). Review of the resident's care plan, dated 11/15/22 showed it did not address the resident's hearing issues or need for a hearing aide. Review of the resident's hearing aid evaluation report, dated 12/18/23, showed; - Diagnosis of bilateral sensorineural hearing loss (a type of hearing loss that affects both ears and occurs when the inner ear's hair cells or auditory nerve are damaged); - The resident preferred right ear fitting for the hearing aid. Review of the requested timeline documentation regarding Resident #82's hearing aid follow up included a piece of paper with some information that showed hand written notes to include the following: - 2/20/24 - mailed out information to the audiologist (health care professionals who identify, assess and manage disorders of hearing, balance and other neural systems); - 2/28/24 - still awaiting medicaid to approve; - 7/11/24 - still pending; - 8/7/24 - the audiologist is out today; - 8/15/24 - no answer. During an interview on 10/07/24 at 11:27 A.M., the resident said: - He/she had a hearing test two months ago at a local hospital but still does not have any hearing aides; - He/she had not talked to Social Services about it. During an interview on 10/09/24 at 01:26 P.M., the Social Services Director said: - It is generally the transportation person who schedules the appointments and follows up with them; - He/she does not document any information in the resident's chart about the the hearing aide; - It generally takes a couple of months before the resident can get their hearing aide; - Medicaid will only pay for one hearing aide. During an interview on 10/09/24 at 02:15 P.M., the transportation person said: - They are still waiting on Medicaid to approve the hearing aide;. - He/she is the one who follows up to see where they are at; - He/she has the nurse chart about the hearing aide appointment because she/she did not have access to the charting; - Social Serviced does not document anything about the resident's hearing aide. During an interview on 10/10/24 at 6:25 P.M., the Director of Nursing (DON) said: - If the facility knows about the hearing aide, then they collaborate with Social Services and have transport schedule the hearing appointment; - Social Services should document where they are in the process of obtaining the hearing aide. During an interview on 10/10/24 at 6:56 P.M., the Administrator said; - He would expect the Social Services Director to have a bigger part in obtaining a hearing aide for the resident; - It was not up to transportation to do that; - He planned to follow up with social services regarding appointments.
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0760 (Tag F0760)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on observations, interviews, and record review, the facility failed to ensure staff provided a safe and effective medication administration system that was free of significant medication errors ...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observations, interviews, and record review, the facility failed to ensure staff provided a safe and effective medication administration system that was free of significant medication errors when staff failed to provide a meal to a resident within 15 minutes after receiving fast acting insulin. This affected one out of 21 sampled residents, (Resident #103). The facility census was 103. Review of the facility's policy for general guidelines for medication administration, dated 8/16, showed, in part: - Medications are administered as prescribed, in accordance with good nursing principles and practices and only be persons legally authorized to do so. Personnel authorized to administer medications do so only after they have familiarized themselves with the medication; - Medications are administered in accordance with written orders of attending physicians, taking into consideration manufacturer's specifications and professional standards of practice; - Medications are administered within the identified block of time per facility defined parameters. One hour before and one hour after the scheduled time, except for orders relating to before, after, and during meal orders, which are administered as ordered. Unless otherwise specified by the physician, routine medications are administered according to the established medication administration schedule for the facility; - The resident's medication administration record (MAR)/treatment administration record (TAR) is initialed by the person administering a medication, in the space provided under the date, and on the line for that specific medication dose following medication administration. Initials on each MAR/TAR are verified with a full signature in the space provided or on the signature log. The electronic (eMAR/eTAR) uses an electronic signature; - Placing an initial in the space provided on the MAR/eMAR and TAR/eTAR also indicates that the nurse who administered the medication is observing for side effects. Review of the facility's policy for insulin injections, dated 7/24 showed, in part: - Daily insulin injections are given with a physician's order. Injection sites will be rotated. Insulin will be given before meals unless otherwise ordered by the physician; - The policy did not indicate how long a resident should wait to eat a meal after receiving insulin. Review of the manufacturers guidelines for Humalog insulin ( used to treat high blood sugar) dated 2023 showed: - Administer Humalog insulin 15 minutes before a meal. 1. Review of Resident #103's Physician's Order Sheet (POS), dated October 2024 showed: -Check blood sugars before meals and bedtime; for diabetes mellitus; -Humalog 100 units/ ml give at meal times per sliding scale; o less than 150 - 0 units; o 150 - 200 give 2 units; o 201 - 250 give 4 units; o 251 - 300 give 6 units; o 301 - 350 give 8 units; o 351 - 400 give 10 units; -Notify the physician for blood sugars less than 60 or greater than 400. Review of the resident's Medication Administration Record (MAR), dated October 2024 showed: -Check blood sugars before meals and bedtime; for diabetes mellitus; -Humalog 100 units/ ml give at meal times per sliding scale; o less than 150 - 0 units; o 150 - 200 give 2 units; o 201 - 250 give 4 units; o 251 - 300 give 6 units; o 301 - 350 give 8 units; o 351 - 400 give 10 units; -Notify the physician for blood sugars less than 60 or greater than 400. Continuous observation starting on 10/9/24 at 11:51 A.M., and ending on 10/9/24 at 12: 52 P.M., showed: -11:51 A.M., Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) E obtained the resident's blood sugar; -The resident's blood sugar was 246; -11:54 A.M.,The nurse administered and 4 units of Humalog insulin as directed by sliding scale; -11: 58 A.M.,The nurse left the resident's room; -12:15 P.M., The resident is setting in his/her room watching T.V., -12:33 P.M., The resident is setting in his/room and took a drink from a styrofoam cup setting in the bedside table; -12:35 P.M. The resident continues to set in his/her room at the bedside table; -12:40 P.M., No staff have checked on him/her since he/she received the insulin; -12:42 P.M., The resident said he/she is hungry; -12:49 P.M., The Registered Dietitian (RD) brings the room trays to F hall and leaves the cart; -12:52 P.M., Certified Nurses Aide (CNA) K took the resident's tray to him/her and the resident began eating; -12:52 P.M., The facilty failed to provide the resident his/her meal within 15 minutes of administration of insulin as directed by the manufacture's guidelines. During an interview on 10/9/24 at 12:58 P.M., LPN E said: -The resident usally eats in the dining room; -He/she thought the resident had went to the dining room to eat his/her meal; -The resident receives fast acting insulin and should eat between 30 and 45 minutes; -The resident should not have went an hour after the insulin was given to eat a meal. During an interview on 10/10/24, at 6:25 P.M., the Director of Nursing (DON) said: -Physician's orders should be followed: -Humalog is a short acting insulin; -Humalog should be given no earlier than 10 minutes before a meal; -A resident should not be given a fast acting insulin and wait 45 minutes to an hour for a meal, that is too long.
CONCERN (E)

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

Deficiency F0558 (Tag F0558)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to provide acceptable accommodations for one non English speaking resident (Resident #104) and failed to provide one resident ap...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to provide acceptable accommodations for one non English speaking resident (Resident #104) and failed to provide one resident appropriate seating for meal times when his/her chair put his/her at face at table height (Resident # 26). This affected two of 21 sampled residents. The facility census was 103. Facility did not provide a policy on accommodation of needs. Review of Resident [NAME] of Rights, revised 1/23, showed: -Each resident had a right to dignified existence, self-determination, and communication with and access to persons and services and outside the facility in a manner and in an environment that promotes maintenance or enhancement of (his or her) quality of life, regardless of diagnosis, severity of condition. -Informed in a language he/she can understand of his/her total health status, including but not limited to, his/her medical condition. -Reside and receive services in the facility with reasonable accommodation of residents needs and preferences except when to do so would endanger the health or safety of the resident or other residents. -Communicate with individuals and entities within and external to the facility. 1. Review of Resident #104's minimum data set (MDS), a federally mandated assessment tool completed by facility staff, dated 9/25/24, showed: -His/Her cognitive status was not measurable; -His/Her preferred language was Spanish; -He/She had no impairment to upper or lower extremities; -H/She was dependent on wheelchair; -He/She required substantial/maximal assistance with eating, oral hygiene; -He/She was dependent with toileting hygiene, bathing, dressing, mobility ; -Diagnoses included Alzheimer's Disease (a progressive disease that destroys memory and other important mental functions), Parkinson's Disease (a disorder of central nervous system that can cause symptoms of low movement, stiffness, and loss of balance) , repeated falls, headaches, and ototoxic hearing loss (inner ear damage that develops as a side effect of taking certain medications). Review of care plan, undated, showed: -Resident was Spanish speaking and staff were able to communicate with him/her through Google translate; -He/She enjoyed listening to music such as traditional Spanish music; -Offer picture communication book to allow resident a chance to point at what he/she needs; -Provide an activity calendar in his/her room; -Offer picture/word communication board to the resident to show signs for snacks and fluids to alert resident to know what is happening; -Offer cueing for toilet, pain, nurse with pictures due to lack of communication due to Spanish speaking only; -He/She had difficulty hearing due to hearing loss; -Staff should speak in low, clear voice to increase resident's chance of hearing; -He/She can understood simple direct communication; -Resident hears better in right ear. Review of daily care guide, dated 10/8/24, showed: -He/She spoke Spanish; -Keep communication board pages with pictures in English and Spanish at his/her side in the wheelchair when he/she was up so staff can assist with his/her needs. Review of electronic medical record showed: -On 9/26/24, Physical Therapist A documented a physical therapy evaluation was completed after family requested physical therapy screen, and physical therapy was not recommended. The resident was at baseline function and did not progress with therapy due to language barrier and refusing to perform tasks in therapy. During an interview on 10/8/24 at 10:51 A.M., family representative Interview said: -Resident spoke Spanish and did not understand English; -He/She had translated short cues for therapy department with cues such as stand up and walk; -Resident understood short cues; -Facility staff mostly communicated with resident in English; -Family member went to facility daily to provide cares and showers to resident; -Resident was the only Spanish speaking resident on the hall; -The facility staff did not make any accommodations for his/her language barriers. Observation on 10/7/24 at 10:07 A.M., showed resident was placed in alcove across from nurses station. Resident spoke Spanish to self. He/She was observed staring at the wall and pulling on his/her pants. He/She did not have a communication board with him/her in his/her wheelchair. Resident had no engagement items or Spanish music playing. Observation on 10/7/24 at 10:17 A.M. showed Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) G obtained resident's foot pedals for wheelchair and applied to his/her wheelchair. LPN G talked to resident in English. Observation on 10/7/24 at 10:18 A.M. showed resident's room did not have any Spanish items. No activity calendar posted in room. Communication board observed in English was laying on a table in the resident's room. Observation on 10/7/24 at 2:35 P.M. showed resident was sat across from nurses station in an alcove. Resident was observed playing with his/her shirt. Resident did not have communication board with him. He/She had no engagement, no entertainment, and nothing in his/her hands. During continuous observation on 10/9/24 at 7:18 A.M.-9:04 A.M., showed resident was sat in alcove across from nurses station. He/She had no entertainment, no communication board, and no items in his/her hand. Observation on 10/9/24 at 9:11 A.M. showed Activity Director stopped and spoke to resident in English stating 'Papa are you okay?'. The staff member did not use a communication board, translator application or Spanish phrases when he/she interacted with the resident. Observation on 10/9/24 at 1:01 P.M. showed staff placed resident in alcove across from the nurses station with no communication board and no engagement activity. Observation on 10/9/24 at 1:12 P.M., showed Activity Director inquired with Shower Aide if resident has been provided incontinent care. Staff stated he/she did not know. Activity Director then said to resident in English 'come on, let's go'. The resident did not respond to the staff member and had blank stare. The staff member took the resident to his/her room. During a continuous observation on 10/9/24 from 6:55 P.M.-8:33 P.M. of B hall showed: -6:55 P.M. Facility staff wheeled the resident in his/her wheel chair to the alcove at the nurses station; - He/She tried to stand up; -7:02 P.M., Resident was speaking in Spanish and talking loudly, Certified Nurse Aide (CNA) E and CNA F talked to the resident in English and sat the resident back down in his/her wheelchair. Resident continued to talk loudly in Spanish. -7:10 P.M., resident was sitting in the alcove across from nurses station attempting to stand up. CNA G went to the resident and said to him/her in English 'Come on Poppy, let's go'. Resident did not have his/her communication board. -8:09 P.M., showed resident was back in the alcove across from nurses station. Resident was speaking in Spanish and showing signs of agitation when he/she began to raise the tone of his voice and started speaking more rapidly. Registered Nurse (RN) A went to resident and asked resident in English if he/she wanted to go to bed. He/She then asked resident in English if resident wanted water. The resident had a blank stare and looked from staff to staff member back and forth. Resident did not have his/her communication board. Observation on 10/10/24 at 1:42 P.M. showed resident was in the dining room alone and attempted to stand up. The resident was chanting loudly in Spanish in front of the television. Television was on playing the news in English. During an interview on 10/8/24 at 11:27 A.M., Therapy Director said: -He/She had screened resident for therapy and determined resident was unsafe; -His/Her family had requested therapy multiple times but resident was too impulsive. During an interview on 10/9/24 at 1:22 P.M., LPN G said: -He/She used Google translate to communicate with resident; -Resident's family always came in evening if they needed help communicating with resident; -Resident had been talking a lot in Spanish; -Resident could not participate in activities, but Activities Director will take him/her to activities if there was music. During an interview on 10/9/24 at 1:45 P.M., CNA J said: -He/She found it hard to communicate with resident; -He/She told resident what he/she was doing in English; -He/She did not know Spanish; -Resident's family was in facility a lot and they helped communicate with resident; -He/She was not aware of a communication board; -When family is in facility they can get resident to relax and do more; -Resident was provided fidget toys for activities and taken on walks around building; -Resident was sat at nurses station due to fall risk. During an interview on 10/9/24 at 7:14 P.M., RN A said: -It was his/her first time working on B-hall and his/her second day working in the facility building; -He/She was agency staff. During an interview on 10/9/24 at 8:13 P.M., CNA E said: -He/She had not been education about resident's communication board; -He/She did not know how to use Google translate; -He/She wanted to know how to communicate with resident; -He/She did not speak Spanish. During an interview on 10/9/24 at 8:15 P.M., CNA F said: -No staff members spoke Spanish that worked with resident; -He/She did not know resident had communication board; -He/She had not been taught how to communicate with resident. During an interview on 10/9/24 at 8:23 P.M., CNA G said: -He/She had not used resident's communication board to communicate with the resident; -He/She tried to communicate with resident in short phrases in Spanish; -He/She had tried using Google translate on his/her phone but it did not work with him/her. During an interview on 10/10/24 at 8:16 A.M., LPN G said: -He/She did comprehend some of what his/her family communicated to him/her in Spanish; -He/She had used Google translate with resident and Google translate only picked up one sensible thing from resident when he/she told him/her that he/she liked the music that LPN G had played. During an interview on 10/10/24 at 4:15 P.M., Activity Director said: -Resident did not appear he/she was interested in any activities; -He/She had not done activities for resident in Spanish; -He/She had not spoken to resident's families to find out resident's history of activities that brought him/her joy; -Resident would act out by raising his voice and yelling, would try to get up out if his/her chair; -Resident should have a Spanish activity calendar in his/her room. During an interview on 10/10/24 at 6:25 P.M., Director of Nursing said: -He/She expected staff to communicate with resident who didn't have English as their primary language by using a communication board or translation device; -He/She expected staff to be educated on how to use communication boards or communication devices; -He/She would expect communication board to be in resident's primary language; -He/She expected activities or entertainment to be offered in resident's primary language. During an interview on 10/10/24 at 6:56 P.M., Administrator said: -He/She would expect some sort of accommodation for staff to be able to communicate with resident who did not speak with English as primarily language; -He/She expected staff working with resident to be educated on those accommodations and how to use them. During an interview on 10/16/24 at 10:41 A.M., Physical Therapist A said: -He/She completed the resident's initial physical therapy screening assessment when the resident was admitted to the facility; - The resident's family requested a second assessment that he/she completed on 9/26/24; -He/She set up therapy times so family could be present during therapy sessions; -Language was a barrier even when family was present; -Resident did respond to some prompts provided by family members during therapy sessions; -He/She did not know if the facility had a way to communicate with the resident outside of utilizing family members; -Therapy department had family write down sayings like larger steps, higher steps to utilize with resident in Spanish; -Therapy department staff had a really difficult time getting resident to progress even with family present providing prompts in Spanish. 2. Review of Resident #26's Quarterly MDS completed 8/9/24 showed: -BIMS of 4, indicated significant cognitive loss; -Substantial to maximum assistance of staff with Activities of Daily Living (ADL's: tasks completed in a day to care for oneself); -He/She is dependent on a wheelchair for mobility; -Height of 62 inches (in); -Diagnoses of osteoporosis (a disease that weakens bones), Dementia (a brain disease that causes loss of function such as thinking,remembering and reasoning that interferes with daily life), Ischemic Cerebral Infarction (damage to the brain from blocked blood flow). Review of the resident's comprehensive Care Plan showed no care plan for use of a wheelchair. Review of the resident's electronic medical record showed: -April 2024 the resident was seen by Skilled Therapy services for self feeding skills due to mobility and self propelling the w/c. -May 2024 the resident was seen by Skilled Therapy services for sitting balance and functional mobility. Observation on 10/07/24 at 11:05 A.M. showed the resident sitting in his/her w/c, slightly bent forward with a c shaped curve to his/her upper body. He/She was looking at a game card lying on the family style dining room table. His/Her w/c was very low to the ground. The table was at mid chest/breast height of the resident. The resident remained at the table for the noon meal. At 1:11 P.M. his/her meal was served . He/She attempted to raise his/her right hand from under the table, and picked up his/her fork from the table. He/She dropped the fork on the floor. He/She then began eating with his/her fingers. He/She did not complete his/her meal and staff removed the resident from the room. Observation on 10/08/24 at 6:41 AM the resident was sitting at the same dining room table. He/She had his/her head laid face down on the table. At 7:04 A.M. Certified Nurse Aide (CNA) H assisted the resident out of the dining room. During an interview on 10/8/24 at 6:45 A.M. CNA H said: -The wheelchair belongs to the resident. During an interview on 10/08/24 at 11:33 AM the Therapy Program Director said: -Skilled Therapy should measure each resident individually for wheelchairs; -She made recommendations for this resident to sit at an over bed table to eat, since he/she cannot reach the dining table; -She expects nurses to notify therapy if a wheelchair does not fit the resident, or if the resident has a problem with a chair, such as sitting chest height to a table. During an interview on 10/10/24 at 6:25 PM the Director of Nursing said: -He/She would expect staff to look into other options for a resident that sits chest height to the table; -She would expect Dietary and Skilled Therapy to be involved in care of Resident #26; -She was not aware that resident #26 sat at chest height to the dining room table.
CONCERN (E)

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

Deficiency F0582 (Tag F0582)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to provide the Notice of Medicare Non-Coverage (NOMNC) form CMS - 10123, to Medicare beneficiaries at least two days before the end of a Medic...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to provide the Notice of Medicare Non-Coverage (NOMNC) form CMS - 10123, to Medicare beneficiaries at least two days before the end of a Medicare covered Part A stay. This affected two out of 21 sampled residents (Resident #1 and #93). The facility census was 103. The facility did not provide the requested policy for Notice of Medicare Non-Coverage (NOMNC) form CMS - 10123. CMS Guidlines: Form CMS-10123, is given by the facility to all Medicare beneficiaries at least two days before the end of a Medicare covered Part A stay or when all of Part B therapies are ending. The NOMNC informs the beneficiaries of the right to an expedited review by a Quality Improvement Organization. 1. Review of Resident #1's medical record showed: -The resident had a Notice of Medicare Non-Coverage (NOMNC) issued that showed Medicare Part A benefits were ending on 8/20/24; -The NOMNC was signed by the resident on 8/20/24; -The resident's record showed the facilty failed to ensure the resident received the NOMNC at least at least two days before the end of a Medicare covered Part A stay. 2. Review of Resident #93's medical record showed: - The resident had a NOMNC issued that showed Medicare Part A benefits were ending on 9/3/24; -The NOMNC was signed by the resident on 9/3/24; -The resident's record showed the facilty failed to ensure the resident received the NOMNC at least at least two days before the end of a Medicare covered Part A stay. During an interview 10/10/24 at 4:40 P.M. the Business Office Manager said: -He/she was unaware the residents #1 and #93 did not receive the NOMNC at least two days before the end of their Medicare covered part A stay; -Residents should receive the NOMNC at least two days prior to the end of a Medicare covered Part A stay. During an interview on 10/10/24 at 06:56 P.M., the Administrator said: -He/She could not recall the time frame for when the NOMNC form should be given to residents coming off of Medicare A; -He/She did not know who was responsible for providing the NOMNC form to the residents; -The NOMNC should not be given on the resident's last covered day.
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** 5. Observation on 10/07/24 at 12:01 P.M. showed dining room had area above the television had been dry wall patched and sanded b...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** 5. Observation on 10/07/24 at 12:01 P.M. showed dining room had area above the television had been dry wall patched and sanded but not painted. A second area had not been painted where the wall was patched and sanded where the television previously hung. 6. Observation of B-wing hall on 10/7/24 at 10:29 A.M., showed: -room [ROOM NUMBER] had dry wall patches above the bed that had not been painted; -In the hallway between room [ROOM NUMBER] and 45 there was two 1 inch holes in the wall and paint was missing; -room [ROOM NUMBER] had gouges to the wall where drywall and paint had been scraped away by furniture; -room [ROOM NUMBER] had a broken outlet cover in the middle of the room. 7. Observation on 10/9/24 at 8:39 A.M. showed floor technician using floor machine on B-hall. The machine was making a loud squealing noise. During an interview on 10/10/24 at 4:43 P.M., Maintenance Director said: -He/She was responsible for facility repairs and upkeep; -He/She became aware of items requiring repair via the facility system; -He/She checked computer every morning for work orders; -Staff notify him also via cell phone of facility repairs needed; -The floor machine just started squeaking noise due to a rubber seal; -The walls in dining room were just patched; -Once drywall is patched it, he allowed it to sit for two to three days to allow the mud to dry; -He/She then should sand and paint the drywall patches; Based on observation and interview, the facility failed to ensure noise levels were at an acceptable level for two sampled residents (Resident #35 and #77). Additionally the facility failed to ensure housekeeping and maintenance services were provided to maintain a sanitary, orderly and comfortable interior throughout the facility. and failed to provide an adequate supply of linens. The facility census was 103. Review of the facility provided policy Resident [NAME] of Rights dated 1/2023 showed: -The facility residents have a right to a safe, clean, comfortable and homelike environment. Review of the facility provided policy Housekeeping Cleaning Procedures dated 6/2018 showed: -Spot clean walls/ damp wipe vertical surfaces/counters/ledges/sills; -Wipe walls weekly. Review of the facility provided policy Floor Care Cleaning Procedures dated 6/2018 showed: -Dust mop floor-remove gum, etc. with a putty knife; -Scrub edges with utility pad holder and/or scraper. The facility did not provide a policy on sound levels. 1. Review of Resident #35 Quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS: a federally mandated assessment tool completed by facility staff) dated 7/11/24 showed: -Brief Interview of Mental Status of 99, indicated significant cognitive loss; -Adequate hearing; -Able to understand others and make himself/herself understood; -Dependent on staff for Activities of Daily Living (ADL's: tasks completed in a day to care for oneself); -Used a wheelchair for mobility; -Diagnoses of Anxiety disorder (a mental illness that causes a person to experience excessive and uncontrollable feelings of fear and anxiousness), Depression (a serious mental illness that can affect a person's thoughts, feelings, behavior, and sense of well-being), Mood disorder (a mental health condition that primarily effects your mental state), Alzheimer's Dementia (a disorder of the brain that gradually destroys thinking, memory and eventually the ability to complete daily tasks). Observation on 10/07/24 beginning at 11:05 A.M. showed the Special Care Unit (SCU) dining room/sitting room patio door was propped open with a brick and potted plant. The door alarm was beeping. Certified Nurse Aide (CNA) A said the door was alarming because the it was open and residents were at the dining table near the door. Resident #35 was sitting at the table with one side of his/her body positioned toward the door and the alarm. He/She had her hand up over his/her ear closest to the alarm. At 12:45 P.M. CNA A assisted the resident from the table down the hall. At 1:06 P.M. Resident #35 returned to the table. The door alarm continued to sound. The resident put his/her hand back over his/her ear. He/She had a distressed look with furrowed brow, on his/her face. 2. Observations beginning on 10/08/24 at 7:58 A.M. on the SCU showed: -Nursery room: the carpet was stained with grey dusty color debris, light fixtures had dead bugs and debris and baseboards had gray/black debris at floor edge; -room [ROOM NUMBER]: the entry door had scratches and large paint chips exposing the wood underneath, and drug against the floor when opening/closing. The bathroom floor grout was gray/black in color. The bathroom door had large chips and gouges in the paint. The room sink baseboard was chipped; -room [ROOM NUMBER] had a sticky floor, the entry door had gouges and chips in the paint, and there was dirt and rust on a ceiling access panel; -room [ROOM NUMBER] entry door had paint chips that exposed the wood underneath. The bathroom had non skid strips in front of the toilet that were peeled up and partially away from the tile. The bathroom grout was gray/black in color; -room [ROOM NUMBER] the baseboard was peeling away from the wall. The bathroom grout was gray/ black in color. The bathroom door has chipped/scratched paint; -room [ROOM NUMBER] the privacy curtain had brown colored debris approximately 6 inches long on the front side; - room [ROOM NUMBER] the entry door had multiple paint chips exposing the wood underneath; -Dining/Sitting Room the baseboard had thick black gray crusty debris at the edge of the floor. There were multiple stained/scuffed floor tiles. The walls had multiple scuff marks. The ceiling light fixtures had dead bugs and debris. The door jam had scuffs and chips in the paint. The area rug had dust, debris and gray/brown stains. There were missing tile under the Packaged Terminal Air Conditioner (PTAC a type of self-contained heating and air conditioning system).The baseboard near the PTAC unit was peeling away from wall. The radio and radio stand had a layer of gray dust. There were pearl like beads on floor at edge of the wall. The windowsills had thick brown dust and debris. The chair rail mounted on the wall had a layer of dust at the top edge. The window blinds had dust and debris. The PTAC unit had black mold like substance in the vent, on the filter and the filter cover. An over bed table had laminate peeling off, with exposed pressboard; -room [ROOM NUMBER] had a large wall patch, unpainted. A large scuffed area at the door entrance. The baseboard was peeling away from the closet wall. The tile at the base of closet was cracked. The bathroom door had large scuffed areas with cracked laminate, exposing the wood underneath. The floor was sticky. The bathroom grout was gray/black in color; -room [ROOM NUMBER] the floor was sticky. The baseboard was peeling away from the wall and had crusty debris at the top of the board and wall. The PTAC had black mold like debris in the vent; -room [ROOM NUMBER] had dust and debris in the vent of the PTAC unit. There were two pencil sized holes in the bathroom door. The room entry door had scuffs and scratches in the paint. The baseboards had thick black/gray debris at the floor edge. 3. Observation on 10/09/24 at 8:16 P.M. showed the resident telephone room door had chipped finish exposing the wood underneath. There were multiple scuffs and gouges in the door. The floor was stained with brown/gray color. The baseboard was grimy with dust and dirt. There was dark crusty debris at the entry door threshold. During an interview on 10/10/24 at 4:13 PM Housekeeper A said: -There are floor technicians who are responsible for the hallways and general areas; -Housekeeping staff are responsible for cleaning the resident rooms, bathrooms and shower rooms; -Maintenance staff cleaned the lights, and completes high dusting in the hallways, such as the door corners; -Maintenance is responsible for patching and painting. During an interview on 10/10/24 at 4:42 P.M. the Maintenance Director said: -He worked in this facility for two years; -He was supervising the housekeeping department, but usually that department has their own supervisor; -The floor technicians are responsible for floor care, to include scraping debris off the floor, cleaning behind the doors and cleaning and/or scraping the baseboard edges; -Floors are stripped and waxed as resident rooms open up. General hallways and floors are done at night on a three week schedule; -Housekeeping staff are responsible for cleaning, and that included cleaning dead bugs and debris from the light fixtures; -Maintenance staff are responsible for upkeep of the building and repairs only; -PTAC units get cleaned twice a year; -Staff can fill out work orders for things that need repaired; -He did not have a list of repairs that need completed. During an interview on 10/10/24 at 6:25 P.M., the Director of Nursing (DON) said: -She expected the building to be clean, and residents to be comfortable. 4. Review of Resident #77's Quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS), completed by facility staff and dated 8/9/24, showed: - Cognitive skills intact; - Independent with transfers; - Diagnoses included anxiety and depression. Review of the resident care plan, dated 4/4/2022, showed: - The resident had an alteration in sleep pattern related to insomnia ( persistent problems falling and staying asleep); administer medications as ordered by the physician; observe for changes in sleep pattern inability to fall/stay asleep; provide a quiet restful environment. During an interview on 10/7/24 at 3:17 P.M., the resident said; - The staff take the smoking cart outside and roll it past his/her door and it is very loud; - There is something broken on it and it makes a loud clunking sound; - The smoking cart has been broken for over a month; - He/she has trouble sleeping at night and it has woken him/her up before. Observation on 10/8/24 at 7:14 A.M., showed: - Staff pushing the smoking cart down the hallway to the exit for the smoke break; - The front wheel looked like it was broken and it was made a very loud clunking sound. Observation on 10/8/24 at 10:05 A.M., showed: - Staff pushed the smoking cart down the end of the hall for the smoke break; - The smoking cart made a very loud clunking sound all the way down the hall. During an interview on 10/9/24 at 7:03 P.M., Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) D said: - If something was broken he/she would call Maintenance and let them know and he/she would pass it on in report; - He/she was not for sure how long the smoking cart had been broken. During an observation and interview on 10/9/24 at 7:15 P.M., showed: - Staff brought the smoking cart back inside and it made a terribly loud clunking sound; - Certified Nurse Aide (CNA) C said he/she has worked at the facility for a month. The smoking cart was really loud and had been like that since he/she has worked there. He/she had not reported it but you could hear the staff coming with it. Observation on 10/10/24 at 9:55 A.M., showed: - The surveyor was inside resident #77's room with the door closed and you could hear staff pushing the smoking cart past the room and it made a very loud clunking sound as it went past. During an interview on 10/10/24 at 10:07 A.M., LPN C said: - If something needs to be fixed or repaired, he/she writes up a departmental slip and places it in the maintenance box up front in the copy room; - He/she also reported it to the unit manager; - If it was not repaired, he/she would stay on it until it and follow up. During an interview on 10/10/24 at 4:42 P.M., the Maintenance Director said: - He/she used a notepad and wrote down things of high attention and would take care of those first; - He/she was aware of the wheel on the smoking cart being broken; - He/she ordered the replacement wheel this week. During an interview on 10/10/24 at 6:25 P.M., the Director of Nursing (DON) said: - Staff should report broken equipment; - Staff should notify the unit manager; - She was not aware of the wheel on the smoking cart being broken.
CONCERN (E)

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

Deficiency F0604 (Tag F0604)

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 residents were free from physical restraints wh...

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 residents were free from physical restraints when the facility failed to obtain a physician's order, assess, monitor or care plan the use of a seat belt (a belt or strap used to secure a person to prevent injury) for one resident (Resident #11) and when the facility staff failed to unlock the wheels of a wheelchair for one resident (Resident #84) after the resident was observed pushing against the table with his/her hands, pushing back into the back of the wheelchair and yelling out repeatedly, He/She didn't want it. The facility census was 103. Review of the facility's Restraint Evaluation and Reduction policy, dated December 2023, showed in part: -All residents have the right to be free from restraints; -Physical restraints are identified as any manual method or physical devise attached to the resident's body that they cannot remove easily and restricts freedom of movement; -The following devices are considered a restraint and require an evaluation: o Seat belts; o Chairs; o Side rails; -A physician's order will be entered in the resident's record; -The resident's care plan will be updated. Review of the Missouri Resident [NAME] of Rights, provided through the state long term are ombudsman (a person who represents the interests of residents) program included Residents have the right to be treated with consideration, respect, and dignity, recognizing each resident' s individuality. 1. Review of Resident #11's, Quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS, a federally mandated assessment tool completed by facility staff), dated 9/18/24, showed: -Severe cognitive impairment; -Dependent on staff for all ADL's, including mobility; -Always incontinent of bowel and bladder; -At risk for skin breakdown; -The resident did not require the use of restraints; -Diagnoses included: Cerebral Palsy (a disorder that affects a person's ability to move, balance, and maintain posture), Quadriplegia (paralysis that affects all a person's limbs), and a seizure disorder. Review of the resident's care plan, revised 3/11/24, showed: -The resident requires ADL and mobility assistance; -The resident is at risk for skin breakdown; -The resident is at risk for injury from seizure activity; -The care plan did not address the use of a seat belt. Review of the resident's Physicians Order Sheet (POS) dated October 2024, showed: -No order for a seat belt was found. Review of the resident's record showed: -No evaluation for the use of the seatbelt was found; -Therapy notes dated 3/14/24 through 5/12/14 did not address the use of a seat belt and showed no assessment for the use of the seat belt. Observation on 10/10/24, at 10:35 A.M., showed: -The resident's hands were contracted; -The resident sitting in his/her power chair in the hall; -The resident had a seat belt fastened across his/her lap; -The resident attempted to use his/her right elbow to release the seat belt; -The resident could not release the seat belt. Observation on 10/10/24, at 10:48 A.M., showed: -The resident's hands were contracted; -The resident sitting in the hall in his/her power chair; -The resident had a seat belt fastened across his/her lap; -The resident pushed his/her arm to the waist but did not unlock the seat belt; -The resident tried again to unlock the seat belt; -The resident could not release the seat belt. During an interview on 10/10/24 at 11:05 A.M., Certified Nurse Aide (CNA) K said: -The resident was dependent on staff for care; -He/She did not notice the resident used a seat belt; -He/she did not know if the resident could release the seatbelt on his/her own or not; -Residents should not have a seat belt if they cannot release it themselves. During an interview on 10/10/24 at 11:12 A.M., CNA N said: -He/she did not know the resident that well; -He/she did not know if the resident could release the seat belt without help; -Residents using belts should be able to unlock them with no help from staff. Observation and interview on 10/10/24 at 11:15 A.M., showed: - Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) E said the resident can unlock the belt with his/her elbow by him/herself; -LPN E asked the resident to unlock the seat belt; -The resident could not unlock the seat belt; -LPN E said the resident should be able to unlock the seat belt with no help from staff. During an interview on 10/10/24 at 11:27 A.M., the Director of Therapy said: -He/she did not remember doing an assessment for a seat belt for the resident; -The resident's care plan should reflect they are using a seat belt; -The resident should have an assessment prior to getting the seat belt; -The resident must be able to release the seat belt with no help from staff. During an interview on 10/10/24 at 11:38 A.M., the [NAME] President of Operations said: -The resident's seat belt should have been discontinued; -The seat belt was not supposed to be in use; -A physicians order is needed to evaluate for a seat belt and to have one; -In this case the seat belt was discontinued and should have been removed. During an interview on 10/10/24 at 06:25 P.M., the Director of Nursing (DON) said: -A physicians order is needed for a seat belt; -The resident should be evaluated for use of a seat belt; -The seat belt should be care planned; -In this case the seat belt was discontinued and should have been removed. During an interview on 10/10/24 at 06:25 P.M., the Administrator concurred with the DON's statements regarding the use of a seat belt for any resident. 2. Review of Resident #84's MDS dated [DATE] showed: -BIMS score of 3, indicated significant cognitive loss; -No behaviors; -Dependent on staff for ADL's; -Uses wheelchair (w/c) for mobility; -Diagnoses of Anxiety Disorder (a feeling for fear, dread and uneasiness that can effect daily life), depression (a serious mental illness that can affect a person's thoughts, feelings, behavior, and sense of well-being), muscle weakness, dementia (a chronic condition that causes a loss of brain function, such as thinking, remembering, and reasoning, that interferes with daily life), chronic pain (long term pain) , Adult Failure to Thrive (a syndrome that describes a general decline in health that can affect older adults), and falls. Review of the resident's undated comprehensive Care Plan showed: -The resident resided on the locked Special Care Unit (SCU); -Redirect and reassure the resident as needed; -No care plan addressed the use of locked wheelchair brakes. Observation on 10/07/24 at 11:49 A.M. showed: -Resident #84 was sitting at the dining room table on the SCU; -The wheels of his/her wheelchair were locked; -The resident was pushing his/her back into the back of the wheelchair, rocking the wheelchair slightly; -The resident was crying out 'we can't', repeatedly. Observation on 10/07/24 at 12:36 P.M. showed: -Resident #84 was sitting in his/her w/c with his/her back to the dining room table; -He/She was squirming his/her buttocks in the w/c, then lifted his/her buttocks off the w/c seat; -He/She complained of back pain; -LPN A unlocked the resident's wheels, turned the chair to face the dining table, and locked both w/c brakes; -The resident yelled out 'hey, hey, hey', while pushing back against the w/c. Then he/she began alternately patting and rubbing the table, yelling out 'hey' then mumbling. Observation on 10/07/24 at 1:09 P.M. the Activity Assistant unlocked the resident's wheelchair brakes and assisted the resident into the hall. Observation on 10/08/24 at 7:22 A.M. showed: -CNA H brought the resident to the dining room table and locked the right side wheelchair brake; -The resident began tapping and banging on the table. The resident said he/she 'didn't want it', repetitively; -The resident was pushing against the table with his/her hands and dragging his/her feet on the ground in stepping motion; -The resident moved back and forth in a circle saying he/she 'cannot go', repetitively; -At 7:38 A.M. CNA H unlocked the resident's brake. During an interview on 10/8/24 at 7:38 AM CNA H said: -Resident #84's wheels are locked so he/she stays put. During an interview on 10/09/24 at 8:12 PM Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) E said: -Locked wheelchair brakes are a restraint; -Brakes should not be locked unless the resident can unlock or lock them themselves; -Resident #84 should not have his/her wheels locked. -He/She locked the wheels so the resident would stay at the table. During an interview on 10/10/24 at 6:25 PM with the Director of Nursing (DON) and the Administrator said: -The DON said locked wheelchair brakes are a restraint if the resident cannot unlock them. She would not expect staff to lock the wheels and not allow Resident #84 or any other resident down the hall; -The Administrator said he agreed with the DON.
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 record review and interview, the facility failed to check the Family Care Safety Registry (FCSR, a registry that provides background information on people who work with children, seniors, and...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on record review and interview, the facility failed to check the Family Care Safety Registry (FCSR, a registry that provides background information on people who work with children, seniors, and people with disabilities in Missouri) for three of the 10 sampled employees prior to them having contact with any resident. The facility census was 103. Review of the facilty's Abuse Prevention Policy, dated October 2022, showed in part: -The facilty is committed to protecting the residents from abuse; -The facilty conducts employee back ground checks; -The facilty will pre -screen all potential employees for a history of abusive behavior. 1. Review of Dietary Aide E's personnel file showed: -Date of hire 9/17/24; -A check of the FCSR dated 10/9/24; -The facilty failed to check the FCSR before the employee had contact with the residents. 2. Review of Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) H's personnel file showed: -Date of hire 5/8/24; -A check of the FCSR dated 5/20/24; -The facilty failed to check the FCSR before the employee had contact with the residents. 3. Review of Certified Nurses Aide (CNA) O's personnel file showed: -Date of hire 10/1/24; -A check of the FCSR dated 10/9/24; -The facilty failed to check the FCSR before the employee had contact with the residents. During an interview on 10/10/24 at 4:20 P.M. the Human Resources Manager said: -He/she just started in the position a few weeks ago; -He/she is trying to get everything caught up; -Employees should have a criminal background screening before hire; -The FCSR should be checked before any employee has contact with the residents. During an interview on 10/10/24 at 6:25 P.M. the Administrator said: -He/she expects that criminal background checks are completed before the employee is hired; -The FCSR should be checked before employees have contact with the residents.
CONCERN (E)

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

Comprehensive Assessments (Tag F0636)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** 4. Review of Resident #39's admission MDS, dated [DATE], showed: -He/She received dialysis. Review of Resident #39's quarterly M...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** 4. Review of Resident #39's admission MDS, dated [DATE], showed: -He/She received dialysis. Review of Resident #39's quarterly MDS dated [DATE], showed: -He/She was cognitively intact; -He/She had clear speech, was able to make self-understood and understand others; -Dialysis was not marked; -Diagnoses included respiratory failure (condition when lungs can not get enough oxygen into blood or remove enough carbon dioxide), end stage renal failure (final stage of kidney disease in which kidneys can no longer function on their own), acute respiratory failure with hypercapnia (when body has too much carbon dioxide in the blood), obstructive sleep apnea (a sleep disorder that causes people to repeatedly stop or shallowly breathe while sleeping), chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (a lung disease that makes it difficult to breathe), and muscle weakness. Review of physician's orders, dated October 2024, showed: -Ordered 7/10/24, Dialysis every Monday, Wednesday, and Friday at 11:00 A.M. Pick up time 10-10:30 A.M. -Ordered 7/24/24, Check dialysis shunt for bruit (rumbling sound that indicates how well a dialysis access is working)/ thrill (a vibration felt over a dialysis fistula cause by blood flowing through it) every shift. Notify medical doctor if absent. Review of care plan, undated, showed, -He/She has end stage renal disease and was dependent on dialysis; -He/She would not have complications due to dialysis through next review date; -Check bruit and thrill as ordered by the physician; -Follow dialysis schedule as ordered; -Administer meds as ordered by physician. During an interview on 10/8/24 at 5:48 A.M., Resident said: -He/She received dialysis three times a week off site from facility; -He/She had a port (an access to the vein that was under the skin) located in his/her right arm crook; -He/She had the port for eleven years. During an interview on 10/9/24 at 1:22 P.M., Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) G said: -Resident received dialysis. During an interview on 10/10/24 at 6:25 P.M., Director of Nursing said: -He/She expected dialysis to be reflected on a resident's MDS. 5. During an interview on 10/10/24 at 5:35 P.M., MDS Coordinator said: -He/She expected the MDS to reflect dialysis when a resident was receiving dialysis; -He/She has had difficulty getting Registered Nurse signatures, so several MDS submissions were late; -He/She was not aware of any discharged residents MDS that were not submitted; -He/She submitted Resident #72 and #33 on 10/10/24; -Death assessments should be submitted immediately; -He/She is not sure why Resident #84 did not have a current MDS. During an interview on 10/10/24 at 6:25 P.M., Director of Nursing said: -He/She expected MDS assessments to be completed and submitted timely. During an interview on 10/10/24 at 6:56 P.M., Administrator said: -He/She expected the MDS to reflect the resident's conditions. -He/She expected MDS assessments to be completed and submitted timely. Based on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to assure resident Minimum Data Set (MDS: a federally mandated Assessment tool completed by facility staff) assessments were completed accurately and timely for four of 21 sampled residents (Residents #72, #33, #84 and #39). The census was 103. Review of the facility provided policy, MDS Assessments dated 6/2023 showed: -The facility shall conduct interdisciplinary assessments using the MDS item sets. These assessments provide information on the resident's condition to facilitate development of an individualized plan of care as a means by which the facility can track changes in a resident's status. -Non-Medicare covered residents will be completed upon admission, discharge, quarterly and annually per Federal/State requirements. -Death in facility and entry tracking records will be completed per the Resident Assessment Instrument (RAI) instructions. 1. Review of Resident #72 Electronic Health Record showed: -admission date of 2/3/24; -Quarterly MDS assessment dated [DATE]; -Progress Notes dated 7/21/24 showed the resident discharged to another long term care facility; -No discharge MDS completed or submitted. 2. Review of Resident #84 Electronic Health Record showed: -admission date of 5/13/24; -admission MDS was completed 5/19/24; -No MDS assessment completed and submitted in August, September or October. 3. Review of Resident #33 Electronic Health Record showed: -admission date of 2/28/24; -admission MDS was completed on 3/6/24; -A Prospective Payment System (PPS: A method of Medicare reimbursement where the payment amount is fixed and predetermined.) MDS was completed on 5/15/24; -The resident passed away in the facility 9/11/24; -No MDS assessment completed and submitted in August, September or October; -No Discharge assessment completed and submitted after death.
CONCERN (E)

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

Comprehensive Care Plan (Tag F0656)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, record review, and interview, the facility failed to develop and implement a comprehensive person-centered...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, record review, and interview, the facility failed to develop and implement a comprehensive person-centered care plan for four of 21 sampled residents (Residents #39, #113, #26, #84) by not addressing care areas of resident side rail usage (Resident #39 and #113), use of a bilevel positive airway pressure device (bipap) (a noninvasive ventilator that helps people breathe by delivering pressurized air into airways) (Resident #39), and significant weight loss (Resident #26 and #84). The facility census was 103. Review of facility policy, comprehensive person centered care plans, revised March 2018, showed: -Each resident will have a person centered plan of care to identify problems, needs, strengths, preferences, and goals that will identify how the interdisciplinary team will provide care; -The interdisciplinary team along with the resident and/or resident representative will identify resident problems, needs, strengths, life history, preferences, and goals; -For each problem, need, or strength a resident-centered goal is developed. Goals should be measurable; -Staff approaches are to be developed for each problem/strength/needs; -The comprehensive person centered care plan can be reviewed and/or revised at quarterly intervals; -Upon a change in condition, the comprehensive person centered care plan will be updated; -An instant care plan can be completed with a change in resident condition if there is no care plan available or until the comprehensive person centered care plan is updated. 1. Review of Resident #39's quarterly minimum data set (MDS), a federally mandated assessment tool completed by facility staff, dated 9/13/24, showed: -He/She was cognitively intact; -He/She had clear speech, was able to make self-understood and understand others; -He/She was dependent on wheelchair for mobility; -He/She required partial/moderate assistance from staff with dressing, toileting, bathing, and mobility from sitting to lying; -He/She was independent with eating and oral care; -Diagnoses included respiratory failure (condition when lungs can not get enough oxygen into blood or remove enough carbon dioxide), end stage renal failure (final stage of kidney disease in which kidneys can no longer function on their own), acute respiratory failure with hypercapnia (when body has too much carbon dioxide in the blood), obstructive sleep apnea (a sleep disorder that causes people to repeatedly stop or shallowly breathe while sleeping), chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) (a lung disease that makes it difficult to breathe), and muscle weakness. Review of care plan, undated, showed: -He/She was at risk for respiratory complications due to COPD and chronic respiratory failure; -Administer medications as ordered by physician; -Observed for signs and symptoms of breathing difficulty and report to physician; -Elevate head of bed as resident desires; -Continuous oxygen at 2 liters via nasal cannula; -BIPAP machine use was not care planned; -He/She was at risk for falls due to muscle weakness; -Keep bed in low position; -Bed mobility and use of side rails not care planned. Review of physician's orders, dated October 2024, showed: -Order started 7/24, 24, CPAP 20/EPAP (Bipap) 4/2 liters of oxygen at hour of sleep for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease; -Order started 7/24/24, as needed 2 liters of oxygen for COPD; -No orders for side rails. Review of daily care guide, dated 10/8/24, showed: -Oxygen at 2 liters nasal cannula continuous; -Bilateral assist rails. During an interview on 10/8/24 at 5:34 A.M. resident said: -He/She would like his/her bipap machine placed on him/her every night before he/she went to sleep; -Staff did not come in and apply it if he/she fell asleep; -His/Her family had asked staff to see if they would place his BIPAP on him/her; -He/She sometimes fell asleep early and did not mean to; -He/She wanted staff to come place his/her BIPAP machine on even if it woke him/her up; -Staff did not care for his/her bipap machine by cleaning the mask, tubing, and filter. -He/She used the side rails to help reposition him/herself in bed and roll self over during personal cares. Observation on 10/8/24 at 5:34 A.M. in resident's room showed: -He/She had a BIPAP machine sitting on the table beside his/her bed; -Nasal cannula from machine was observed laying on the floor if his/her room; -He/She was laying in his/her bed and had side rails on both side of his/her bed. Observation on 10/9/24 at 7:37 A.M. showed resident was asleep in bed with side rails up on bed, he/she did not have BIPAP machine on but was wearing the oxygen concentrator. During an interview on 10/9/24/ at 1:22 P.M., Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) G said: -Staff were supposed to put the BIPAP on the resident; -He/She knows the resident's family requested the BIPAP be put on him/her after shift change; -Night shift was responsible for maintaining and cleaning the BIPAP machines; -He/She used side rails to reposition self in bed and sit up. During an interview on 10/9/24 at 1:45 P.M., Certified Nurse Aide (CNA) J said: -The nurse applied resident's BIPAP machine; -Resident was awake when he/she left his/her shift after 10 P.M. so he/she did not know when it was usually applied; -Resident has side rails to help assist with rolling as he/she would grab and pull on the rails during cares. 2. Review of Resident #113's admission minimum data set (MDS), a federally mandated assessment tool completed by facility staff, dated 8/26/24, showed: -His/Her cognitive status was undetermined: -He/She had clear speech, was able to make self-understood and understand others; -He/She was dependent for self-care and indoor mobility; -He/She had impairment to one side of upper extremities; -He/She was dependent for all cares and mobility; -He/She used a wheelchair for mobility; -He/She had no falls prior to admission; -Restraints were not used; -Diagnoses included catatonic disorder (condition characterized by a person being awake but not responding to their environment or other people), gastrostomy (an opening into the stomach made surgically for the introduction of food), anxiety disorder, schizophrenia (a disorder that affects a person's ability to think, feel, and behave clearly). Review of care plan, undated, showed: -He/She was at risk of falls due to catatonic disorder, self-harm, and schizophrenia; -Keep bed in low position; -Fall mat to bedside; -He/She did not have side rails care planned. Review of physician's orders, dated October 2024, showed: -No orders for side rails. Review of daily care guide, dated 10/8/24, showed: -He/She was a two person assist with transfers with total lift; -Nothing noted on side rails or assist bars. Observation on 10/07/24 at 10:13 A.M. showed resident was laying in his/her bed and had a u shaped side rail on both sides of his/her bed. The bed was lowered to lowest position. Review of electronic medical record showed: -On 8/20/24 a side rail evaluation was completed showing resident had involuntary movements cause his/her weight to shift. No side rails were indicated on assessment. During an interview on 10/9/24/ at 1:22 P.M., LPN G said: -He/She did not know why resident had side rails on his/her bed. During an interview on 10/9/24 at 1:45 P.M., Certified Nurse Aide (CNA) J said: -Resident had side rails because the resident will grab the side rail with one good arm and pull him/herself up in bed. 3. Review of Resident #26's Quarterly MDS completed 8/9/24 showed: -BIMS of 4, indicated significant cognitive loss; -Substantial to maximum assistance of staff with Activities of Daily Living (ADL's: tasks completed in a day to care for oneself); -He/She is dependent on a wheelchair for mobility; -Height of 62 inches (in); -Diagnoses of osteoporosis (a disease that weakens bones), Dementia (a brain disease that causes loss of function such as thinking,remembering and reasoning that interferes with daily life), Ischemic Cerebral Infarction (damage to the brain from blocked blood flow). Review of the resident's electronic medical record showed: -April 2024 the resident was seen by Skilled Therapy services for self feeding skills due to mobility and self propelling the w/c. -May 2024 the resident was seen by Skilled Therapy services for sitting balance and functional mobility. -April 2024 weight of 109.9 pounds (lbs) -May 2024 weight of 109.6 lbs -June 2024 weight of 107.2 lbs -July 2024 weight of 106.1 lbs -August 2024 weight of 102.4 lbs -September 2024 weight of 102.4 lbs -October 2024 weight of 95 lbs -A 7.23% weight loss in 30 days from September to October or 7.4 lbs -A 10.46% weight loss in 90 days from July-September or 11.1 lbs -A 13.56% weight loss in 6 months from April to October or 14.9 lbs Observation on 10/07/24 at 11:05 A.M. showed the resident sitting in his/her w/c, slightly bent forward with a c shaped curve to his/her upper body. He/She was looking at a game card lying on the family style dining room table. His/Her w/c was very low to the ground. The table was at mid chest/breast height of the resident. The resident remained at the table for the noon meal. At 1:11 P.M. his/her meal was served . He/She attempted to raise his/her right hand from under the table, and picked up his/her fork from the table. He/She dropped the fork on the floor. He/She then began eating with his/her fingers. He/She did not complete his/her meal and staff removed the resident from the room. Review of the resident's undated Comprehensive Care Plan showed: -He/She resided on the locked special care unit (SCU); -ADL deficit related to dementia, give him/her simple instructions; -He/She has Dementia and confusion that could cause oral intake and weight to fluctuate, obtain/update food preferences, diet as ordered and provide a cup with a lid; -No care plan for significant weight loss or interventions to combat weight loss. 4. Review of Resident #84's admission MDS dated [DATE] showed: -BIMS score of 3, indicated significant cognitive loss; -No behaviors; -Dependent on staff for ADL's; -Uses wheelchair (w/c) for mobility; -Diagnoses of Anxiety Disorder (a feeling for fear, dread and uneasiness that can effect daily life), depression (a serious mental illness that can affect a person's thoughts, feelings, behavior, and sense of well-being), muscle weakness, dementia (a chronic condition that causes a loss of brain function, such as thinking, remembering, and reasoning, that interferes with daily life), chronic pain (long term pain) , Adult Failure to Thrive (a syndrome that describes a general decline in health that can affect older adults), and falls. Review of the resident's electronic health record showed: -May 2024 weight of 119.3 lbs -June 2024 weight of 118 lbs -July 2024 weight of 112.4 lbs -August 2024 weight of 101 lbs -September 2024 weight of 100.6 lbs -No October 2024 weight. -A 15.34 % Loss in 90 days May to August, or 18.3 lbs -Physician orders for : Med pass 120 milliliters (ml) twice a day, ordered 8/13/24. Boost breeze 250 ml twice a day ordered 5/13/24 (on admission). Regular diet. Review of the resident's undated comprehensive Care Plan showed: -The resident resided on the locked SCU; -Redirect and reassure the resident as needed; -The resident has memory deficit and confusion which could cause his/her intake to vary; -No care plan for significant weight loss, or interventions to mitigate weight loss. 5. During an interview on 10/10/24 at 5:34 P.M., MDS coordinator said: -He/She writes residents initial care plans; -If there are changes to the care plans he/she was notified during facility morning meeting; -The morning meeting was held every morning Monday through Friday; -The dietician completed care plan updates for significant weight changes; -He/She was responsible for updating care plans related to side rail usage and BIPAP usage. 6. During an interview on 10/10/24 at 6:25 P.M., Director of Nursing said: -He/She expected care plans to include BIPAP use and side rail use; -He/She expected significant weight loss and interventions implemented to be care planned. 7. During an interview on 10/10/24 at 6:56 P.M., Administrator said: -He/She expected care plans to be updated with specific care needs of the resident. .
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 observations, interviews and record review, the facility failed to ensure dependent residents who were unable to carry ...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observations, interviews and record review, the facility failed to ensure dependent residents who were unable to carry out activities of daily living (ADL's) received the necessary services to maintain good personal hygiene when staff failed to ensure they provided perineal care at least every two hours. This affected two of the 21 sampled residents, (Resident #11 and #19). The facility census was 103. Review of the Missouri Resident [NAME] of Rights, provided through the state long term are ombudsman (a person who represents the interests of residents) program included Residents have the right to privacy, to be treated with consideration, respect, and dignity, recognizing each resident' s individuality. Review of the facility's Incontinent Care Policy, review date January 2015, showed -Provide routine, preventative skin, perineal care after each incontinent episode. 1. Review of Resident #11's, Quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS, a federally mandated assessment tool completed by facility staff), dated 9/18/24, showed: -Severe cognitive impairment; -Dependent on staff for all ADLs; -Always incontinent of bowel and bladder; -At risk for skin breakdown; -Diagnoses included: Cerebral Palsy a disorder that affects a person's ability to move, balance, and maintain posture), quadriplegia (paralysis that affects all a person's limbs), and seizure disorder. Review of the resident's care plan, revised 3/11/24, showed: -The resident requires ADL assistance; -The resident is at risk for skin breakdown; -The care plan did not address incontinence or incontinent care. During a continuous observation of the resident, beginning on 10/8/24 at 05:03 A.M., showed: -05:16 A.M., the resident was laying in his/her bed on his/her back; -05:23 A.M., Certified Nurse Aide (CNA) I looked in the resident's room, and did not reposition or assess the need for incontinent care for the resident; -06:12 A.M., the resident was laying in his/her bed on his/her back; -06:15 A.M., the resident was laying in his/her bed on his/her back; -06:45 A.M., CNA I walked by the resident's room and did not reposition or assess the need for incontinent care for the resident; -07:02 A.M., CNA K and CNA N walked by and looked in the resident's room, and did not reposition or provide incontinent care for the resident; -07:38 A.M., the resident was laying in his/her bed on his/her back; -07:52 A.M.,CNA N walked by the resident's room, and did not reposition or assess the need for incontinent care for the resident; -07:02 A.M., CNA K and CNA N walked by and looked in the resident's room, and did not reposition or assess the need for incontinent care for the resident; -07:32 A.M., the resident was laying in his/her bed on his/her back; -07:45 A.M., the resident was laying in his/her bed on his/her back; -08:03 A.M., the resident is still laying in his/her bed on his/her back and staff did not assess the residents need for incontinent care or positioning. During an interview on 10/8/24 at 09:05 A.M., CNA K said: -The resident was dependent on staff for care. -The resident was incontinent of bowel and bladder. -He/She had not repositioned or provided incontinent care to the resident since arriving to work. -The resident should be provided incontinent care and repositioned at least every two hours; -He/She did not provide incontinent care to the resident every two hours. During an interview on 10/8/24 at 09:22 A.M., CNA N said: -He/She had not reposition or provided perineal care since arriving to work. -He/She was not sure the last time the resident had been changed; -The resident should be provided perineal care and repositioned at least every two hours. 2. Review of Resident #19's Quarterly MDS dated [DATE], showed: -Moderate cognitive impairment; -Dependent on staff for toileting and personal hygiene; -Always incontinent of bowel and bladder; -Diagnoses included Guillain-Barré syndrome (a neurological disorder that occurs when the body's immune system attacks the peripheral nervous system and causes weakness, tingling, loss of sensation, muscle pain, uncoordinated movement), high blood pressure, anxiety and depression. Review of the resident's care plan, revised 9/4/24, showed: -The resident had an ADL function impairment related to Guillain-Barré syndrome; -The resident is at risk for skin breakdown related to impaired mobility and incontinence; -The care plan did not address routine incontinent care. Continuous three hour observation beginning on 10/8/24 at 05:03 A.M., showed: -05:05 A.M., the resident was laying in bed and positioned on the right side. -05:28 A.M., Certified Nurse Aide (CNA) I looked in the resident's room, and did not reposition or assess the need for incontinent care for the resident; -06:15 A.M., the resident was laying on the right side, in bed, and the room had a strong smell of urine; -06:45 A.M., the resident was laying on the right side, in bed, and the room had a strong smell of urine; -06:55 A.M., CNA I walked by the resident's room and did not reposition or assess the need for incontinent care for the resident and a strong smell of urine was coming from the resident's room; -07:02 A.M., CNA K and CNA N walked looked in the resident's room, and did not reposition or assess the need for incontinent care for the resident; -07:03 A.M., a strong smell of urine was coming from the resident's room; -07:32 A.M., the resident was laying in bed on their back; -07:52 A.M.,CNA N walked by the resident's room, and did not reposition or assess the need for incontinent care for the resident; -08:12 A.M., the resident was laying in bed on their back and staff have not provided incontinent care for the resident. During an interview on 10/8/24 at 09:05 A.M., CNA K said: -The resident was dependent on staff for for incontinent care; -The resident was incontinent of bowel and bladder; -He/She had not repositioned or provided incontinent care to the resident since arriving to work. -The resident should be provided incontinent care and repositioned at least every two hours; -He/she did not smell urine in the resident's room; -He/She did not provide incontinent care to the resident every two hours. During an interview on 10/8/24 at 09:22 A.M., CNA N said: -He/She had not reposition or provided perineal care since arriving to work. -He/She was not sure the last time the resident had been changed; -The resident should be provided perineal care and repositioned at least every two hours. During an interview on 10/8/24 at 10:04 A.M., Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) E said: -Dependent resident's should be repositioned every two hours; -Dependent residents should be checked for incontinence and provided perineal care every two hours; -He/She expects the CNA's to reposition the resident and provide perineal care at least every two hours. During an interview on 10/10/24 at 06:25 P.M., The Director Nursing (DON) said: -He/she expects incontinent residents to be provided incontinent care at least every two hours. During an interview on 10/10/24 at 06:28 P.M., the Administrator said: -Incontinent residents should be provided incontinent care at least every two hours.
CONCERN (E)

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

Deficiency F0692 (Tag F0692)

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 treat significant weight loss for two residents (Reside...

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 treat significant weight loss for two residents (Resident #26 and #84) and failed to provide adequate hydration for 6 residents (Resident #26, #84, #35, #57, #94 and #4) of the 21 sampled residents. The facility census was 103. Review of the facility provided policy Hydration Cart dated 2016 showed: -Water or other fluids shall be offered to all residents throughout the day. Fluids are typically offered during meals, snacks. A hydration cart or location may be used to enhance access and encouragement of fluids for residents. -The Hydration Cart will be offered or refreshed each day at mid morning, mid afternoon and bedtime. -The cart or location will include fresh ice water and another beverage such as iced tea or lemonade. And may include snacks. -The cart or location will include fluids appropriate for those on thickened liquids. The facility did not provide a policy on weight loss or meal intake. 1. Review of Resident #26's Quarterly Minimum Data Set, (MDS A federally mandated assessment completed by the facility staff) dated 8/9/24 showed: -Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) of 4, indicated significant cognitive loss; -Substantial to maximum assistance of staff with Activities of Daily Living (ADL's: tasks completed in a day to care for oneself); -He/She is dependent on a wheelchair for mobility; -Height of 62 inches (in); -Diagnoses of osteoporosis (a disease that weakens bones), Dementia (a brain disease that causes loss of function such as thinking,remembering and reasoning that interferes with daily life), Ischemic Cerebral Infarction (damage to the brain from blocked blood flow). Review of the resident's electronic medical record showed: -April 2024 the resident was seen by Skilled Therapy services for self feeding skills due to mobility; -May 2024 the resident was seen by Skilled Therapy services for sitting balance and functional mobility; -April 2024 weight of 109.9 pounds (lbs); -May 2024 weight of 109.6 lbs; -June 2024 weight of 107.2 lbs; -July 2024 weight of 106.1 lbs; -August 2024 weight of 102.4 lbs; -September 2024 weight of 102.4 lbs; -October 2024 weight of 95 lbs; -A 7.23% weight loss in 30 days from September to October or 7.4lbs; -A 10.46% weight loss in 90 days from July-September or 11.1lbs; -A 13.56% weight loss in 6 months from April to October or 14.9 lbs; -Physician order for regular diet. Ordered 1/29/24. No orders for appetite stimulant or supplements; -Progress Notes showed no notification of the physician for weight loss; - Nursing Progress Note dated 8/28/24 showed: resident observed for wt loss of 2.72 %, recommended resident receive appetite stimulant, and encourage to increase snacks. The physician increased remeron (a appetite stimulant medication) to 7.5 mg daily at bedtime; -Nursing Progress Noted dated 8/21/24 showed: the resident did not trigger for wt loss, monitoring because he/she was not eating unless he/she was cued; Review of Resident #26's activities of daily living (ADL) tracking record showed: - 9/30/24- 6:00 A.M.-2:00 P.M., the resident drank 100 milliliters (mls.); and consumed 50% of breakfast and lunch; - 9/30/24- 2:00 P.M.-10:00 P.M., the resident drank 100 ml ;consumed 50% of evening meal; - 9/30/24- 10:00 P.M.-6:00 A.M., the resident drank 120 ml's.; - 10/1/24- 6:00 A.M.-2:00 P.M., the resident drank 100 ml's.;and consumed 50% of breakfast and lunch; - 10/1/24- 2:00 P.M.-10:00 P.M., the resident drank 100 ml's.; and consumed 30% of evening meal; - 10/1/24- 10:00 P.M.-6:00 A.M., the resident drank 120 ml's.; - 10/2/24- 6:00 A.M.-2:00 P.M., the resident drank 50 ml's; and consumed 50% of breakfast and lunch; - 10/2/24- 2:00 P.M.-10:00 P.M., the resident drank 50 ml's.; and consumed 30% of evening meal; - 10/2/24- 10:00 P.M.-6:00 A.M., the resident drank 120 ml's.; - 10/3/24- 6:00 A.M.-2:00 P.M., the resident drank 50 ml's; and consumed 50% of breakfast and lunch; - 10/3/24- 2:00 P.M.-10:00 P.M., the resident drank 50 ml's; and consumed 0% of evening meal; - 10/3/24- 10:00 P.M.-6:00 A.M., no documentation noted; -10/4/24-6:00 A.M.-2:00 P.M., no documentation noted; -10/4/24- 2:00 P.M.-10:00 P.M., the resident drank 240 ml's.; no documentation of % eaten; -10/4/24- 10:00 P.M.-6:00 A.M. the resident drank 120 ml's.; 10/5/24-6:00 A.M.-2:00 P.M., no documentation noted; -10/5/24- 2:00 P.M.-10:00 P.M., the resident drank 240 ml's.; no documentation of % eaten; -10/5/24- 10:00 P.M.-6:00 A.M. the resident drank 0 ml's.; 10/6/24-6:00 A.M.-2:00 P.M., no documentation noted; -10/6/24- 2:00 P.M.-10:00 P.M., no documentation noted; -10/6/24- 10:00 P.M.-6:00 A.M. the resident drank 120 ml's.; 10/7/24-6:00 A.M.-2:00 P.M., no documentation noted; no documentation of % eaten; -10/7/24- 2:00 P.M.-10:00 P.M., the resident drank 210 ml's.; consumed 100% of evening meal; -10/7/24- 10:00 P.M.-6:00 A.M. the resident drank 120 ml's Review of the resident's undated Comprehensive Care Plan showed: -He/She resided on the locked special care unit; -ADL deficit related to dementia, give him/her simple instructions; -He/She has Dementia and confusion that could cause intake and weight to fluctuate, obtain/update food preferences, diet as ordered and provide a cup with a lid; -No care plan for significant weight loss or interventions to combat weight loss. Observation on 10/07/24 at 11:05 A.M. showed the resident sitting in his/her wheel chair, (w/c), at the dining room table, no fluids or snacks on the table. The resident was slightly bent forward with a c shaped curve to his/her upper body. His/Her w/c was very low to the ground. The table was at mid chest/breast height of the resident. Observation and interview on 10/07/24 at 11:56 A.M. showed: -The meal time fluid cart was delivered to the hall; -Certified Nurse Aide (CNA) G filled small Styrofoam cups with ice and water and gave to the resident; -CNA G said: dietary staff bring a cart of fluid at meal times, that is when fluids are passed. Observation on 10/07/24 at 1:11 P.M. showed his/her meal was served. He/She attempted to raise his/her right hand from under the table, and picked up his/her fork from the table. He/She dropped the fork on the floor. He/She then began eating with his/her fingers. Staff did not assist the resident with his/her meal and did not offer the resident fluids. He/She did not complete his/her meal and staff removed the resident from the room. Observation on 10/7/24 at 1:27 P.M. showed the resident had no fluids/ice water at bedside. Observation on 10/08/24 07:19 AM showed no fluids/ice water at bedside. Observation on 10/08/24 11:13 AM showed no fluids/ice water at bedside. Observation on 10/09/24 at 12:44 PM showed the resident was in the dining/activity room watching a movie. No snacks, water/drinks were available. No fluids/ice water at bedside. 2. Review of Resident #84's MDS dated [DATE] showed: -BIMS score of 3, indicated significant cognitive loss; -No behaviors; -Dependent on staff for ADL's; -Diagnoses of Anxiety Disorder (a feeling for fear, dread and uneasiness that can effect daily life), depression (a serious mental illness that can affect a person's thoughts, feelings, behavior, and sense of well-being), muscle weakness, dementia (a chronic condition that causes a loss of brain function, such as thinking, remembering, and reasoning, that interferes with daily life), chronic pain (long term pain) , Adult Failure to Thrive (a syndrome that describes a general decline in health that can affect older adults), and falls. Review of the resident's electronic health record showed: -May 2024 weight of 119.3 lbs; -June 2024 weight of 118 lbs; -July 2024 weight of 112.4 lbs; -August 2024 weight of 101 lbs; -September 2024 weight of 100.6 lbs; -No October 2024 weight; -A 15.34 % Loss in 90 days; May to August, or 18.3 lbs; -Physician orders for: Med pass 120 milliliters (ml) twice a day, ordered 8/13/24. Boost breeze 250 ml twice a day and Regular diet, both ordered upon admission 5/13/24. Review of the resident's undated comprehensive Care Plan showed: -The resident resided on the locked Special Care Unit (SCU); -Redirect and reassure the resident as needed; -The resident has memory deficit and confusion which could cause his/her intake to vary; -No care plan for significant weight loss, or resident specific interventions to combat weight loss. Review of Resident #84's ADL tracking record showed: - 9/30/24 6:00 A.M.-2:00 P.M., the resident drank 100 milliliters (ml's.); and consumed 75% of breakfast and lunch; - 9/30/24 2:00 P.M.-10:00 P.M., the resident drank 100 ml ; consumed 75% of evening meal; - 9/30/2410:00 P.M.-6:00 A.M., the resident drank 120 ml's.; - 10/1/24 6:00 A.M.-2:00 P.M., the resident drank 100 ml's.;and consumed 75% of breakfast and lunch; - 10/1/24 2:00 P.M.-10:00 P.M., the resident drank 100 ml's.; and consumed 75% of evening meal; - 10/1/24 10:00 P.M.-6:00 A.M., the resident drank 120 ml's.; - 10/2/24 6:00 A.M.-2:00 P.M., the resident drank 100 ml's; and consumed 75% of breakfast and lunch; - 10/2/24 2:00 P.M.-10:00 P.M., the resident drank 100 ml's.; and consumed 75% of evening meal; - 10/2/24 10:00 P.M.-6:00 A.M., the resident drank 120 ml's.; - 10/3/24 6:00 A.M.-2:00 P.M., the resident drank 100 ml's; and consumed 50% of breakfast and lunch; - 10/3/24 2:00 P.M.-10:00 P.M., the resident drank 100 ml's; and consumed 100% of evening meal; - 10/3/24 10:00 P.M.-6:00 A.M., the resident drank 120 ml's; -10/4/24 6:00 A.M.-2:00 P.M., the resident drank 240 ml's; and consumed 75% of breakfast and 50% of lunch; -10/4/24 2:00 P.M.-10:00 P.M., no documentation noted.; no documentation of % eaten; -10/4/24 10:00 P.M.-6:00 A.M. the resident drank 120 ml's.; 10/5/24 6:00 A.M.-2:00 P.M., no documentation noted, consumed 50% of evening meal; -10/5/24 2:00 P.M.-10:00 P.M., the resident drank 240 ml's.; no documentation of % eaten; -10/5/24 10:00 P.M.-6:00 A.M. the resident drank 120 ml's.; -10/6/24 6:00 A.M.-2:00 P.M., the resident drank 400 ml's; consumed 75% of breakfast, no documentation of % eaten of lunch; -10/6/24 2:00 P.M.-10:00 P.M., no documentation noted; -10/6/24 10:00 P.M.-6:00 A.M. the resident drank 0 ml's.; 10/7/24 6:00 A.M.-2:00 P.M., the resident drank 240 ml's; consumed 50% of breakfast, no documentation of % eaten of lunch; -10/7/24 2:00 P.M.-10:00 P.M., the resident drank 220 ml's.; no documentation noted of % eaten of evening meal; -10/7/24 10:00 P.M.-6:00 A.M. the resident drank 0 ml's. Observation and interview on 10/07/24 at 11:05 AM showed the resident was in the dining room at the dining room table. He/she had no fluid or snack. No fluids or ice water at bedside. At 1:15 P.M. his/her noon meal was served. The resident ate part of his/her meal then yelled out, that he/she could not do it. CNA G assisted the resident from the dining room. CNA G did not attempt to assist the resident with his/her meal. CNA G said the resident typically does not eat a full meal. The resident can feed himself/herself. CNA G did not ask the resident if he/she needed assistance because the resident can do it themselves. Observation on 10/08/24 at 6:05 A.M. showed the resident had no fluid/ice water at bedside. Observation on 10/08/24 11:13 AM showed no fluids/ice water at bedside Observation on 10/09/24 at 12:44 PM showed the Resident was in the dining/activity room watching a movie. No snacks, water/drinks were available. No fluids/ice water at bedside. 3. Review of Resident #35 Quarterly MDS dated [DATE] showed: -BIMS of 99, indicating severe cognitive impairment; -No behaviors; -Dependent on staff for ADL's; -Always incontinent of urine; -Diagnoses of Alzheimer's disease, Diabetes Mellitus, Anxiety, Hypertension, Chronic Urinary Tract Infection and Depressive Disorder. Review of the resident's Comprehensive Care Plan dated 6/11/23 showed: -Impaired thought process related to dementia. Provide instruction using a clear voice. Calmly talk to him/her and use reassurance. Intake may vary due to confusion. Review of the resident's October physician order sheets showed: -Regular diet; -Macrobid (antibiotic used to treat urinary tract infections)100 milligrams daily for chronic Urinary Tract Infection. Review of Resident #35's activities of daily living (ADL) tracking record showed:- -9/30/24- 6:00 A.M. - 2:00 P.M., the resident drank 100 milliliters (ml's.); - 9/30/24- 2:00 P.M. - 10:00 P.M., the resident drank 100 ml ; - 9/30/24- 10:00 P.M. - 6:00 A.M., the resident drank 120 ml's.; - 10/1/24- 6:00 A.M. - 2:00 P.M., the resident drank 100 ml's.; - 10/1/24- 2:00 P.M. - 10:00 P.M., the resident drank 100 ml's.; - 10/1/24- 10:00 P.M. - 6:00 A.M., no documentation noted - 10/2/24- 6:00 A.M. - 2:00 P.M., the resident drank 100 ml's; - 10/2/24- 2:00 P.M. - 10:00 P.M., the resident drank 100 ml's.; - 10/2/24- 10:00 P.M. - 6:00 A.M., the resident drank 120 ml's.; - 10/3/24- 6:00 A.M. - 2:00 P.M., the resident drank 100 ml's; - 10/3/24- 2:00 P.M. - 10:00 P.M., the resident drank 80 ml's; - 10/3/24- 10:00 P.M. - 6:00 A.M., the resident drank 0 ml's. -10/4/24-6:00 A.M. -2:00 P.M., the resident drank 240 ml's; -10/4/24- 2:00 P.M. - 10:00 P.M., no documentation noted.; -10/4/24- 10:00 P.M. - 6:00 A.M. the resident drank 120 ml's.; 10/5/24-6:00 A.M. -2:00 P.M., no documentation noted, -10/5/24- 2:00 P.M. - 10:00 P.M., the resident drank 240 ml's.; -10/5/24- 10:00 P.M. - 6:00 A.M. the resident drank 120 ml's.; -10/6/24-6:00 A.M. -2:00 P.M., the resident drank 460 ml's; -10/6/24- 2:00 P.M. - 10:00 P.M., no documentation noted -10/6/24- 10:00 P.M. - 6:00 A.M. the resident drank 120 ml's.; 10/7/24-6:00 A.M. -2:00 P.M., no documentation noted -10/7/24- 2:00 P.M. - 10:00 P.M., the resident drank 240 ml's.; -10/7/24- 10:00 P.M. - 6:00 A.M. the resident drank 120 ml's.; Observation on 10/07/24 at 11:05 A.M. showed the resident sitting at the dining room table, no fluids or snacks on table,. Observation on 10/07/24 at 11:56 A.M. showed: -The meal time fluid cart was delivered to the hall; -Certified Nurse Aide (CNA) G filled a small Styrofoam cup with ice and water and gave to the resident. Observation on 10/7/24 at 1:27 P.M. showed the resident had no fluids/ice water at bedside. Observation on 10/08/24 07:19 AM showed no fluids/ice water at bedside. Observation on 10/08/24 at 11:13 AM no water at bedside. Observation on 10/09/24 at 12:44 PM showed the resident was in the dining/activity room watching a movie. No snacks, water/drinks were available. No fluids/ice water at bedside. 4. Review of Resident #57 admission MDS dated [DATE] showed: -BIMS of 12 indicated minimal cognitive loss; -No behaviors; -Able to make needs known; -Set up to supervision of staff for ADL's; -Diagnoses of Dementia, Anxiety, Hypertension, Depression and Atrial Fibrillation (a rapid and irregular heart beat). Review of the resident's undated comprehensive care plan showed: -He/She was at risk for self care deficit, give simple one step directions , and provide assistance as needed. -He/She had the potential for weight change due to dementia ; obtain and monitor his/her weight, and obtain/update food preferences. Review of the ADL Tracking log book showed no tracking for Resident #57. Continuous observation on 10/08/24 starting at 6:12 AM showed -He/She asked CNA H for a drink of water; -CNA H said he/she would get the water and walked away from the resident; -The resident remained in the hallway talking with other staff and residents; -At 6:51 A.M. the resident again asked for water; -CNA H said he/she would get the water in awhile and proceeded down the hall; -The resident remained in the hall. No ice water/fluids at bedside; -The resident said he/she was so thirsty and needed a drink; -At 8:19 A.M. the Activity Director gave the resident a cup of water from the medication cart. During an interview on 10/8/24 at 8:22 A.M. CNA H said: -Resident #57 is very critical of everything. He/She complains all the time; -He/She just didn't have time yet to get the resident water and would get him/her something from the breakfast cart. 5. During an interview on 10/09/24 08:13 PM LPN E said: -Residents #26 and #84 were not on hospice services; -He/She did not believe either Resident #26 or #84 had lost weight, however both residents have days they do not eat well; -The Interdisciplinary Team (IDT: a team of staff that includes dietary, the DON, Administrator, Social Services, Activity Director, etc) met weekly to review resident weights. If there was a wt loss, the IDT would get orders for interventions, update the care plan and notify the charge nurse; -The Charge Nurse would pass that information on to the CNA staff; -CNA staff are to pass snacks and ice water at least once a shift; -He/She expected snacks and drinks to be passed on the shift he/she worked; -There are some residents on special shakes; -Snacks should be given so the resident can travel around with them, such as sandwiches, cookies, crackers. 6. Review of Resident #4's activities of daily living (ADL) tracking record showed: - 9/26/24- 6:00 A.M. - 2:00 P.M., the resident drank 240 milliliters (ml's.); - 9/26/24- 2:00 P.M. - 10:00 P.M., no documentation noted; - 9/26/24- 10:00 P.M. - 6:00 A.M., the resident drank 300 ml's.; - 9/27/24- 6:00 A.M. - 2:00 P.M., the resident drank 360 ml's.; - 9/27/27- 2:00 P.M. - 10:00 P.M., the resident drank 400 ml's.; - 9/27/24- 10:00 P.M. - 6:00 A.M., the resident drank 240 ml's.; - 9/28/24- 6:00 A.M. - 2:00 P.M., the resident drank 400 ml's.; - 9/28/24- 2:00 P.M. - 10:00 P.M., no documentation noted; - 9/28/24- 10:00 P.M. - 6:00 A.M., the resident drank 360 ml's.; - 9/29/24- 6:00 A.M. - 2:00 P.M., the resident drank 360 ml.; - 9/29/24- 2:00 P.M. - 10:00 P.M., the resident drank 360 ml.; - 9/29/24- 10:00 P.M. - 6:00 A.M., the resident drank 260 ml's.; - 9/30/24- 6:00 A.M. - 2:00 P.M., the resident drank 360 ml.; - 9/30/24- 2:00 P.M. - 10:00 P.M., no documentation noted; - 9/30/24- 10:00 P.M. - 6:00 A.M., the resident drank 240 ml's.; - 10/1/24- 6:00 A.M. - 2:00 P.M., the resident drank 300 ml's.; - 10/1/24- 2:00 P.M. - 10:00 P.M., the resident drank 240 ml's.; - 10/1/24- 10:00 P.M. - 6:00 A.M., the resident drank 360 ml's.; - 10/2/24- 6:00 A.M. - 2:00 P.M., no documentation noted; - 10/2/24- 2:00 P.M. - 10:00 P.M., the resident drank 260 ml's.; - 10/2/24- 10:00 P.M. - 6:00 A.M., the resident drank 240 ml's.; - 10/3/24- 6:00 A.M. - 2:00 P.M., no documentation noted; - 10/3/24- 2:00 P.M. - 10:00 P.M., no documentation noted; - 10/3/24- 10:00 P.M. - 6:00 A.M., no documentation noted. Review of Resident #4's Annual MDS, dated [DATE], showed: - Cognitive skills intact; - Required staff assistance with set up and clean up for oral hygiene and eating; - Diagnoses included anemia (a condition that develops when your blood produces a lower-than normal amount of healthy red blood cells) and renal insufficiency (poor function of the kidneys that may be due to a reduction in blood-flow to the kidneys caused by renal artery disease). The facility did not provide the resident's POS for October 2024. Review of the resident's MAR, dated October 2024 showed: - Start date: 4/1/24 - regular diet with diabetic precautions. During an interview on 10/8/24 at 9:29 A.M., the resident said: - The staff have not passed any fresh ice water this morning; - He/she would like staff to pass fresh ice water every shift. Observations from 10/7/24 through 10/8/24 at various times showed staff did not pass fresh water or ice. During an interview on 10/9/24 at 7:03 P.M., LPN D said: - The aides pass ice at 3:00 P.M., 6:00 P.M., and at 9:00 P.M.; - As far as he/she knows the ice gets passed to the residents. During an interview on 10/9/24 at 7:15 P.M., CNA C said: - Ice water gets passed two or three times a shift. It used to get passed at 3:00 P.M., 6:00 P.M., and 9:00 P.M., but it has changed to 10:00 A.M., 3:00 P.M., and 7:00 P.M. - It normally gets passed on his/her shift, it might be late, but it does get passed. During an interview on 10/10/24 at 6:25 P.M., the Director of Nursing (DON) said: - She expected ice water to get passed at a minimum of once a shift or as much as the resident wanted it; - It is the responsibility of all staff to pass fresh ice water; - They have Styrofoam cups with lids and straws; - All the residents should have a drink at bedside unless it's their preference; - Water should be passed other times than prior to a meal; - She would have to review the total on the ADL sheets to know if that was their total or just what they drank at meals.
CONCERN (E)

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

Deficiency F0700 (Tag F0700)

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 staff failed to assess residents for risk of entrapment from be...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility staff failed to assess residents for risk of entrapment from bed rails prior to installation and failed to ensure the bed's dimensions were appropriate for the resident's size and weight, and failed to obtain physician's orders for side rails for four of 21 sampled residents (Resident #39, #113, #54, and #104). The facility census was 103. The facility did not provide a policy on entrapment. 1. Review of Resident #39's quarterly minimum data set (MDS), a federally mandated assessment tool completed by facility staff, dated 9/13/24, showed: -He/She was cognitively intact; -He/She had clear speech, was able to make self-understood and understand others; -He/She was dependent on his/her wheelchair for mobility; -He/She required partial/moderate assistance from staff with dressing, toileting, bathing, and mobility from sitting to lying; -Diagnoses included respiratory failure (condition when lungs can not get enough oxygen into blood or remove enough carbon dioxide), end stage renal failure (final stage of kidney disease in which kidneys can no longer function on their own), and muscle weakness. Review of care plan, undated, showed: -He/She was at risk for falls due to muscle weakness; -Keep bed in low position; -Bed mobility and use of side rails not care planned. Review of physician's orders, dated October 2024, showed: -No orders for side rails. Review of daily care guide, dated 10/8/24, showed: -Bilateral assist rails. Observation on 10/8/24 at 5:34 A.M. in resident's room showed: -Resident was laying in his/her bed with side rails up on both sides of his/her bed. During an interview on 10/8/24 at 5:34 A.M., Resident said: -He/She used his/her side rails to reposition self in bed. Review of side rail evaluation form showed: -On 7/24/24, resident was assessed for assist rail on both sides of bed for support with positioning, to turn in bed, and resident requested the rails. -On 9/13/24, resident was assessed for assist rails on both sides of bed for support with positioning, to turn in bed, and resident requested the rails. Review of bed entrapment evaluation, undated, showed: -Zone 1, recommended by FDA less than 120 mm ( less than 4 and 3/4 inch), actual measurements 4 x 4 (unknown units of measurement) -Zone 2, recommended by FDA less than 120 mm (less than 4 and 3/4 inch), actual measurements 6 x 4 (unknown units of measurement); -Zone 3, recommended by FDA less than 120 mm (less than 4 and 3/4 inch), actual measurements 1 inch; -Zone 4, recommended by FDA less than 60 mm (less than 2 and 3.8 inch) and greater than 60 degree angle, actual measurements 6 x 4 (unknown units of measurement) and no degree angle documented. Did the facility complete the entrapment assessment? They did not complete it fully - and did not have full measurements in each of them. During an interview on 10/9/24 at 1:22 P.M., Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) G said: -The resident used side rails to reposition self in bed and sit up. During an interview on 10/9/24 at 1:45 P.M., Certified Nurse Aide (CNA) J said: -Resident has side rails to help assist with rolling as he/she would grab and pull on the rails during cares. Observation on 10/10/24 at 8:31 A.M. showed Maintenance Director entering resident room with entrapment zone form. During an interview on 10/10/24 at 8:31 A.M., Maintenance Director said: -He/She had been asked to complete the entrapment evaluation this morning for the resident. 2. Review of which resident #113's admission MDS, dated [DATE], showed: -He/She admitted to facility 8/20/24; -His/Her cognitive status was undetermined: -He/She had clear speech, was able to make self-understood and understand others; -He/She had impairment to one side of upper extremities; -He/She was dependent for all cares and mobility; -He/She used a wheelchair for mobility; -He/She had no falls prior to admission; -Restraints were not used; -Diagnoses included catatonic disorder (condition characterized by a person being awake but not responding to their environment or other people), gastrostomy (an opening into the stomach made surgically for the introduction of food), anxiety disorder, schizophrenia (a disorder that affects a person's ability to think, feel, and behave clearly). Review of care plan, undated, showed: -He/She was at risk of falls due to catatonic disorder, self-harm, and schizophrenia; -Keep bed in low position; -Fall mat to bedside; -Side rails were not care planned. Review of physician's orders, dated October 2024, showed: -No orders for side rails. Review of daily care guide, dated 10/8/24, showed: -He/She was a two person assist with transfers with total lift; -Nothing noted on side rails or assist bars. Observation on 10/07/24 at 10:13 A.M. showed resident was laying in his/her bed, he/she had a U shaped side rail on both sides of his/her bed. The bed was lowered to lowest position. Review of side rail evaluation form showed: -On 8/20/24 a side rail evaluation was completed showing resident had involuntary movements cause his/her weight to shift. Type of rails used showed none. No side rails was written on side rail committee recommendation section of the form. Review of bed entrapment evaluation, undated, showed: -Zone 1, showed 8 and 1/4 by 4 (unknown units of measurement); -Zone 2, showed 8 and 1/4 by 3 and 1/2 (unknown units of measurement); -Zone 3, showed 1 inch; -Zone 4, showed 3 and 1/2 (unknown units of measurement) and no degree angle documented. During an interview on 10/9/24/ at 1:22 P.M., LPN G said: -He/She did not know why the resident had side rails on his/her bed. During an interview on 10/9/24 at 1:45 P.M., CNA J said: -Resident had side rails because the resident will grab the side rail with one good arm and pull him/herself up in bed. Observation on 10/10/24 at 8:31 A.M. showed Maintenance Director entering resident room with entrapment zone form. During an interview on 10/10/24 at 8:31 A.M., Maintenance Director said: -He/She had been asked to complete the entrapment evaluation this morning for resident. 3. Review of Resident #54's quarterly MDS, dated [DATE], showed: -He/She was cognitively intact; -He/She had clear speech and was able to make self-understood and understand others; -He/She was dependent on wheelchair or walker; -He/She was independent with rolling left and right -He/She required supervision or touching assistance with transfers, mobility. -He/She had no falls with injury since prior assessment; -Diagnoses included: type 2 diabetes (condition in which body did not use insulin properly resulting in high blood sugar levels), renal failure (condition when the kidneys no longer filter waste and function properly), and anxiety (condition resulting in feeling of fear, dread, or uneasiness that can be normal in response to stress). Review of care plan, undated, showed: -He/She was at risk for pain due to amputation; -He/She was at risk for skin breakdown due to decreased mobility and surgical incision; -He/She had an activities of daily living deficit due to osteoarthritis; -Side rails were not care planned. Review of physician's orders, dated October 2024, showed: -No orders for side rails. Review of daily care guide, dated 10/8/24, showed: -Bilateral assist rails to aide in bed mobility and repositioning. Observation on 10/7/24 at 11:44 A.M. showed resident had resident had U-shaped cane rails on both sides of his/her bed. During interview on 10/8/24 at 10:27 A.M., resident said he/she had side rails to assist him with getting in and out of his/her bed and moving around in bed. Review of side rail evaluation form showed: -On 7/5/24, resident was to have assist rail to both sides of bed to assist with repositioning, increase independence, and resident requested use of side rails to increase independent mobility. Review of bed entrapment evaluation, undated, showed: -Zone 1, recommended by FDA less than 120 mm (less than 4 and 3/4 inch), actual measurements 4 and 1/2 by 5 and 1/2 (unknown units of measurement); -Zone 2, recommended by FDA less than 120 mm (less than 4 and 3/4 inch), actual measurements 3 and 1/8 and 4 and 1/2 (unknown units of measurement); -Zone 3, recommended by FDA less than 120 mm (less than 4 and 3/4 inch), actual measurements 1 inch; -Zone 4, recommended by FDA less than 60 mm (less than 2 and 3.8 inch) and greater than 60 degree angle, actual measurements 3 inches and no degree angle documented. During an interview on 10/10/24 at 8:16 A.M., LPN G said: -Resident's side rails were used to provide him/her with support to get out of his/her bed. Observation on 10/10/24 at 8:31 A.M. showed Maintenance Director entering resident room with entrapment zone form. During an interview on 10/10/24 at 8:31 A.M., Maintenance Director said: -He/She had been asked to complete the entrapment evaluation this morning for resident. 4. Review of Resident #104's quarterly MDS, dated [DATE], showed: -Cognitive status was not measured; -He/She had no impairment to upper or lower extremities; -He/She utilized a wheelchair; -He/She was dependent with toileting hygiene, bathing, dressing, mobility; Diagnoses included Alzheimer's disease (a progressive disease that destroys memory and other important mental functions), Parkinson's Disease (a disorder of central nervous system that can cause symptoms of low movement, stiffness, and loss of balance) , repeated falls, headaches, and ototoxic hearing loss (inner ear damage that develops as a side effect of taking certain medications). Review of care plan, undated, showed: -He/She was at risk for falls or injuries due to impaired mobility and diagnosis of repeated falls, Parkinson's disease, and Alzheimer's; -C-rail to right side of bed for mobility; -Winged mattress in place to remind resident of boundaries of bed for safety. Review of physician's orders, dated October 2024, showed: -No orders for side rails. Review of daily care guide, dated 10/8/24, showed: -Assist rail to right side of bed. Observation on 10/7/24 at 10:07 A.M. showed: -Resident had winged mattress on his/her bed and two U shaped side rails on each side of his/her bed. Review of side rail evaluation form showed: -On 3/19/24, showed no side rails were indicated or initiated; -On 6/20/24, showed form was not completed; -On 9/3/24, showed form was not completed. Review of bed entrapment evaluation, undated, showed: -Zone 1, showed 3 and 1/2 by 4 (unknown units of measurement); -Zone 2, showed 3 and 3/4 by 4 (unknown units of measurement); -Zone 3, showed (unknown units of measurement); -Zone 4, showed 3 and 3/4 (unknown units of measurement) and no degree angle documented. During an interview on 10/9/24 at 1:45 P.M., CNA J said: -Resident was a two person transfer; -He/She did not know why resident had side rails on his/her bed. During an interview on 10/10/24 at 8:16 A.M., LPN G said: -He/She was not sure why resident had side rails on his/her bed but the resident had previously been more active; -He/She probably no longer needed side rails but they had not been removed from his/her bed. During an interview on 10/10/24 at 8:16 A.M., LPN G said: -Side rail evaluation was completed as part of admission paperwork; -Nurse determines via the side rail evaluation whether a resident would benefit from side rails; -He/She did not need a doctors order to implement side rails; -He/She did not know if side rail entrapment measurements were being done. During an interview on 10/10/24 at 8:31 A.M., Maintenance Director said: -He/She had been asked to complete the entrapment evaluation this morning for residents. -He/She was measuring mattresses and bed frames; -He/She goes to Supply Director if he/she is not sure if the mattress is right size to fit resident's bed; -He/She completes measurements every month of entrapment zones; -He/She has a paper he/she documented every single room he completes side rail safety evaluation on and goes room to room; -Residents are assessed for side rails when they come into facility by nursing staff; -He/She will apply side rail if residents assessment shows they need them; -If resident asked him for side rails he/she would go to admission and social services and advise resident had asked for them; -He/She started doing rail safety audits back in April 2024. During an interview on 10/10/24 at 6:25 P.M., Director of Nursing said: -Side rails are assessed during admission assessment or with significant change in a residents status; -A physician order should be obtained prior to installation of side rails; -Distance should be assessed between mattress and side rails to ensure residents did not hurt themselves; -Assessments should also be completed to determine if residents need side rail on both sides of bed or just one; -Maintenance was responsible for completing entrapment measurements; -Measurements of mattress and bed frame should be completed any time bed is moved or a different mattress is applied to the bed. During an interview on 10/10/24 at 6:56 P.M., Administrator said: -He/She did not when entrapment assessments should be completed;
CONCERN (E)

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

Unnecessary Medications (Tag F0759)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

4. Review of the facilty's policy Transdermal Drug Delivery System (Patch) Application Procedures, dated February 2018, showed in part: -To administer medication through the skin for continuous absorp...

Read full inspector narrative →
4. Review of the facilty's policy Transdermal Drug Delivery System (Patch) Application Procedures, dated February 2018, showed in part: -To administer medication through the skin for continuous absorption while the patch in place through proper placement of the patch and care of the application sites; -Check MAR for correct medication, amount and time; -Remove patch from package and initial and date at this time; -Rotate placement sites; -Remove old patch before applying new patch; -Document on MAR (Medication Administration Record) Review of the manufacturer's guidelines for Salonpas 4% Patch (a patch used to treat pain), dated 2023 showed: -The patch should be applied to clean dry skin on the affected area; -Each patch should be removed after a maximum of eight hours of use. Review of the manufacturers guidelines for Humalog insulin ( used to treat high blood sugar) dated 2023 showed: - Administer Humalog insulin 15 minutes before a meal. 5. Review of Resident #91's POS, dated October 2024 showed: -Start date: 8/23/24 Salonpas 4% Patch, apply 2 patches to right posterior shoulder, on in the A.M. and of at H.S. Review of the resident's MAR, dated October 2024 showed: -Salonpas 4% Patch, apply 2 patches to right posterior shoulder, on in the A.M. and of at H.S.; -Documentation on 8/8/24 showed the patches were initialed by staff to indicate they were administered to the resident at 8:00 P.M. Observation and interview on 10/9/24 at 8:44 A.M., showed: -LPN E washed his/her hands and removed the new patches from the box and dated and initialed them; -The nurse entered the resident's room and removed the resident's clothing from the right shoulder; -There are two patches both dated 10/8/24 with no initials on the residents right shoulder; -The nurse removed the patches dated 10/8/24 from the resident's right shoulder; -The nurse said the old patches dated 10/8/24 should have been removed last night; -The nurse said the MAR showed that the patches were removed last night at 8:00 P.M., but the patches were still on the resident this morning; -The nurse said the physician's order should be followed. During an interview on 10/9/24 at 8:48 A.M., the resident said: -His/Her shoulder hurts; -The patches help; -He/she is supposed to have the patches taken off at night. 6. Review of Resident #103's POS, dated October 2024 showed: -Check blood sugars before meals and bedtime; for diabetes mellitus; -Humalog 100 units/ ml give at meal times per sliding scale; o less than 150 - 0 units; o 150 - 200 give 2 units; o 201 - 250 give 4 units; o 251 - 300 give 6 units; o 301 - 350 give 8 units; o 351 - 400 give 10 units; -Notify the physician for blood sugars less than 60 or greater than 400. Review of the resident's MAR, dated October 2024 showed: -Check blood sugars before meals and bedtime; for diabetes mellitus; -Humalog 100 units/ ml give at meal times per sliding scale; o less than 150 - 0 units; o 150 - 200 give 2 units; o 201 - 250 give 4 units; o 251 - 300 give 6 units; o 301 - 350 give 8 units; o 351 - 400 give 10 units; -Notify the physician for blood sugars less than 60 or greater than 400. Continuous observation starting on 10/9/24 at 11:51 A.M., and ending on 10/9/24 at 12: 52 P.M., showed: -11:51 A.M., LPN E obtained the resident's blood sugar; -The resident's blood sugar was 246; -11:54 A.M.,The nurse administered and 4 units of Humalog insulin as directed by sliding scale; -11: 58 A.M.,The nurse left the resident's room; -12:15 P.M., The resident is setting in his/her room watching T.V., -12:33 P.M., The resident is setting in his/room and took a drink from a Styrofoam cup setting in the bedside table; -12:35 P.M. The resident continues to set in his/her room at the bedside table; -12:40 P.M., No staff have checked on him/her since he/she received the insulin; -12:42 P.M., The resident said he/she is hungry; -12:49 P.M., The Registered Dietitian (RD) brings the room trays to F hall and leaves the cart; -12:52 P.M., Certified Nurses Aide (CNA) K took the resident's tray to him/her and the resident began eating; -12:52 P.M., The facilty failed to provide the resident his/her meal within 15 minutes of administration of insulin as directed by the manufacture's guidelines. During an interview on 10/9/24 at 12:58 P.M., LPN E said: -The resident usally eats in the dining room; -He/she thought the resident had went to the dining room to eat his/her meal; -The resident receives fast acting insulin and should eat between 30 and 45 minutes; -The resident should not have went an hour after the insulin was given to eat a meal. During an interview on 10/10/24, at 6:25 P.M., the DON said: -Physician's orders should be followed: -When the order shows to remove patches at night the staff should remove the patches from the resident; -The patches from the day before should not be on the resident the next morning; -Humalog is a short acting insulin; -Humalog should be given no earlier than 10 minutes before a meal; -A resident should not be given a fast acting insulin and wait 45 minutes to an hour for a meal, that is too long. Based on observations, interviews and record review, the facility failed to ensure staff administered medications with a medication error rate of less than 5%. Facility staff made five medication errors out of 26 opportunities for error, resulting in a medication error rate of 20%. This affected five of the 21 sampled residents, (Resident #4, #15, #43, #91 and #103). The facility census was 103. Review of the facility's policy for general guidelines for medication administration, dated 8/16, showed, in part: - Medications are administered as prescribed, in accordance with good nursing principles and practices and only be persons legally authorized to do so. Personnel authorized to administer medications do so only after they have familiarized themselves with the medication; - Medications are administered in accordance with written orders of attending physicians, taking into consideration manufacturer's specifications and professional standards of practice; - Medications are administered within the identified block of time per facility defined parameters. One hour before and one hour after the scheduled time, except for orders relating to before, after, and during meal orders, which are administered as ordered. Unless otherwise specified by the physician, routine medications are administered according to the established medication administration schedule for the facility; - The resident's medication administration record (MAR)/treatment administration record (TAR) is initialed by the person administering a medication, in the space provided under the date, and on the line for that specific medication dose following medication administration. Initials on each MAR/TAR are verified with a full signature in the space provided or on the signature log. The electronic (eMAR/eTAR) uses an electronic signature; - Placing an initial in the space provided on the MAR/eMAR and TAR/eTAR also indicates that the nurse who administered the medication is observing for side effects. Review of the facility's policy for insulin injections, dated 7/24 showed, in part: - Daily insulin injections are given with a physician's order. Injection sites will be rotated. Insulin will be given before meals unless otherwise ordered by the physician; - The policy did not indicate how long a resident should wait to eat a meal after receiving insulin. Review of the facility's policy for glucose monitoring (the process of measuring the amount of glucose, sugar, in your blood) via glucometer (a small, portable device that measures the amount of glucose, or sugar, in your blood); - The policy did not indicate how long the fingertip should air dry before staff obtained the resident's blood sugar. 1. Review of Resident #4's Annual Minimum Data Set (MDS), a federally mandated assessment instrument completed by facility staff showed: - Cognitive skills intact; - Dependent on the assistance of staff for medication administration and glucose monitoring. - Diagnoses included chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD, obstruction of air flow that interferes with normal breathing) and diabetes mellitus. The facility did not provide the resident's physician order sheet (POS). Review of the resident's medication administration record (MAR), dated October 2024, showed: - Start date: 4/3/24 - Check blood sugars daily for diabetes mellitus. Notify the physician for blood sugars less than 60 or greater than 400. Observation on 10/8/24 at 5:26 A.M., showed: - Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) B cleaned the resident's finger tip with an alcohol wipe, did not let it air dry and obtained the resident's blood sugar. 2. Review of Resident #15's POS, dated October 2024 showed: - Check blood sugars daily at 6:00 A.M. for diabetes mellitus. Notify the physician for blood sugars less than 60 or greater than 400. Review of the resident's MAR, dated October 2024 showed: - Check blood sugars daily at 6:00 A.M. for diabetes mellitus. Notify the physician for blood sugars less than 60 or greater than 400. Observation on 10/8/24 at 5:59 A.M., showed: - LPN B cleaned the resident's finger tip with an alcohol wipe, allowed it to air dry for four seconds and obtained the resident's blood sugar. 3. Review of Resident #43's POS, dated October 2024 showed: - Start date: 8/22/23 - Check blood sugars before meals and at bedtime for diabetes mellitus. Notify the physician for blood sugars less than 60 or greater than 400. Review of the resident's MAR, dated October 2024 showed: - Check blood sugars before meals and at bedtime for diabetes mellitus. Notify the physician for blood sugars less than 60 or greater than 400. Observation on 10/8/24 at 6:03 A.M., showed: - LPN B cleaned the resident's finger tip with an alcohol wipe, allowed it to air dry for six seconds and obtained the resident's blood sugar. During an interview on 10/8/24 at 6:09 A.M., LPN B said: - He/she should have let the finger tip air dry for 15 to 20 seconds before obtaining the blood sugar. During an interview on 10/10/24 at 6:25 P.M., the Director of Nursing (DON) said: - Staff should let the residents' finger tips air dry before obtaining the blood sugar; - She was not for sure how long the finger tip should air dry.
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 and interview, the facility failed to provide food that was palatable and attractive when hall trays were n...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation and interview, the facility failed to provide food that was palatable and attractive when hall trays were not served per resident food preferences and was not attractive. The deficient practice affected two of 21 sampled residents (Resident #85 and #52 ). The facility census was 103. The facility did not provide a policy for resident food preferences. 1. Review of Resident #85's Quarterly MDS, dated [DATE], showed: -He/She had severe cognitive impairment; -He/She required set up or clean up assistance with eating; -Diagnoses included: cancerous tumor, dementia, and anxiety. Review of care plan, undated, showed: -He/She was able to feed self but had dementia that may affect food intake and his/her weight; -Obtain/update food preferences; -Serve diet as ordered. Review of physician's orders, dated October 2024, showed: -Ordered 6/10/24, He/She was on a regular diet. During an observation on 10/9/24 at 1:10 P.M., showed: -Resident's rice was in form of ice cream scoop; -Resident observed having to cut rice with knife due to dry texture. During an interview on 10/9/24 at 1:10 P.M., Resident said: -Food was really dry. 2. Review of Resident #52's Quarterly MDS dated [DATE], showed: -He/She had moderate cognitive impairment; -He/She had clear speech and was able to make self-understood and understand others; -He/She required set up or clean up assistance with meals; -Diagnoses included stroke (damage to the brain from interruption of its blood supply) and dementia. Observation on 10/9/24 at 1:05 P.M., Resident showed: -Resident was sticking his/her fingers in his/her mouth to scoop out chewed up chicken; -Resident was served a plate of chicken, rice, bowl of carrots, and banana pudding; -Meal ticket showed carrots, pudding, roll, baked chicken, and buttered orzo, disliked rice and liver, regular diet. During an interview on 10/9/24 at 1:05 P.M., Resident #52 said: -Chicken was cooked to well done and was very dry -He/She was having so much trouble eating it; -He/She did not like rice. During an interview on 10/10/24 at 1:35 P.M., Dietary Manager said: -Food should be served at safe and palatable temperatures; -He/She was not aware of any current food complaints. During an interview on 10/10/24 at 6:56 P.M., Administrator said he/she expected food to be served palatable.
CONCERN (E)

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

Safe Environment (Tag F0921)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interviews, and record review, the facility failed to ensure the walls, ceilings, and floors, of the facil...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interviews, and record review, the facility failed to ensure the walls, ceilings, and floors, of the facility were maintained in good repair. This had the potential to affect all residents. The census was 103. The facility did not provide a policy on upkeep and repair. 1. Observations beginning on 10/08/24 at 7:58 A.M. on the Special Care Unit (SCU) showed: -Hallway light fixtures had dead bugs, dust and debris; -Hallway hand rails were scratched and had scuff marks; -The Utility room door had large scratches and chipped paint; -room [ROOM NUMBER] entry door was scratched with large areas of chipped paint and drug against the floor when opening/closing; -room [ROOM NUMBER] entry door had chipped paint that exposed the wood underneath; -room [ROOM NUMBER] entry door was scratched with chipped paint; -room [ROOM NUMBER] entry door had multiple paint chips that exposed the wood underneath; -The Dining/Activity room baseboard had thick black/gray, crusty debris at edge of baseboard and floor; multiple stained and scuffed floor tiles; the walls had scuffs and gouges in the paint; light fixtures had dead bugs, dust and debris; door jam had scuffs and chips in the paint; missing and broken tile under the Packaged Terminal Air Conditioner (PTAC: is a ductless, self-contained unit that can heat and cool a small area); the baseboard at the edge of the PTAC was peeling away from the wall; windowsills had thick gray/brown dust and debris; the chair rail had a layer of dust on the top edge; window blinds were coated with gray dust and debris; the PTAC unit had black mold like substance on the vent and the filter; an over the bed table had peeling laminate covering that exposed the [NAME] underneath; -Nurse's station had chipped wood and paint exposing the wood underneath. The trim was cracked, leaving sharp edges. The floor had dark, black, crusty debris at the edge of the desk and the floor; -Hallway near the Activity Room exit door had large cobwebs with dead bugs, the window frame was chipped and rusted; -The sliding doors had dirt, debris, and cobwebs in them; -The PTAC had dirt, dust and debris in the vent; -The patio exit had cracked tiles, dirt, debris, and cobwebs in the corners; the window had dead bugs and dust on the sill; the window frame was chipped and rusted with sharp edges exposed; -The second [NAME] entrance had multiple cracked tiles; cobwebs in corners; mini blinds were stained and coated with dust; the metal door frame was chipped and rusted with sharp edges; -Both sets of entrance doors are chipped with exposed wood underneath. During an interview on 10/10/24 at 4:13 PM Housekeeping Staff A said: -Maintenance does the high dusting up in the corners of the hallways and cleans the lights; -Floor technicians are responsible for the floors in the halls and common areas; -Repairs are completed by Maintenance. During an interview on 10/10/24 at 4:42 PM the Maintenance Director said: -He/She had been in that position for 2 years; -The floor techs was responsible for scraping the baseboard edge and getting behind any doors in the hallways; -Housekeeping was responsible for all dusting; -Maintenance does not clean the lights, housekeeping should clean the lights of dead bugs and debris; -Maintenance was only responsible for repair and upkeep of the facility; -Nurses use a texting system to notify him/her of any problems or repairs needed; -He/She was not behind on any reported concerns; -He/She had a project; as rooms open up they are refurbished such as; painted, door fixed, walls fixed, floor fixed; -The PTAC units are cleaned one hall at a time, once a quarter; -He/She was aware there were rusted door frames. Those require a contractor and one has not been contacted; -He/She was aware there was patching and painting to be done; -There is no written plan for repair and upkeep of the building. During an interview on 10/10/24 at 6:25 PM the Administrator said he expects the building to clean and in good repair.
CONCERN (E)

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

Deficiency F0925 (Tag F0925)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observations, interviews and record review, the facility failed to maintain an effective pest control program to preven...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observations, interviews and record review, the facility failed to maintain an effective pest control program to prevent gnats, flies and wasps in resident rooms, dining rooms, and hallways. The facility census was 103. The facility did not provide a pest control policy. 1. Observation on 10/07/24 at 9:18 AM showed multiple gnats in room [ROOM NUMBER]. 2. Observation on 10/07/24 at 11:05 A.M. showed multiple flies in the dining room. 3. Observation on 10/07/24 11:21 AM showed room [ROOM NUMBER]: -A fly strip hanging from the room divider with multiple dead flies on it; -Multiple flies and gnats in the room. 4. Observation on 10/07/24 at 11:30 AM Resident #18 said -There were flies in his/her room a lot; -There were multiple flies in room, landing on resident and crawling on the bed. 5. Observation on 10/08/24 at 7:58 A.M. on the Special Care Unit showed: -Two large wasps on the nursery room wall; -room [ROOM NUMBER] had multiple flies in the room, crawling on the resident, the bed and flying throughout the room. 6. Review of pest service invoices showed: -Outside in large fly control program date of service 7/31/24; -Outside in large fly control program date of service 8/28/24; -Outside in large fly control program date of service 9/25/24. During an interview on 10/10/24 06:25 P.M. the Administrator said: -There is a pest control program; -There should not be a fly strip in a resident's room; -Pest control will be notified of concerns.
Apr 2024 12 deficiencies
CONCERN (D)

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

Transfer Notice (Tag F0623)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review and staff interview, the facility failed to ensure the Ombudsman was notified of two unplanned, facility-...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review and staff interview, the facility failed to ensure the Ombudsman was notified of two unplanned, facility-initiated hospital discharges for one (Resident (R) 263) of three residents reviewed for hospitalization. The facility census was 115. Findings include: Review of R263's Face Sheet tab of the electronic medical record (EMR) revealed he was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses including spinal stenosis, osteomyelitis, and right leg below-the-knee amputation. 1. Review of R263's Discharge - return anticipated Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment, with an assessment reference date [ARD] of 11/09/23 and located in the MDS tab of the EMR, indicated R263 experienced an unplanned discharge to the hospital on [DATE]. Review of R263's Notice of Emergency Transfer of Resident, dated 11/09/23 and provided on paper, revealed the resident was transferred to the hospital because it was required by the resident's urgent medical needs. Review of R263's Nursing Departmental Notes, dated 11/10/23 at 1:56 AM and located in the Notes tab of the EMR, revealed, This resident received orders from the physician to be sent out to the hospital for immediate treatment due to wound infection. Resident was sent out via non emergent [sic] ambulance to . hospital. Review of the Detail Admission/Discharge Report, dated 01/29/24 and provided on paper with a handwritten title of, November Discharges revealed it was a list of monthly discharges provided to the Ombudsman. R263 was not included on the list, and the list did not include any residents sent to an acute care hospital. Review of R263's Nursing Departmental Notes, dated 11/18/23 at 7:39 AM and located in the Notes tab of the EMR, revealed R263 had been readmitted to the facility on [DATE] at 6:15 PM. During an interview on 04/18/24 at 4:41 PM, the Social Services Director (SSD) stated she typically provided a monthly report of all discharges to the Ombudsman. The SSD stated the goal of sending the monthly notification was to make sure the Ombudsman was notified of everyone who experienced a facility-initiated discharge. During an interview on 04/18/24 at 4:58 PM, the SSD stated the Ombudsman had not been notified of R263's unplanned hospital discharge on [DATE]. The SSD stated R263 did not pop up on the discharge list that month, and she needed to take an extra step when running the discharge report to ensure hospitalizations were included. 2. Review of R263's Discharge - return anticipated MDS assessment, with an ARD of 03/27/24 and located in the MDS tab of the EMR, indicated R263 experienced an unplanned discharge to the hospital on [DATE]. Review of R263's Notice of Emergency Transfer of Resident, dated 03/27/24 and provided on paper, revealed the resident was transferred to the hospital because it was required by the resident's urgent medical needs. Review of R263's Nursing Departmental Notes, dated 03/27/23 and located in the Notes tab of the EMR, revealed, Resident is being sent to ER [emergency room] due to wound on left foot. Wound is non healing [sic], drainage, and with odor. Review of the Ombudsman Transfer/Discharge Tracker, dated March 2024 and provided on paper, revealed it was a list of monthly discharges faxed to the Ombudsman with a cover sheet indicating the fax was sent on 04/01/24. R263 was not included on the list, and the list did not include any residents sent to an acute care hospital. Review of R263's Nursing Departmental Note, dated 04/05/24 at 9:36 PM and located in the Notes tab of the EMR, revealed R263 was readmitted to the facility on [DATE] around 7:00 PM. During an interview on 04/18/24 at 4:41 PM, the SSD stated the Ombudsman had not been notified of R263's unplanned hospital discharge on [DATE], adding he did not pop up on the discharge list. The SSD stated she would include the resident on the next month's report and inform the Ombudsman of the omission.
CONCERN (D)

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

Assessment Accuracy (Tag F0641)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review and staff interview, the facility failed to ensure the accurate completion of the Minimum Data Set (MDS) ...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review and staff interview, the facility failed to ensure the accurate completion of the Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment under the Pre-admission Screening and Resident Review (PASARR) for two (Resident (R) 7 and R41) and under the Antipsychotic Medication section for one (R7) of 36 sampled residents. The facility census was 115. Findings include: 1. Review of R7's Face Sheet tab of the electronic medical record (EMR) revealed he was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses including schizophrenia and anxiety disorder. A. Review of R7's PASRR/MI [Mental Illness] Level II Determination Sheet, dated 08/06/03 and located in R7's paper chart at the nurses' station, revealed R7 had a serious mental illness as defined by PASARR and required drug therapy and monitoring and provision of a structured environment. He was evaluated by Level II PASARR for a diagnosis of schizophrenia. Review of R7's admission Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment, with an assessment reference date (ARD) of 09/25/23 and located under the MDS tab of the EMR, revealed he had diagnoses of schizophrenia and anxiety but documented No to the question, Has the resident been evaluated by Level II PASRR [Pre-admission Screening and Resident Review] and determined to have a serious mental illness and/or mental retardation or a related condition? During an interview on 04/19/24 at 2:20 PM, the Social Services Director (SSD) stated R7 had a PASARR Level II evaluation due to a diagnosis of schizophrenia with recommendations for a structured environment and medication management. The SSD stated she did not complete the PASARR section of the MDS; the MDS Coordinator (MDSC) completed the section. During an interview on 04/19/24 at 3:00 PM, the MDSC stated she was not aware R7 had a PASARR Level II evaluation. She stated she would typically look in the paper chart, but added there were times she was unable to locate charts and completed the MDS without it. She stated R7 had been evaluated by PASARR Level II and the MDS was inaccurate. B. Review of R7's Medication Administration Record (MAR), dated March 2024 and provided on paper, revealed an order, which originated on 09/18/23, for olanzapine [an antipsychotic medication], 5 milligrams daily at bedtime for bedtime for a diagnosis of schizophrenia. The MAR documented R7 had received the olanzapine as ordered daily at bedtime. Review of R7's quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment, with an assessment reference date (ARD) of 03/18/24 and located under the MDS tab of the EMR, revealed he had diagnoses of schizophrenia and anxiety and exhibited rejection of care frequently. The MDS documented the resident was taking an antipsychotic medication and there was an indication noted. However, the follow-up question, Did the resident receive antipsychotic medications since . the prior OBRA assessment? was answered, No, Antipsychotics were not received. The MDS documented No to the question. During an interview on 04/19/24 at 2:20 PM, the SSD stated R7 had a diagnosis of schizophrenia and used antipsychotic medication. The SSD stated she did not complete the medication section of the MDS; the MDSC completed the section. During an interview on 04/19/24 at 3:00 PM, the MDSC stated she referred to the Physician Orders located in the paper chart to determine whether a resident was receiving an antipsychotic. She stated R7 was taking an antipsychotic medication, and she did not know why the MDS was answered with conflicting responses regarding antipsychotic use. The MDSC stated the MDS was inaccurate. 2. Review of R41's Face Sheet tab of the EMR revealed he was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses including intellectual disabilities, schizophrenia, and major depressive disorder. Review of R41's PASRR Level II Evaluation Report, dated 07/13/23 and located in R41's paper chart at the nurses' station, revealed R41 had a serious mental illness as defined by PASARR but did not have intellectual disability as defined by PASARR and did not require specialized mental health services. He was evaluated by Level II PASARR for a diagnosis of schizophrenia. Review of R41's annual MDS assessment, with an ARD of 03/22/24 and located under the MDS tab of the EMR, revealed he had diagnoses of schizophrenia and anxiety but documented No to the question, Has the resident been evaluated by Level II PASRR [Pre-admission Screening and Resident Review] and determined to have a serious mental illness and/or mental retardation or a related condition? During an interview on 04/19/24 at 2:20 PM, the SSD stated R41 had a PASARR Level II evaluation due to a diagnosis of schizophrenia with no mental health recommendations. During an interview on 04/19/24 at 3:00 PM, the MDSC stated she was not aware R41 had a PASARR Level II evaluation. She stated she would typically look in the paper chart, but added there were times she was unable to locate charts and completed the MDS without it. She stated R41 had been evaluated by PASARR Level II and the MDS was inaccurate.
CONCERN (D)

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

Comprehensive Care Plan (Tag F0656)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on staff interviews, record review, and review of the facility policy, the facility failed to develop a person-centered co...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on staff interviews, record review, and review of the facility policy, the facility failed to develop a person-centered comprehensive plan of care to address the resident's chronic wounds and edema with measurable goals and plans for one of 29 sampled residents (Resident (R) 50). The facility census was 115. Findings include: Review of a policy provided by the facility titled, Comprehensive Person-Centered Care Plans undated, indicated . A Comprehensive Person-Centered Care Plan contains services provided, preference, ability, goals for admission and desired outcomes, and care level guidelines . For each problem, need, or strength a resident-centered goal is developed . Staff approaches are to be developed for each problem/strength/need . Review of R50's electronic medical record (EMR) titled, admission Record, located under the Profile tab, indicated R50 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses including edema and stroke affecting the right side of the body. Review of R50's EMR titled Orders, located under the Orders tab, indicated R50 was ordered Lasix 40 milligrams (mg) with a start date of 10/26/23 and Bumex 4 mg twice daily with a start date of 10/26/23 for edema. Review of R50's EMR titled Progress Notes, located under the Progress Notes tab and dated 04/16/24, indicated R50 was seeing wound care for chronic wound/edema to bilateral lower legs. Review of R50's EMR titled Care Plan, located under the Care Plan tab, indicated no care plan for chronic edema or wounds to the bilateral lower legs. R50 was not interviewable. During an interview on 04/19/24 at 9:54 AM, the Administrator revealed Care plans should be updated accordingly. Information is gathered in morning meetings detailing resident care and the care plan should be changed if needed. During an interview on 04/19/24 at 1:42 PM, the Minimum Data Set Registered Nurse (MDSRN) 1 revealed the chronic edema and wound care should be care planned. I do the care plans, but nursing can enter care plans as well. I do not know how this was missed.
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0658 (Tag F0658)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

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

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review, resident and staff interview, facility policy review, the facility failed to administer physician ordered medications (glaucoma eye drops) as prescribed for one (Resident (R)44) of 29 residents sampled. The facility census was 115. Findings include: Review of the facility policy Medication Administration-General Guidelines dated 08/16 revealed . The resident's MAR/TAR [medication administration record/treatment administration record] is initialed by the person administering a medication, in the space provided under the date . Review of R44's Face Sheet, provided by the facility, revealed R44 was admitted on [DATE] with diagnoses including chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and glaucoma. Review of R44's quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS), located in the EMR under the MDS tab, with an Assessment Reference Date (ARD) of 01/11/24, revealed the resident had a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of 15 out of 15, indicating R44 was cognitively intact. Review of R44's physician orders dated 01/08/24 revealed timolol 0.5% eye drop, instill one drop into each eye daily at 8:00 AM, latanoprost 0.005% eye drop, instill one drop into each eye at 8:00 PM, Trusopt 2% eye drops, instill one drop into each eye twice a day at 12:00 PM and 8:00 PM, and Brimonidine 0.2% eye drop, instill one drop into both eyes twice a day at 12:00 PM and 8:00 PM. Review of R44's CMT Medication Administration Record for April 2024 revealed timolol 0.5% eye drop had blanks in the blocks under the dates of 04/02, 04/05, 04/07, 04/12, and 04/14; latanoprost 0.005% eye drop had blanks in the blocks under the dates of 04/08, 04/09, 04/11, 04/12, and 04/13; Brimonidine 0.2% eye drop had blanks in the blocks under the dates of 04/02 and 04/11; and Trusopt 2% eye drop had blanks in the blocks under the dates of 04/08, 04/09, 04/10, 04/11, and 04/14. During an interview on 04/19/24 at 2:30 PM, the interim director of nursing stated, If there is no documentation in the boxes below the dates, then I cannot prove the medications were given.
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0697 (Tag F0697)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

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

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, resident and staff interview, record review and facility policy review, the facility failed to ensure pain medication (Hydrocodone) was available to be administrated to one of three residents (Resident (R)24). The facility census was 115. Findings include: Review of the facility's policy Medication Administration-General Guidelines dated August 2016, revealed .Medications are administrated in accordance with written orders of attending physicians . Review of the facility's policy Pain Evaluation/Management dated January 2015 revealed the following: A. Routine Pain Evaluations: 1. Upon admission/readmission the pharmacy/facility will provide a pain scale on the Medication Administration Record for the resident. 2. If a new episode of pain is noted report to the nurse and/or Executive Director. 3. Implement non-pharmacological interventions as appropriate. 4. If no relief or if the resident finds pain above acceptable levels notify the physician. 5. Notify physician if resident's response to their medication or treatment is not satisfactory to develop further interventions for relief of pain. B. Completing Pain Management Evaluation Tool: When to Evaluate: . Upon admission and re-admission to the facility for all residents. . Upon all new complaints of pain/discomfort from resident or resident's family. . Upon a change of condition when indicated. l. For residents cognitively intact, complete Section A of the tool. For cognitively impaired residents, complete Section B. Place in the medical record under Risk Evaluations. 2. After the evaluation is completed and if pain is identified, nursing will establish the problem on the resident's Plan of Care (to include non-pharmacological comfort measures as appropriate). 3. The physician will be called, and the results of the pain evaluation reviewed in order to develop further interventions for relief of pain . Review of R24's Face Sheet, provided by the facility, revealed R24 was admitted on [DATE] with diagnoses including polyneuropathy, diabetes mellitus, rheumatoid arthritis, pain, and history of right femur fracture. Review of R24's quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS), located in the EMR under the MDS tab, with an Assessment Reference Date (ARD) of 02/28/24, revealed the resident had a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of 14 out of 15, indicating R24 was cognitively intact. Review of R24's care plan, provided by the facility, dated 06/07/22, revealed the resident had a problem indicating I [R24] is at risk for alterations of comfort r/t [related to] RA [rheumatoid arthritis], HX [history] of Femur [sic] Fx [fracture], neuropathy, depression [sic]. The Goal was documented as My [R24] pain will be managed and I [R24] will verbalize adequate pain relief . The Interventions were Monitor and record my [R24] pain as ordered and/or as needed. Administer medications as ordered. If pain or c/o [complaints of] pain increase notify my [R24's] physician. Therapy to eval [evaluate] and treat as needed. Review of R24's Pain Management Evaluation Tool, dated 08/31/23, revealed R24 has chronic pain in the right leg. When asked What makes the discomfort feel better/worse? It was documented R24 answered repositioning. When asked what is an acceptable level [pain] for you?, it was documented 2/10 [two out of 10]. When asked How long does the discomfort usually last?, it was documented R24 answered all day. Review of R24's physician orders, provided by the facility, dated 10/26/23, revealed Hydrocodone-Acetaminophen 5-325 mg [milligram] give one-tab [tablet] po [by mouth] BID [twice a day] .Dx [diagnosis] pain. This medication was ordered to be given at 8:00 AM and 8:00 PM. As well as an order for Tylenol 650 mg po every 8 hours, last dose dated 04/18/24 at 6:00 AM. During the Medication Administration observation on 04/18/24 at 8:24 AM, Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) 6 stated, R24's pain medication [hydrocodone] will come this evening or tomorrow. At 8:40 AM, R24 asked LPN6 if her pain medication was here yet and LPN6 stated, It should be here this evening. LPN6 did not assess R24's pain at this time nor offer R24 another alternative for pain. LPN6 continued to state, I haven't had time to reorder medications for three weeks. Review of R24's Medication Administration Record (MAR), provided by the facility, dated for April 2024, revealed beginning on 04/11/24 at 8:00 AM through 04/19/24 at 8:00 AM, there were initials with circles around them for each administration time during this period. It was also documented on the MAR Pain Scale: 0=None, 1-3=Mild, 4-5=Moderate, 6-7=Severe, 8-10=Very Severe. Each shift was documented as 0. During an observation and interview on 04/18/24 at 3:40 PM, R24 stated the pain was at a 5 (which represents moderate pain) most of the time because R24's pain medication had not come in yet for a week. Every time I [R24] ask, they say it's coming tomorrow, or the doctor was called. But I [R24] haven't gotten it. They don't care about what happens. When asked if the staff rate her [R24's] pain or ask pain level, she states, No, they just tell me the same story, but nothing happens. I get Tylenol in the mornings sometimes, but that doesn't help. I [R24] broke my femur eight months ago and it still hurts. When asked R24's acceptable level of pain, R24 stated 3. At the end of the conversation resident stated, I [R24] sure hope it will come soon. During this interview, R24 kept rubbing the right thigh back and forth. R24 stated, This helps a little when it gets to hurting a lot. During an interview on 04/18/24 at 4:46 PM, LPN5 stated, R24 has been out of her pain medication [hydrocodone] since April the eleventh. I have been working here for three weeks and I have never been taught how to reorder medications. When asked if the physician has been notified about the pain medication not being administrated as ordered, LPN5 stated, I don't know if I have to notify the doctor. During an interview on 04/19/24 at 9:30 AM, R24 stated, I [R24] asked this morning, and they [nurse] told me again it [pain medication] hasn't come in yet. During an interview on 04/19/24 at 2:30 PM, the Interim Director of Nursing (IDON) stated, I have not been told that she [R24] was out of her [R24's] pain medicine. This is the first I have heard of this. We have emergency pharmacies that we could have used and got her pain medication here in no time at all. When asked the process in ordering of the medications, IDON stated, The nurses check all the medications on Wednesday to see if they need to order any of them before the weekend comes so they will have it. But if the nurse sees that the medication will be out sooner, then they are to reorder the medication at that time and not wait so they don't run out of medication to give to the resident.
CONCERN (E)

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

Accident Prevention (Tag F0689)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, record review and interviews, the facility failed to ensure residents who smoked were assessed and that su...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, record review and interviews, the facility failed to ensure residents who smoked were assessed and that supervision was provided in accordance with the assessed needs. Residents were observed smoking, unsupervised outside of the designated areas. The facility failed to put a system in place to individually identify and determine if residents needed staff to maintain their smoking materials, care plan such needs, and implement a monitoring system for five of 22 residents that currently reside in the facility and smoke (Resident (R)11, R81, R17, R5, and R87). The facility also failed to develop a care plan for one of 22 residents that currently smoke (R11). The facility census was 115. Review of the facility's policy Smoking dated 05/31/22, stated, It is not the intention of this facility to deprive residents of the pleasure of smoking, but rather offer a safe and comfortable environment to all residents living in the facility. Both smoking and non-smoking residents will be considered in the development of smoking locations and designated times. Under the Procedure section of the smoking policy, it revealed the following: l. All residents who smoke will be evaluated for his/her ability to smoke safely, the ability to handle smoking material and the level of supervision while smoking. The smoking Evaluation Tool will be completed upon admission, re-admission, quarterly, annually (sic) and as needed. 2. The facility staff will store smoking materials and identify designated times for smoking. 3. Assistance with lighting tobacco products, assistance to hold cigarettes, supervised smoking by staff and/or other protective/safety measures as determined appropriate by the Smoking Evaluation Tool will be provided. 4. Signs that prohibit smoking in the facility will be prominently placed at all building entrances that are used by residents, staff (sic) and visitors. a. Staff will be informed of this policy at the time of hire. b. Residents or their appointed representatives, as appropriate, will be informed of this policy upon admission to the facility. c. This policy will be courteously communicated to visitors found smoking or using smoking materials in the building or in non-designated areas. 5. Smoking is only permitted in designated smoking areas with smoking times to be designated by the facility. a. The designated smoking area will be provided with a fireproof ashtray in which all smoking material will be disposed of. b. No smoking material will be disposed of in waste cans, floors (sic) or any other inappropriate area. c. Ashtrays can only be emptied by staff into a fireproof metal container. d. No flammable liquid or combustible gases may be taken into the smoking areas. e. Use of oxygen in smoking areas and while smoking is not permitted. f. Smoking areas are to be maintained in such a manner that minimizes risk for fire hazards . 7. Violation of the smoking policy may result in discharge from the facility . 1. Review of R11's Face Sheet, provided by the facility, revealed R11 was readmitted on [DATE] with diagnoses including chronic pulmonary obstructive disease. Review of R11's quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS), located in the EMR under the MDS tab, with an Assessment Reference Date (ARD) of 02/03/24, revealed the resident had a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of 12 out of 15, indicating R11 was moderately cognitively intact. Review of R11's care plan dated 08/22/23 revealed the resident had a problem indicating R11 is at risk for behaviors r/t [related to] being non-compliant at times. The goal indicated The resident will have no behaviors that are harmful to himself or others. Interventions were assist the resident to develop (sic) more appropriate methods of (sic) coping and interacting. Encourage the resident to express feelings appropriately (sic). If reasonable, discuss the residents (sic) behavior. Explain/reinforce why behavior is (sic) inappropriate and/or unacceptable. Observe for behavior episodes and attempt to determine underlying cause. Consider location, time of day, persons involved (sic) and situations. There was no documentation nor development of a care plan to reflect R11 was a smoker. Review of the quarterly Smoking Evaluation Tool, dated 02/15/24, revealed under the Interview section of this tool Does the resident use oxygen? The answer documented was No. Under the Evaluation section of this tool revealed the area for BIMS Score was blank. The statement of Care plan reviewed and revised for appropriate supervision and smoking directions to include: General Supervision, Supervision and assist of one for smoking, Smoking apron, and Staff to light cigarette/cigar/pipe revealed no documentation to address these areas. The previous Smoking Evaluation Tool dated 11/17/23, revealed staff to store smoking materials, however on the tool dated 02/15/24, it did not reflect this documentation. During an interview on 04/19/24 at 1:05 PM, the Social Services Assistant stated, I just forgot to mark those areas, in regards to the incomplete smoking evaluation tool. 2. Review of R81's Face Sheet, provided by the facility, revealed R81 was admitted on [DATE] with diagnoses including dementia mild with agitation, psychosis, and major depressive disorder. Review of R81's quarterly MDS, located in the EMR under the MDS tab, with an ARD of 02/29/24, revealed the resident had a BIMS score of 14 out of 15, indicating R81 was cognitively intact. Review of R81's care plan, dated 08/22/23, revealed the resident had a problem indicating R81 is a smoker and is aware of the facility smoking policy. R81 is at risk for being non-compliant with storage of smoking materials. The goal indicated R81 will follow smoking policy and remain free from injury . The interventions reflected Resident has been educated on the scheduled smoking times and is aware the facility will hold all smoking and fire materials, evaluate quarterly and with change in condition as indicated, and Social Services to provide support as needed. Review of R81s Smoking Evaluation Tool dated 12/13/23 revealed under the Evaluation question of BIMS Score, there was no documentation. For the area noted under Evaluation-Care plan reviewed and revised for appropriate supervision and smoking directions to include General Supervision, Supervision and assist of one for smoking, and Smoking Apron, there was no documentation to reflect if the care plan had been reviewed and revised for smoking or what type of supervision R81 required while smoking. There was documentation which indicated staff was to hold smoking materials. Review of R81's Smoking Evaluation Tool dated 03/07/24 revealed under an Interview question Has the resident ever been offered resources to assist with quitting smoking there was no documentation noted. Under the Evaluation question of BIMS Score, there was no documentation. For the area noted under Evaluation-Care plan reviewed and revised for appropriate supervision and smoking directions to include General Supervision, Supervision and assist of 1 for smoking, and Smoking Apron, there was no documentation to reflect if the care plan had been reviewed and revised for smoking or what type of supervision R81 required while smoking. There was documentation which indicated staff was to hold smoking materials. Observation on 04/15/24 at 9:00 AM, showed R81 was smoking outside sitting on a brick ledge at the front of the facility. This was not the designated area to smoke for residents that need supervision. R81 stated, I only have half of a cigarette left. Observed three other residents with R81 smoking together as a group. There were no staff members present for supervision. On 04/16/24 at 9:00 AM and 5:30 PM, R81 was observed to be smoking while sitting on the brick ledge. Again, there were no staff members present for supervision. On 04/17/24 at 5:40 AM, R81 was observed putting in the code for the front door to open and ambulated outside to the front of the facility to smoke. R81 proceeded to sit down on the brick ledge and begin smoking a cigarette. During the interview with R81, the resident stated, I got my cigarettes and lighter from another person here that smokes. During an interview on 04/19/24 at 1:05 PM, the social services assistant (SSA) stated, R81 is a minimal supervised or unsupervised smoker. 3. On 04/16/24 at 11:30 AM, R17 was observed to be waiting at the front door in the electric scooter for the front desk receptionist to release the front door to open for R17 to go outside to the front parking lot. R17 stated, The ones that are supposed to come out here and supervise us when we are smoking, don't care about us. If they cared, they would come out here and supervise us. Review of R17's Face Sheet, provided by the facility, revealed R17 was admitted on [DATE] with diagnoses including peripheral vascular disease, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, and bipolar disorder due to post traumatic stress disorder. Review of R17's quarterly MDS, located in the EMR under the MDS tab, with an ARD of 02/08/24, revealed the resident had a BIMS score of 15 out of 15, indicating R17 was cognitively intact. Review of R17's care plan, dated 01/01/21, revealed the problem as I [R17] am a smoker by choice. I sign myself out of the facility to smoke in the community. I am non-compliant with my smoking materials and refuse to get (sic) them to the facility for safe keeping. The goal for this problem revealed, I will smoke safely & (and) without incident in designated smoking areas . The interventions were Staff to accompany me [R17] during scheduled smoke breaks. I [R17] have been educated on the scheduled smoking times and I [R17] am aware that the facility will hold all smoking and fire materials. My social worker to provide support as needed. Facility staff to monitor me [R17] for (sic) safety. Evaluate me [R17] quarterly and with change in condition as indicated. Review of R17's Smoking Evaluation Tool dated 11/30/24 revealed under Evaluation R17 is to have General Supervision. Review of R17's Smoking Evaluation Tool dated 02/15/24 revealed under Evaluation the BIMS Score was left blank. R17 continues to be documented for General Supervision. There was noted documentation of Res [R17] is non-compliant with facility smoke policy at times. During an interview with R17 on 04/15/24 11:30 AM, the resident was asked where his smoking supplies were kept. R17 pointed to his basket on his scooter and observed three packs of cigarettes and a lighter attached to an elastic cord attached to the handle of the scooter. 4. Review of R5's Face Sheet, provided by the facility, revealed R5 was admitted on [DATE] with diagnoses including post-traumatic stress disorder which resulted in a gunshot wound causing traumatic brain injury, bipolar disorder, and post traumatic seizures. Review of R5's quarterly MDS, located in the EMR under the MDS tab, with an ARD of 01/19/24, revealed the resident had a BIMS score of 15 out of 15, indicating R5 was cognitively intact. Review of R5's care plan, dated 03/26/20, revealed a Problem which stated, I [R5] choose to smoke, and I am aware of the facility (sic) smoking policy. I [R5] do not always sign out and spend most of my [R5] time off facility property (sic) and return to facility for meals/meds [medicines]. I [R5] take my tobacco with me and leave the property. The Goal for this Problem stated, I [R5] will smoke in the designated smoking area and be free from injury. The Interventions for this Problem stated, Encourage and remind me [R5] of the proper protocol to sign out as needed, staff to accompany me during scheduled smoke breaks, I [R5] been educated on the scheduled smoking times and I [R5] am aware that the facility will hold all smoking and fire materials, facility staff to monitor for safety, evaluate quarterly and with change in condition as indicated, and my [R5] social worker to support as needed. Review of R5's Smoking Evaluation Tool, dated 02/08/24, revealed under Evaluation section the BIMS Score had no documentation. During an observation on 04/17/24 at 3:19 AM, R5 went outside in his electric wheelchair to smoke outside of the building on C hall. R5 stated, I always go out early before meds [medicines] come around. When asked who let R5 out, R5 stated, I have the code to go in and out. I keep my cigarettes in a locked box in my room. During an interview with R5 on 04/17/24 at 7:20 AM, while R5 was out on the far-right side of the parking lot smoking a cigarette, R5 stated, The wind was blowing so hard yesterday morning that it blew the cigarette out of my mouth, and it [cigarette] was blown down the road. I went down the road to catch it in my wheelchair. An observation was made with the Social Services Director on 04/17/24 at 9:15 AM in which R5 stated, My lockbox is right under my bed. R5 showed the lockbox was at the right side at the head of the bed, and stated, When I am in here, my wheelchair sits in front of it so no one can see it. 5. Review of R87's Face Sheet, provided by the facility, revealed R87 was admitted on [DATE] with diagnoses including chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), and congestive heart failure. Review of R87's quarterly MDS, located in the EMR under the MDS tab, with an ARD of 03/07/24, revealed the resident had a BIMS score of 12 out of 15, indicating R5 was moderately cognitively impaired. Review of R87's care plan dated 09/06/22 revealed a Problem which stated, I [R87] smoke tobacco daily, I [R87] will remain safe while smoking. Per H&P (History and Physical) R87 smoked at home while using oxygen. Under the Goal section of the care plan, it revealed, I [R87] will be free from smoking related injuries . Interventions in the care plan revealed, Smoking cessation assistance will be provided should the desire to stop smoking be expressed, provide a schedule of supervised smoke times, smoking risk assessment following admission, significant change and quarterly, and must remove oxygen when going out to smoke. Review of R87's Smoking Evaluation Tool dated 03/14/24 revealed under the Evaluation section, the BIMS Score was not documented. The area which stated, Care plan reviewed and revised for appropriate supervision and smoking directions to include General Supervision, Supervision with assist of 1 for smoking, Smoking Apron, and Staff to light cigarette, cigars/pipe. There was documentation noted which stated, Remove O2 (oxygen) to smoke. On 04/17/24 at 5:00 AM, R87 was observed to be sitting in his wheelchair in the hallway of unit F. When asked where R87 keeps his cigarettes and lighter, R87 stated, I have to contemplate what I am going to tell you. I will tell you that I have cigarettes that I can get, I won't tell you how or where, but nevertheless they [cigarettes] are up there. 6. During an interview on 04/19/24 at 1:05 pm, the Social Services Assistant stated, I just forgot to document in those areas on this [smoking evaluation tool]. During an interview on 04/17/24 at 10:20 AM, the Executive Director was asked what general supervision meant when it was marked on the Smoking Evaluation Tool. The executive director stated, Someone needs to be supervising the residents to smoke and they need to smoke in the designated smoking area. Safe smokers can go smoke whatever time they want to. Those smokers can go out front to smoke. When asked if the front parking lot with the brick ledge was considered the facility's property, the area where the residents are smoking and the Executive Director stated, Yes, that is still our property. During the resident interviews, the residents were reluctant to speak to the survey team regarding where the smoking materials were really being stored. The residents had voiced concerns if they would tell us, then they might get their smoking privileges taken away and R17 stated, I have been smoking for 50 some years, and I can't stop now. This place gives me anxiety and I don't need anymore.
CONCERN (E) 📢 Someone Reported This

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

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

Unnecessary Medications (Tag F0759)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observations, record review, and staff interview, the facility failed to ensure prescribed medications were administere...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observations, record review, and staff interview, the facility failed to ensure prescribed medications were administered at the prescribed time and were available for administration for eight of 13 residents (Resident (R)95, R62, R24, R41, R54, R263, R17, and R48) in the medication administration observation. These failures caused 29 medication errors out of 59 opportunities for error, or a medication error rate of 49.15%. The facility census was 115. Findings include: Review of the facility policy Medication Administration-General Guidelines dated 08/16, revealed . Medications are administered in accordance with written orders of attending physicians . All current medications and dosage schedules are listed on the resident's medication administration record .and administered timely according to facility policy . Medications are administered within the identified block of time per facility defined parameters. One hour before and one hour after the scheduled time, except for orders relating to before, after, and during meal orders, which are administered as ordered. Unless otherwise specified by the physician, routine medications are administered according to the established medication administration schedule for the facility . 1. Review of R95's Face Sheet, provided by the facility, revealed R95 was admitted on [DATE] with diagnoses including osteoarthritis and chronic pain. Review of the R95's physician's order, provided by the facility, dated 11/20/23, revealed an order for salonpas 4% [percent] flex patch, apply patch to lower back in the AM (morning), wear for 12 hours and remove. The administration time for this medication was 8:00 AM. During the Medication Administration observation on 04/18/24 at 7:56 AM, Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) 6 administered the physician ordered medications to R95 except for the salonpas patch. LPN6 did not ask R95 if he wanted or did not want this patch. During an interview on 04/18/24 at 11:00 AM, LPN6 stated, I didn't ask R95 if he wanted this patch because he usually refuses it anyway. When asked if LPN6 should have asked R95 if he wanted this patch this morning, LPN6 confirmed he should have spoken to R95 about applying this patch as ordered by the physician. 2. Review of R62's Face Sheet, provided by the facility, revealed R62 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses including bipolar disorder and anxiety. Review of R62's Physician Order Sheet (POS), provided by the facility, dated April 2024, revealed an order for buspirone HCL 10 mg (milligram) by mouth three times a day at 7:00 AM, 1:00 PM, and 7:00 PM. During the Medication Administration observation on 04/18/24 at 8:21 AM, LPN6 administered the above documented physician ordered medication to R62. During an interview on 04/18/24 at 11:00 AM, LPN6 confirmed the medication should had been given to R62 at 7:00 AM. During an interview on 04/19/24 at 2:15 PM, the interim director of nursing (IDON) stated, The medication was given late if it was an hour after the time the medication was scheduled to be given. The IDON confirmed the medication was given late to R62. 3. Review of R24's Face Sheet, provided by the facility, revealed R24 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses including history of right femur fracture and rheumatoid arthritis. Review of R24's POS, provided by the facility, dated April 2024, revealed an order for hydrocodone-acetaminophen 5-325 mg by mouth twice a day at 8:00 AM and 8:00 PM. During the Medication Administration observation on 04/18/24 at 8:24 AM, LPN6 did not administer the above documented physician ordered medication to R24 due the medication not being present in the facility. LPN6 stated, R24's pain medication [hydrocodone] will come this evening or tomorrow. At 8:40 AM, R24 asked LPN6 if her pain medication was here yet and LPN6 stated, It should be here this evening. LPN6 did not assess R24's pain at this time nor offer R24 another alternative for pain. LPN6 continued to state, I haven't had time to reorder medications for three weeks. I have had to ask other nurses to help me with this. During an interview on 04/19/24 at 2:30 PM, IDON stated, . The nurses check all the medications on Wednesday to see if they need to order any of them before the weekend comes so they will have it. But if the nurse sees that the medication will be out sooner, then they are to reorder the medication at that time and not wait so they don't run out of medication to give to the resident. 4. Review of R41's Face Sheet, provided by the facility, revealed R41 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses including type 2 diabetes mellitus, hypertension, major depressive disorder, and mixed hyperlipidemia. Review of R41's POS, provided by the facility, dated April 2024, revealed orders for Humalog 100 unit/ml (milliliter), give per sliding scale AC (before meals) 120-180=4U, 181-220=6U, 221-260=8U, 261-300=10U, 301-350=12U, 351-400=14U, 401=16U to be given, at 8:00 AM, 12:00 PM, and 6:00 PM. During the Medication Administration observation on 04/18/24 at 9:08 AM, LPN6 administered the physician ordered medications to R41 except for the Humalog insulin which was not given. LPN6 stated, I have to get the insulins done. I will have to ask the other nurse to help me get to them. LPN6 confirmed that no insulins had been given thus far this morning. 5. Review of R54's Face Sheet, provided by the facility, revealed R54 was readmitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnosis including type 2 diabetes mellitus, fluid retention, hypokalemia, and hypertension. Review of R54's physician orders, provided by the facility, dated 09/22/23, revealed an order for Novolog 100 unit/ml, administer 12 units subcutaneously before meals. This medication was to be administered at 8:00 AM. The physician orders, dated for April 2024 on the POS revealed orders for Coreg 12.5 mg by mouth twice a day at 8:00 AM and 8:00 PM. During the Medication Administration observation on 04/18/24 at 9:25 AM, PN6 administered the physician ordered medications to R54. During an interview on 04/19/24 at 11:00 AM, LPN6 confirmed R54 received Novolog insulin and Coreg late and was not given within the hour before and the hour after the scheduled time for administration to R54. 6. Review of R263's Face Sheet, provided by the facility, revealed R263 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses including osteomyelitis, resistance to multiple antimycobacterial drugs, and spinal stenosis. Review of R263's POS, dated April 2024, revealed orders for Megestrol 20 mg by mouth daily at 8:00 AM, pantoprazole DR (delayed release) 40 mg by mouth twice daily at 9:00 AM and 5:00 PM, and oxycodone IR five mg by mouth twice a day at 8:00 AM and 8:00 PM. During the Medication Administration observation on 04/18/24 at 10:31 AM, LPN6 administered the above documented physician ordered medications to R263. During an interview on 04/18/24 at 11:00 AM, LPN6 confirmed the above documented medications were not given within the hour after the scheduled time the medications were ordered to be given. 7. Review of R17's Face Sheet, provided by the facility, revealed R17 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses including type 2 diabetes mellitus, right above the knee amputation, and chronic pain. R17 was also admitted to hospice services on 08/15/23. Review of R17's POS, dated April 2024, revealed orders for Ativan, one mg by mouth at 6:00 AM and 2:00 PM daily, and MS Contin ER 15 mg by mouth twice a day at 8:00 AM and 8:00 PM. During the Medication Administration observation on 04/18/24 at 10:41 AM, LPN6 administered the above documented physician ordered medications to R17. During an interview on 04/18/24 at 11:00 AM, LPN6 confirmed these medications administered to R17 were not given at the physician ordered time. 8. Review of R48's Face Sheet, provided by the facility, revealed R48 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses including type 2 diabetes mellitus, anemia, and hypertension. Review of R48's POS, dated April 2024, revealed orders for ferrous sulfate 325 mg by mouth daily at 8:00 AM, finasteride five mg by mouth daily at 8:00 AM, metformin 500 mg by mouth twice a day at 8:00 AM and 8:00 PM, amlodipine besylate 10 mg by mouth daily at 8:00 AM-hold if BP less than 100/60 or heart rate less than 60, hydralazine 50 mg by mouth three times a day at 8:00 AM, 12:00 PM and 4:00 PM-hold for SBP (systolic blood pressure) less than 100 or HR less than 60, and carvedilol 3.125 mg by mouth twice a day-hold for SBP less than 100 or heart rate less than 60, to be given at 8:00 AM and 8:00 PM. During the Medication Administration observation on 04/18/24 at 10:35 AM, LPN6 administered the above documented physician ordered medications to R48. During an interview on 04/18/24 at 11:00 AM, LPN6 confirmed these medications administered to R48 were not given at the physician ordered time. 9. During an interview on 04/19/24 at 2:15 PM, the IDON stated, The residents that have . medication ordered should be given at the time the doctor has ordered for the medication to be given.
CONCERN (E)

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

Antibiotic Stewardship (Tag F0881)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

Based on interviews, record review, and policy review, the facility failed to implement and maintain their infection prevention and control (IPCP) program critical element to monitor and evaluate anti...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on interviews, record review, and policy review, the facility failed to implement and maintain their infection prevention and control (IPCP) program critical element to monitor and evaluate antibiotic use and to track measures of usage in the facility for their entire population of residents. The facility census was 115. Findings include: Review of the facility's policy titled, Antibiotic Stewardship Program, updated 10/01/22, revealed their guidelines for monitoring antibiotic use included utilizing and collecting reports that summarized antibiotic susceptibility patterns, antibiotic reviews for appropriateness of administration of antibiotics, establish standards for clinical monitoring for adverse drug events from antibiotic use, and utilizing microbiology culture data to assess and guide future antibiotic selection. During an interview on 04/16/24 at 1:46 PM, the Infection Preventionist (IP) stated she was familiar with the IPCP standards and procedure goals for the antibiotic stewardship program for the facility, but was not there yet. She stated she could not provide previous or current documentation for the facility's ongoing review for antibiotic stewardship. She stated her expectation for the facility antibiotic stewardship program included tracking antibiotic usage and the outcome of the administered antibiotics. During an interview on 04/16/24 at 1:55 PM, the Corporate Nurse reported she was aware of the lack of documentation for the facility's antibiotic stewardship program and the ongoing goal was to improve the program towards compliance with IPCP regulations, policies, and procedures.
CONCERN (F)

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

Deficiency F0730 (Tag F0730)

Could have caused harm · This affected most or all residents

Based on interviews, record review, and facility policy review, the facility failed to complete a performance review of nurse aides at least once every 12 months and provide regular in-service educati...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on interviews, record review, and facility policy review, the facility failed to complete a performance review of nurse aides at least once every 12 months and provide regular in-service education based on the outcome of the review. The facility censure was 115. Findings included: Review of the facility's policy titled, Human Resources Management Policy and Procedures dated 07/01/03 revealed, Upon hire and prior to performing any functions of their position, each new employee will be oriented within the first 40 hours of employment, in accordance with the State and Federal regulations, as well as with company policy and procedure. Application: Employees. Procedure: A. All employees will receive general orientation. B. All new employees, volunteers and independent contractors shall be required to attend training in Hazardous Communications. C. General Orientation should begin immediately upon hire of all new employees and be completed within the first 40 hours of employment; general orientation for CNAs must be completed with the first 16 hours of employment. In no case should an employee perform job duties before orientation to the job. D. An employee who is hired to fill positions in more than one specialty (i.e., a housekeeper and a laundry aide) must receive full orientation in each of the specialties. E. The Orientation Checklist or other state required orientation checklists will be completed by the employee and trainer and will be filed in the employee's personnel folder. F. Listed below is a summary of topics and federal criterion that are required to be trained during the initial orientation and annually by Department of Labor (OHA) regulations and can be found in the Safety and Loss Control Manual: 1. Hazard Communications. 2. Access to Employee Exposure & Medical Records. 3. Fire Safety & Disaster Plans. 4. Fire Alarm Systems. 5. Fire Extinguishers. 6. Lockout/tagout. 7. Personal Protection Equipment. 8. General lifting or transferring training. 9. Aggressive Behavior Training. 10. Slips, Trips & Falls training. 11. Blood borne Pathogens/HBV training materials are included in the Infection Control Manual. Review of 52 Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA) personnel files revealed the facility failed to complete a performance review of all nurse aides at least once every 12 months and provide regular in-service education based on the outcome of the review. During an interview on 04/19/24 at 1:50 PM, the Executive Director stated she did not have the CNAs competency evaluations, and that she provided all the information that she had.
CONCERN (F)

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

Food Safety (Tag F0812)

Could have caused harm · This affected most or all residents

Based on observation, interview, review of facility policy, the facility failed to ensure all items in the freezer were sealed closed, shelving and clean equipment were kept free from dust, and that d...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, interview, review of facility policy, the facility failed to ensure all items in the freezer were sealed closed, shelving and clean equipment were kept free from dust, and that dietary staff performed hand hygiene. These failures had the potential to affect all residents in the facility who consumed food from the kitchen. The facility census was 115. Findings include: Review of the facility's policy titled, Sanitizing Equipment and Food Contact Surfaces, undated, revealed Employees shall sanitize equipment and food contact surfaces utilizing the proper sanitizing solution . During an observation on 04/15/24 at 9:26 AM, the following observations in the kitchen were made with and verified by the Dietary Manager (DM): 1. The freezer contained one bag of hamburgers that were open to air. 2. There were eight plastic containers ready for use that were dirty on the inside with dried food particles. 3. There were two metal shelving units with dust collected on them that contained kitchen equipment and pans that were ready for use. 4. Observation of the tray line on 04/17/24 at 7:33 AM, revealed the metal containers of food from the kitchen were loaded into a hot box. The hot box was unplugged by Dietary [NAME] (DC) with bare hands and taken through two hallways to the dining room that contained a small room with the steam table. DC plugged in the hot box to remain hot and the containers of food were then put into the steam table. All extra food stayed in the hot box. The serving room did not have a sink or a sanitizing bucket. Serving utensils were observed to fall into the food tray and the DC picked them up using his hands. The DC dropped his pen on the floor, picked it up, and continued to serve food. DC did not wash his hands until he returned to the main kitchen after meal service was completed. During an interview on 04/17/24 at 9:02 AM, DC stated, I never thought about washing my hands. I guess I did touch the utensils when they fell in the food and I did pick my pen up off of the floor. During an interview on 04/19/24 at 9:16 AM, the DM stated, My expectations are to stay within regulations, make sure the residents are happy with the food, and that we honor their preferences and keep a clean kitchen. During an interview on 04/19/24 at 9:24 AM, the Administrator stated, The kitchen employees need to sanitize and wash their hands when processing and handling food.
CONCERN (F)

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

Deficiency F0843 (Tag F0843)

Could have caused harm · This affected most or all residents

Based on record review and staff interview, the facility failed to ensure a written transfer agreement with a hospital was in effect to assure residents of timely hospital admission when medically app...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on record review and staff interview, the facility failed to ensure a written transfer agreement with a hospital was in effect to assure residents of timely hospital admission when medically appropriate and necessary information would be exchanged between providers. This failure had the potential to affect all residents. The facility censure was 115. Findings include: On 04/18/24, the written transfer agreement(s) with the community hospital(s) was requested from the Executive Director. No written transfer agreement was provided. During an interview on 04/19/24 at 12:34 PM, the Executive Director stated, We don't have a written transfer agreement . it's not a requirement in Missouri . The community just understands that the residents will go to the hospital and be treated; we don't need to have a written agreement. The Executive Director stated she was unaware of a Federal requirement for a written transfer agreement. During an interview on 04/19/25 at 2:03 PM, the Executive Director stated she had never seen a written transfer agreement at the facility since she had been working there only a few months and was not able to find one. She stated she would immediately begin the process of obtaining a written transfer agreement with the community hospital.
CONCERN (F)

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

Infection Control (Tag F0880)

Could have caused harm · This affected most or all residents

Based on interviews, and policy review, the facility failed to implement and maintain their established infection prevention and control program (IPCP) for surveillance, tracking, trending, and admini...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on interviews, and policy review, the facility failed to implement and maintain their established infection prevention and control program (IPCP) for surveillance, tracking, trending, and administration of corrective actions to prevent and control the spread of identified infections in the facility for the entire population of residents. The facility census was 115. Findings include: Review of the facility policy for IPCP indicated a critical component titled Surveillance for Healthcare Associated Infections developed to calculate baseline rates, detect outbreaks, track progress, and to determine trends to help prevent the development or spread of infection of healthcare associated infections (HAI), that develop in a resident who is cared for in any setting where healthcare is delivered, according to the Centers for Disease Control (CDC )Guidelines for Isolation Precautions, found at https://www.cdc.gov, to prevent the transmission of infectious agents in healthcare settings. The facility policy and procedures included completing a monthly infection control surveillance log utilizing identifying information of the resident and location within the facility, the infection onset date or onset of symptoms, the date and outcome of diagnostic tests, infection site or origin, culture and identify of the pathogen, and the date the infection was resolved. The surveillance action to generate comparisons to change behaviors, identify environmental factors, identify clusters of infections, symptoms, pathogens, and risk factors to minimize the infection rate in the facility was not implemented. During an interview on 04/16/24 at 1:46 PM, the Infection Preventionist (IP) stated she completed the IP certification process on 10/20/23 and she has been in the position of IP for one month; she stated she did not know the name of the previous IP or when/if the facility employed an IP for the past several months. She stated she was aware of the lack of documentation for tracking and trending for the facility infection prevention and control program and she was trying to improve her process and documentation. She stated she was familiar with the IPCP standards and procedure goals for infection prevention and control for the facility but was not there yet. She stated her expectation for the facility IPCP program included recording incidents of infections identified under the facility's IPCP, surveillance, tracking and trending, and the corrective actions taken by the facility. During an interview on 04/16/24 at 1:55 PM, the Corporate Nurse reported she was aware of the lack of documentation for the facility's infection prevention and control program and that the ongoing goal was to improve the program towards compliance with IPCP regulations, policies, and procedures.
Feb 2024 1 deficiency
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 F0839 (Tag F0839)

Could have caused harm · This affected most or all residents

Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to maintain a qualified administrator on duty from 2/15/2024 to 3/3/2024. The facility census was 106. During an interview on 2/14/24 at appr...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to maintain a qualified administrator on duty from 2/15/2024 to 3/3/2024. The facility census was 106. During an interview on 2/14/24 at approximately 4:00 P. M., Administrator B notified the state survey agency that he/she was no longer the Administrator of record at the facility. Review of the current Missouri Board of Nursing Home Administrators (MBNHA) license registry website showed Administrator A not listed as a current Missouri Licensed Administrator. During an interview on 2/27/2024 at 11:50 A.M., Administrator A said: -He/She had completed the Administrator in Training program, but has not taken the test to obtain an administrator license. -He/She thought the State regulations state the new administrator had 120 days to obtain an administrator license. -He/She was unsure if anyone at the corporate level was a licensed administrator in Missouri and would act as a licensed administrator until he/she obtained a license. During an interview on 2/28/2024 at 9:53 A.M., Corporate [NAME] President A said: -Administrator A's application for a Temporary Emergency License (TEL) was submitted to the MBNHA on 2/26/24. -He/She thought the facility had 10 days to have a licensed administrator in place. During an interview on 2/29/2024 at 12:58 P.M., a representative of MBNHA said: -A partial application for TEL for Administrator A was received on 2/15/2024. The required application for full licensure was not included. The application was also missing the application fee and required records, such as birth certificate and proof of high school graduation; -MBNHA emailed Administrator A on 2/20/2024 to follow up on the application and received no response; -MBNHA emailed Administrator A on 2/26/2024 to follow up on items still needed to complete the application process; -On 2/27/2024, MBNHA received Administrator A's application for full licensure and fee, but still had not received a birth certificate and proof of high school completion. Review of an email, dated 3/4/24, from the MBNHA showed a TEL was issued to Administrator A on 3/4/2024 and effective from 3/4/24 through 7/2/2024. MO232413
Nov 2023 3 deficiencies 1 IJ
CRITICAL (J) 📢 Someone Reported This

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

Immediate Jeopardy (IJ) - the most serious Medicare violation

Quality of Care (Tag F0684)

Someone could have died · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** NOTE: At the time of the survey, the violation was determined to be at the immediate and serious jeopardy level J. Based on obse...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** NOTE: At the time of the survey, the violation was determined to be at the immediate and serious jeopardy level J. Based on observation, interview and record review completed during the onsite visits, it was determined the facility had implemented corrective action to remove the IJ violation at the time. A final revisit will be conducted to determine if the facility is in substantial compliance with participation requirements. At the time of exit, the severity of the deficiency was lowered to the D level. This statement does not denote that the facility has complied with State law (Section 198.026.1 RSMo.) requiring that prompt remedial action to be taken to address Class I violation. Based on observation, record review, and interview, the facility failed to evaluate and respond to a change in condition for two residents (Resident #152, and #72) when the facility failed to recognize one resident (Resident #152) was lethargic, difficult to arouse, and had minimal to no oral intake for over 24 hours which resulted in an emergency discharge to the hospital for severe dehydration, urinary tract infection and possible sepsis (a life threatening result of infection that could lead to tissue damage, organ failure and death). The facility staff also failed to identify and respond to one resident (Resident #72) who had a critically high blood glucose reading following blood glucose readings consistently over 200 milimoles per liter (mmol/l : the measurement for molecular blood sugar) since November 1, 2023, resulting in an emergency discharge to the hospital for hyperglycemia (high blood glucose: happens when the body has too little insulin. Hyperglycemia can lead to diabetic ketoacidosis, a serious complication of diabetes that can be life-threatening, coma and death). The facility census was 106. The administrator was notified on 11/16/23 at 5:01 P.M. of an Immediate Jeopardy (IJ) which began on 11/14/23. The IJ was removed on 11/20/23, as confirmed by surveyor onsite verification. Review of facility policy, notification of a change in resident's status, dated November 2017, showed: -Guideline for notification of physician and responsible party included: -Significant change in or unstable vital signs (temperature, blood pressure, pulse, respiration); -Symptoms of any infectious process; -5% weight gain or loss in 30 days; -Change in level of consciousness; -Abnormal complaints of pain, ineffective relief of pain from current regimen; -Unusual behavior; -Glucometer reading below 70 or above 200, unless specific parameters given by the physician; -Document in the Interdisciplinary Team (IDT) notes: -Resident change in condition; -Physician notification; -Notification of responsible party. 1. Review of Resident #152's admission Minimum Data Set (MDS: a federally mandated assessment tool completed by facility staff), dated 11/3/23, showed: -Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) of 0, indicated severe cognitive deficit. -One to three days of physical behaviors directed towards others such as hitting, kicking, pushing or pinching. -Four to six days of wandering over the past 7 days. -Maximum assistance with Activities of Daily Living (ADLs: refer to people's daily self-care activities such as bathing, using the toilet, eating, dressing and moving from one point to another). -Diagnoses of mild cognitive impairment, acquired absence of part of the lung, major depressive disorder, and dementia with psychosis (a general loss of memory, language, problem-solving and other thinking abilities that are severe enough to interfere with daily life, and may include: hallucinations (seeing/hearing/smelling things that are not real); delusional thinking (false beliefs); paranoia (being irrationally suspicious); agitation or aggression, and depression. -No weight loss. Review of the resident's Baseline Care Plan, dated 11/9/23, showed -He/She was confused, communicated verbally, needed incontinent care, and had a history of hallucinations of spiders and snakes; -Alert; -Used a wheelchair for mobility. Continuous observation on 11/13/23 at 10:55 A.M. until 1:59 P.M., showed the resident was in bed, in a gray t-shirt, snoring. He/She did not respond to verbal stimuli. His/Her face was flushed (the red color to the cheeks and face that can be caused from being too hot, having a fever, exercise or high emotions) and his/her skin was dry. At 1:59 P.M. the resident did not get up for the noon meal and remained in bed napping. Observation on 11/14/23 at 5:38 A.M., showed the resident in the same gray T shirt as the day before, in bed. He/She did not respond to verbal stimuli. His/Her face was flushed and his/her skin was dry. Observation on 11/14/23 at 12:38 P.M., showed the resident was in the dining room, asleep at the table, non-responsive to staff verbal cues. Staff encouraged him/her to wake up. His/Her meal went untouched. The resident was assisted back to his/her room and returned to bed. Review of the 24 hour report sheet, dated 11/14/23 and 11/15/23, showed the resident did not get up for breakfast and had no intake. Observation and interview on 11/15/23 at 9:42 A.M., showed Registered Occupational Therapist was performing passive range of motion (PROM: the extent of movement of a joint performed for a person by another person) to the resident's legs. The resident showed no response. He/She was in bed, eyes closed, face flushed, skin dry. The OTR said the resident was very sleepy the last two days. He/she said the resident usually works with them and is able to follow commands. During an interview on 11/15/23 at 9:54 A.M. the Special Care Unit Coordinator said the resident had no medication changes recently. The resident was really tired the past two days and had not eaten. Observation and interview on 11/15/23 at 11:10 A.M., showed the resident left via ambulance with Emergency Medical Services (EMS) staff. Registered Nurse A said the Nurse Practitioner (NP) completed rounds and noticed the resident's altered mental status and gave orders for the resident to be sent to the hospital. During an interview on 11/15/23 at 11:34 A.M., the Charge Nurse, Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) A said the resident did not eat yesterday and only ate a bit of breakfast that morning. The resident had been lethargic for two days and he/she did not call the physician, because the NP would be in the building on 11/15/23. Review of the resident's progress notes, dated 11/13/23 to 11/16/23 showed no documentation of the resident's change in condition, decreased intake, assessment after the change in condition, or attempts to contact the resident's physician. During an interview on 11/15/23 at 3:49 P.M., NP A said she had seen this resident on Monday (11/13/23) and he/she was slow to arouse. That morning (Wednesday 11/15/23) the resident was not acting right, his/her pulse was very fast, and he/she would not wake up. She gave an order to send the resident to the hospital. She was not notified the resident's condition had changed over the day Monday or Tuesday. She was not notified the resident did not eat. During an interview on 11/16/23 at 8:29 A.M., Hospital Nurse A said he/she was responsible for Resident #152. The resident was admitted to the hospital for severe dehydration, urinary tract infection, and possible sepsis. 2. Review of Resident #72's quarterly MDS, dated [DATE], showed: -BIMS of 4, indicated severe cognitive deficit. -No behaviors -Maximum assistance of staff with ADLs. -Frequently incontinent of bowel and bladder. -Diagnoses of Type 1 Diabetes Mellitus, chronic kidney disease, vascular dementia (problems with reasoning, planning, judgment, memory and other thought processes caused by brain damage from impaired blood flow to the brain), and mood disorder with depressive features (general emotional state or mood is inconsistent with circumstances and interferes with the ability to function and causes significant distress or impairment in social, occupational, or other important areas of functioning). Review of the resident's Comprehensive Care Plan, dated September 2023, showed: -He/She was at risk for complications of diabetes. Observe him/her for signs and symptoms of hyperglycemia such as increased thirst, fatigue, poor concentration, headaches, blurred vision, and frequent urination. Monitor labs and report results to the physician and/or NP. Review of the physician order sheet, dated November 2023, showed: -Order date of 5/30/23 for Accuchecks before meals and at bedtime. Notify the physician if blood sugar less than 60 or greater than 400. -Order date 7/5/23 for Humalog (short-acting insulin that lasts 15 minutes to 4 hours) 100 units/ml administer 15 units, subcutaneously before meals three times a day. Do not hold meal time insulin. -Order date of 9/20/23 for Lantus solostar (long-acting insulin that lasts 24 to 36 hours )100 units/milliliter (ml) give 16 units subcutaneously (under the skin) every morning. Review of the resident's Diabetic Administration Record, dated November 2023, showed accucheck results of: -On 11/3/23 at 8:00 A.M., a result of 421 milimoles per liter (mmol/l: the measurement for molecular blood sugar); -On 11/4/23 at 12:00 P.M., a result of 450 mmol/l; -On 11/10/23 at 8:00 A.M., a result of 530 mmol/l; -On 11/13/23 at 8:00 A.M., a result of 510 mmol/l. Observation on 11/13/23 at 11:09 A.M., showed the resident was in the activity room, sitting up in his/her wheelchair, playing with blocks. smiling, then helping hang laundry. He/she was talking nonsensically. He/she used a wheelchair to propel from the table to the clothes line. Review of the resident's Diabetic Administration Record, dated November 2023, showed accucheck results of: -On 11/13/23 at 12:00 P.M., a result of 525 mmol/l; -On 11/13/23 at 6:00 P.M., a result of 341 mmol/;l -On 11/13/23 at 8:00 P.M., a result of 355 mmol/l; -On 11/14/23 at 8:00 A.M., a result of High. -On 11/14/23 at 12:00 P.M. a result of High. Review of the resident's progress notes, dated November 1 to November 16, 2023, showed: -No documentation of physician notification of glucose readings above 400 mmol/l on 11/3/23, 11/4/23, 11/10/23, and 11/13/23. -No nursing assessment documented at the time of, or after the High glucose readings. -On 11/14/23 at 2:12 P.M., the resident was sent to the hospital due to high reading blood sugar. The on call physician was notified and orders were received for 10 units of Humalog insulin. Blood sugar was still high after 15 minutes and one hour. The on call nurse was notified and orders were received to send the resident to the hospital. Review of the physician order sheet, dated November 2023, showed: -Humalog 100 units/ml give 10 units one time only for high blood sugar with an order date of 11/14/23. Review of the resident's progress notes, dated November 12, 2023 to November 15, 2023, showed: -The resident was alert and disoriented with no complaints. Observation on 11/14/23 at 1:32 P.M., showed EMS was on the special care unit with Resident #72. He/She was in his/her wheelchair, alert, leaning forward, not talking, eyes open, smiling at EMS staff, sitting in the dining room doorway. The resident had an intravenous line in the right forearm. EMS staff was seen squeezing the bag of saline fluid. EMS staff asked LPN A when the resident had a normal blood glucose. LPN A said it was last week. Review of the resident's hospital record showed the resident was treated in the emergency room for hyperglycemia (high blood sugar: If not treated, hyperglycemia can become severe and cause serious health problems: such as damage to the blood vessels, heart, kidneys, eyes, including a diabetic coma, that require emergency care) of 455 mmol/l. The resident was treated and discharged back to the facility 11/14/23. During an interview on 11/15/23 at 11:32 A.M., LPN A said he/she only calls the physician or NP if the resident's blood sugar is above 400 to 450 or below 60. He/She called the NP due to a reading of high on the blood glucose monitor. He/She gave the resident extra insulin as ordered. He/She waited 15 minutes and the Accuchecks read high so he/she waited an hour then notified the NP again. He/She was the nurse on Monday (11/13/23) and did not notify the NP or physician of any other Accuchecks for resident #72. If the physician or NP is notified it should be charted. During an interview on 11/15/23 at 3:49 P.M., NP A said staff do not inform her of daily blood glucose levels. Staff did not call her or notify her the resident's blood glucose was high for 2-3 days. She would expect staff to follow the orders the resident has. She was in the facility on Monday 11/13/23, but did not see Resident #72. The resident has a do not hold insulin order because he/she is a brittle diabetic (hard-to-control diabetes (also called labile diabetes). It is characterized by wide variations or swings in blood glucose (sugar) in which blood glucose levels can quickly become too high.) During an interview on 11/16/23 at 12:49 P.M., CMT A said: -When a resident has change of condition the protocol was to grab a nurse and have the nurse complete an assessment; -Some nurses are agency and did not know residents; -Everyday that he/she worked the charge nurse was new and did not know the residents baseline; -If a resident's blood sugar was low he/she would grab a glass of orange juice and notify the nurse; -He/she would recheck the resident in an hour or maybe shorter time and contact the physician if blood sugar was bad; -He/she would not let a resident go three days with a change of condition without notifying the physician; -The physician should be notified right away. During an interview on 11/15/23 at 11:57 A.M., the primary care physician said he was not called daily about changes in condition or elevated blood sugars for Resident #72. There are 2 NPs who go to the facility every other day and staff tend to notify them of changes. The NP should be notified of high glucose readings or if someone was not eating or drinking well. The NP should be notified of any change in condition. If the staff are unable to get in touch with the NP then he would expect a call. He/She would expect the facility to follow physician orders.
CONCERN (D) 📢 Someone Reported This

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

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

Deficiency F0919 (Tag F0919)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, record review, and interview, the facility failed to ensure the call light system was accessible and funct...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, record review, and interview, the facility failed to ensure the call light system was accessible and functioned properly for two of 22 sampled residents who required staff assistance (Resident #19 and #57). The facility census was 106. The facility did not provide a policy regarding call lights. 1. Review of Resident #57's quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS), a federally mandated assessment tool completed by facility staff, dated 8/31/23, showed: - No Brief Interview of Mental Status (BIMS); - No recorded resident preferences; - Substantial/Maximal assistance for toileting hygiene, showering upper and lower body dressing, rolling left and right, and sitting to lying; - The resident was always incontinent of bowel and bladder; - Diagnoses of Hypertension (HTN), heart failure, diabetes, severe obesity, and a burn of second degree to the abdominal wall. Review of the resident's Comprehensive Care Plan, dated 11/8/23, showed: - He/She was at risk for skin break down related to needing assistance with activities of daily living (ADLs), mobility, morbid obesity, and incontinence of bowel and bladder; - He/She had impaired mobility and needs assist for ADLs related to morbid obesity with neuropathy (nerve pain that primarily affects the lower extremities); - He/She was at high risk for falls related to pain medication use, incontinence, and needing assist with transfers; - An intervention to use call light and ask assistance for transfers. During an interview on 11/13/23 at 1:56 P.M., the resident said: - Staff takes a long time to check on him/her; - He/She has waited up to three hours to be put into bed on more than one occasion; - The call light button on the cord did not function; - He/She cannot access the call light button on the wall behind the bed and had reported it to staff. Observation on 11/13/23 at 2:00 P.M., showed: - The red pull cord that hung from the wall mounted device was tied to the hand rail of the bed closest to the wall, the resident could not reach it to the pull the cord. - The button at the end of the call light cord did not activate the call light system; - The resident's bed sat in front of the wall mounted call light button; - The gap between the bed and the wall was approximately one foot wide; - A lack of physical space for a resident to access the wall mounted call device, because of the gap. During an interview on 11/15/23 3:31 P.M., the resident said: - His/Her call light was still not functioning; - He/She still could not reach the wall mounted call device; - He/She was unable to reach the red pull cord that was tied to the bed side rail. 2. Review of Resident #19's quarterly MDS, dated [DATE], showed: - No BIMS; - No functional abilities assessed; - Frequently incontinent of urine and occasionally incontinent of bowel; - Diagnoses of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) (a group of diseases that cause airflow blockage and breathing-related problems), heart failure, diabetes (a disease in which the body does not process blood sugar properly), and insomnia. Review of the resident's Comprehensive Care Plan, dated 11/6/23, showed: - He/She was at risk for falls; - He/She had a history of fall related to COPD; - An intervention for staff to encourage use of call light for assist with ADLs; - An intervention for staff to encourage use of call light for assist with transfers; - A handwritten statement that the resident prefers to have his/her call light on the refrigerator in the room. Observation on 11/14/23 at 8:29 A,M., showed the resident's call light stretched from the wall to the foot of the resident's bed, out of reach of the resident. During interview on 11/14/23 at 8:29 A.M., the resident said: - His/Her call light was commonly placed at the foot of the bed; - He/She cannot normally reach the call light to use it; - He/She has waited long times for assistance, because he/she was dependent on help from staff. 3. During an interview on 11/16/23 at 11:01 A.M., Certified Nurse Aide A said: - He/She was unaware of any non-functioning call lights; - All parts of the call light device should be functional; - Call lights should be accessible to the resident. During an interview on 11/16/23 at 11:22 A.M., Licensed Practical Nurse A said - He/She was unaware of any non-functioning call lights; - All parts of the call light device should be functional; - Call lights should be accessible to the resident. During an interview on 11/16/23 at 1:31 P.M., the Maintenance Director said: - He/She checks work logs daily for damaged systems and maintenance issues; - Staff should notify him/her of any nonfunctional call lights; - Call lights should be in functional order and accessible to the residents. During an interview on 11/16/23 at 4:01 P.M., the Director of nursing said: - Call lights should be located where residents can reach them; - Call light buttons should be operational. During an interview on 11/16/23 at 4:18 P.M., the Administrator said: - Call lights should be within reach of the resident; - All portions of the call light system should be functional.
CONCERN (E) 📢 Someone Reported This

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

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

ADL Care (Tag F0677)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** This deficiency is uncorrected. For previous examples, see the Statement of Deficiencies dated 11/20/23. Based on observation, i...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** This deficiency is uncorrected. For previous examples, see the Statement of Deficiencies dated 11/20/23. Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure four (Resident #21, #57, #80, #7) of six sampled residents who required staff assistance received the necessary assistance with bathing. The facility census was 109. Review of facility policy, Bath/Shower-Dependent, dated 9/03, showed a bath for cleanliness and comfort is scheduled at least weekly for each resident. 1. Review of Resident #21's Annual Minimum Data Set (MDS), a federally mandated assessment tool completed by facility staff, dated 10/5/23, showed: - A Brief Interview Mental Status (BIMS) an assessment used in long term care facilities to monitor cognition) of 15, which indicated he/she had intact cognition; - He/She was dependent of staff help for toileting hygiene, bathing, upper body dressing, lower body dressing, putting on footwear, rolling left to right, sitting to lying, lying to sitting, and all transfers; - He/She was occasionally incontinent of urine and always incontinent of bowel; - Diagnoses of diabetes (a disease in which the body does not process blood sugar properly), severe obesity, heart failure, gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) (a common condition in which the stomach contents move up into the esophagus), and arthritis. Review of the resident's Comprehensive Care Plan, dated 11/14/23 showed: -He/She preferred to receive a shower twice a week in the mornings. -He/She preferred bed baths only on scheduled bath/shower days. Review of shower schedule showed the resident scheduled to receive showers on Mondays and Thursdays. Review of shower log from 1/1/24-1/22/24 showed the resident received showers on three out of seven opportunities (bed baths on 1/12/24, 1/18/24, and 1/22/24). During an interview on 1/23/24 at 8:14 A.M., the resident said: -He/She did not receive shower and baths as desired; -He/She could not remember the last shower; -He/She would like showers twice weekly. 2. Review of Resident #57's Quarterly MDS, dated [DATE], showed: - No BIMS obtained; - No recorded resident preferences; - Substantial/Maximal assistance for toileting hygiene, showering upper and lower body, dressing, rolling left and right, and sitting to lying; - The resident was always incontinent of bowel and bladder; - Diagnoses of severe obesity, and a burn of second degree (a burn affecting the top layer and part of the next layer of skin) to the abdominal wall. Review of the resident's Comprehensive Care Plan, dated 11/8/23, showed: -He/She was at risk for skin break down related to needing assistance with activities of daily living (ADLs), mobility, morbid obesity, and incontinence of bowel and bladder; -He/She had impaired mobility and needed assistance for ADLs related to morbid obesity with neuropathy; -He/She liked to receive showers twice a week in the mornings. Review of the shower schedule showed the resident was scheduled to receive showers on Tuesdays and Fridays. Review of shower logs from 1/1/24-1/22/24 showed the resident received showers on three of seven opportunities (bed baths were received on 1/9/24, 1/11/24, and 1/18/24). During an observation on 1/23/24 at 8:16 A.M. the resident was laying in bed and he/she had not be shaved. During an interview on 1/23/24 at 8:16 A.M., the resident said: -He/She received showers half the time as scheduled; -His/Her last shower was on Tuesday; -He/She wanted to have showers twice a week, but was not getting them twice weekly; -He/She preferred bed baths on shower days, but wanted staff to ask him/her if he/she would prefer a shower. 3. Review of Resident #80's Quarterly MDS, dated [DATE], showed: -A BIMS of 15, cognitively intact; -He/She required partial/moderate assistance with bathing; -Diagnoses included depression, anxiety, lumbar spinal stenosis (a condition causing narrowing of the spinal canal in lower part of back), polyneuropathy (a condition in which a person's nerves outside the brain and spinal cord are damaged affecting sensation, coordination, and other body functions), and chronic pain. Review of the resident's comprehensive care plan, dated 8/3/23, showed: -He/She was at risk for falls due to impaired vision needing assistance with assistive devices; -Shower one time per week per resident's preference. Review of the shower schedule showed the resident was scheduled to receive showers on Tuesdays and Fridays. Review of shower logs from 1/1/24-1/22/23 showed the resident received showers on two of seven opportunities (1/18/24 and 1/11/24). During an interview on 1/23/24 at 11:49 A.M., resident said: -Staff told him/her something was wrong with the shower; -Prior to this week, he/she went three weeks without a shower; -He/She wanted a shower at least one time a week; -Staff tell him/her that they cannot provide a shower to him/her, because they do not have time or say it isn't his/her shower day; -The Restorative Aide promised the resident he/she would start getting showers on Tuesdays; -CNA C was supposed to do his/her shower during the morning today, but it was almost noon and he/she had not yet received a shower. 4. Review of Resident #7's Quarterly MDS, dated [DATE], showed -BIMS score of 9, resident had moderately impaired cognition; -He/She was dependent for shower/bathes and personal hygiene, and dressing; -Diagnoses included: stroke affecting left side of body (a condition causing muscle weakness or partial paralysis on one side of the body), anxiety disorder, and high blood pressure. Review of care plan, dated 8/22/23, showed: -He/She had an ADL deficit due to a stroke; -Assist with one staff in all activity of daily living cares; -He/She was unable to independently bathe; -He/She had no preferences on day or time of week for bathing. Review of shower schedule showed resident was scheduled to receive showers on Mondays and Thursdays. Review of shower logs from 1/1/24 to 1/22/24, showed the resident received showers on two of seven opportunities (1/18/24 and 1/11/24). Observation on 1/23/24 at 2:09 P.M., showed the resident in dining area on B hall. The resident's skin appeared flakey. 5. During an interview on 1/23/24 at 10:34 A.M., the Administrator said the facility kept the residents shower sheets for 2 weeks. During an interview on 1/23/24 at 10:51 A.M., Certified Nurse Aide (CNA) A said: -There were a lot of shower refusals from residents; -He/She would tell nurse if a resident refused and let the restorative aide know of the shower refusal; -He/She asked residents multiple times if they refuse; -Staff would document on shower sheets if they refuse. -The staff document the showers on the shower sheets and then placed it in the shower book; -He/She completed shower sheets after each shower and turned them in to the restorative aide. During an interview on 1/23/24 at 11:55 A.M., CNA B said: -Heat did not always work in the C hall bathroom; -Today the shower hose was broken, so showers were delayed; -CNA C was assigned to be the shower aide today and just started on showers after waiting on maintenance to fix the shower hose. During an interview on 1/23/24 at 12:02 P.M., CNA C said: -The shower hose was not working in the C hall shower; -He/She just started working as shower aide on C hall on 1/22/24; -C hall had been without a permanent shower aide for a few weeks; -Residents were not getting showered twice weekly; -He/She previously worked as floor aide on the hall and the floor staff did not have time to get all showers completed weekly; -He/She completes shower sheets; -The nurse on the hall is to sign off on shower sheets and then they are submitted to restorative aide. During an interview on 1/23/24 at 12:20 P.M., CMT A said: -When a resident refused a shower staff will send someone else to offer the shower again; -Residents should receive showers per their preferences. During an interview on 1/23/24 at 1:54 P.M., Restorative Aide A said: -He/She was told he/she could only provide shower sheets for two weeks; -He/She was not aware of any issues of residents not receiving showers as scheduled; -He/She collected shower sheets at the end of shift; -Shower aide working the 2-10 P.M. shift will go back and ask residents that refused showers; -He/She tracks resident showers by highlighting the roster if he/she had shower for the week. During an interview on 1/23/24 at 2:15 P.M.,the Director of Nursing (DON) said: -He/She expected showers to be completed per resident's preferences and at a minimum expected them to be offered twice weekly; -He/She was told the corporate policy was shower sheets were to be kept for two weeks; -He/She was aware that shower sheets in the facility were maintained for two weeks and then are entered into the electronic medical record. During an interview on 1/23/24 at 3:25 P.M., the Administrator said: -If shower sheets were missing they may be in the medical records; -He/She expected shower sheets to be filled out completely and any areas of concern regarding the resident noted; -Showers should be scheduled based on resident preference; -Some residents will say they want two showers per week, but won't really take two showers a week.
Nov 2022 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

Deficiency F0605 (Tag F0605)

A resident was harmed · This affected 1 resident

Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure one sampled resident (Resident #84) out of 18 sampled residents, was not ordered and administered medications which we...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure one sampled resident (Resident #84) out of 18 sampled residents, was not ordered and administered medications which were not required to treat medical symptoms and resulted in altering the resident's behavior, such that the resident required a lesser amount of effort or care. Observations showed the resident sleeping for prolonged periods of time, had difficulty keeping eyes open when talking, speech was slow and soft with words slow and elongated during enunciation and incontinent. The facility failed to ensure the resident used the least restrictive dosage of medication to treat a medical symptom; failed to address the underlying causes of the distressed behavior; and failed to develop and implement non-pharmalogical individualized interventions prior to administering medications. The facility census was 89 residents. Review of the facility provided Resident [NAME] of Rights, dated 11/2017, showed in part: -The right to be free of physical and chemical restraints. Review of the facility provided policy; Behavior Management and Psycho-Pharmacological Medication Monitoring Protocol, dated 3/2018, showed in part: -Residents who receive antipsychotic, antidepressant, sedative/hypnotic or anti-anxiety medication are to be maintained at the safest lowest dosage necessary to manage the resident's condition. Residents will be reviewed routinely for effectiveness and monitored for side effects of these medications. Residents with behaviors that are displayed routinely, that effect the resident's psychosocial well-being or that of other residents, or behaviors that can have potential for harm to self or others will be assessed with development of a behavior program. Definitions: -Behavioral Interventions are individualized non-pharmacological approaches to care that are provided as part of a supportive physical and psychosocial environment, and are directed toward understanding, preventing, relieving, and/or accommodating a resident's distress or loss of abilities as well as maintaining or improving a residents mental, physical and psychosocial well-being. Established resident with new onset of adverse behaviors: -The admitting physician will be notified to rule out medical causes, which may be contributing to the behavior. 1. Review of Resident #84 admission Minimum Data Set (MDS), a federally mandated assessment tool completed by facility staff, dated 9/1/22, showed: -BIMS of 99: indicates the resident's inability to complete the assessment, or severe cognitive defect -Independent for ADLs -Always continent of bowel and bladder -Physical behaviors (such as hitting, kicking or spitting) 1-3 days. -No rejection of cares -Wanders (traveling aimlessly place to place: a typical behavior with dementia diagnosis) 4-6 days -Reading books/magazines, music, current news,going outside, and religious practices are somewhat important to the resident. -Diagnoses: Alzheimer's (a brain disorder that affects the ability to remember, think clearly, communicate, and perform daily activities and may cause changes in mood and personality) and Hypertensive Heart Disease (heart problems that occur because of high blood pressure). Review of the resident's Initial Care Plan, dated 10/20/22, showed: -No behaviors noted. Review of the resident's undated Care Plan showed: -Risk for elopement; wanderguard in place, redirect from exits, encourage activities of choice; -Potential to strike out at staff, poor impulse control; Administer medications as ordered, give choices,when becoming agitated intervene, guide away from source of distress, engage calmly in conversation, if no response walk away and approach later. Review of family written undated Care Plan posted on the resident's wall showed: -Please show him/her anything while talking. Point at stuff while talking/explaining things to help him/her get a full understanding and if there are different options involved; -If he/she is not responding or understanding - show him/her; -He/she doesn't need much done for him/her, but explain what he/she is doing and how it will help him/her or you; -We have to follow the rules; -For women- project loudly as he/she has a hard time hearing women's voices; -Go slow, be patient; -Do one thing at a time; -Say things in ways that he/she is helping others by doing what you are having him/her do; -Any way you can say it to help you or him/her, NOT a demand; -He/she had a pool table and likes to play; -He/she enjoys: -Music: 80/90s country, Beach Boys and Monkeys; -TV: Historical, crime/police,comedy, sports events; -He/she does not like westerns or basketball; -Signs of frustration include: -Scratching back of head and slowly becomes more intense; -Looking around, straightening out and not making eye contact - means he/she wants you to go away or stop having him/her do what it is; -Grinding teeth; -A straight blank focused stare; -Shaking of head - like he/she is shaking off what you're telling him/her; -Tight squeezing of hands in and out; - Hitting his/her own head with his/her hands or against something; -This is when he /she is very overwhelmed and peak frustration/anger. During an interview on 11/15/22 at 11:53 A.M., the resident family member said: -prior to coming to the facility, the resident went to the gym three times a week, he/she liked walks, and to watch sporting events; -he/she had specific television shows programmed on the TV for the resident, but the staff will not turn them on for the resident; -staff should not tell the resident what to do. The resident has to be talked to, and the resident will not do something if he/she is told to do it; -the resident is now incontinent, has a shuffling walk, and needs help he/she did not need prior. Review of the resident's medical record showed: -Progress noted dated 8/27/22 at 2:56 P.M.: The resident admitted with a diagnosis of Dementia. He/she was alert and oriented x 2-3, only uses 1-2 words to answer. He/she wanders and is exit seeking. He/she is not aggressive. Review of the Physician Order Sheet (POS), dated 8/27/22, showed: -Donepezil Hcl (a medicine that helps with some types of dementia and can improve memory, attention, the ability to interact with others, speak, think clearly, and perform regular daily activities) 10 milligrams (mg) 1 tablet daily for Alzheimer's, ordered 8/27/22; -Depakote DR (a mood stabilizer that decreases the excitability of brain cells and can cause sedation) 125 mg sprinkle caplets, take 2 tablets three times a day ordered 8/27/22; -Vistaril (a medication used to treat anxiety or itching and may be used as sedation) 25 mg every 8 hours as needed for anxiety, ordered 8/27/22. Record review of the manufacturer's prescribing guidelines for Vistaril showed: -Sedating drugs may cause confusion and over sedation in the elderly; elderly patients generally should be started on low doses of Vistaril and observed closely; -The effectiveness of hydroxyzine as an antianxiety agent for long-term use, that is, more than 4 months, has not been assessed by systematic clinical studies. The physician should reassess periodically the usefulness of the drug for the individual patient. Record review of the manufacturer's guidelines for Depakote DR showed it has been approved for the following uses: -to treat manic episodes associated with bipolar disorder -alone or with other medicines to treat: complex partial seizures in adults and/or simple and complex absence seizures, with or without other seizure types -to prevent migraine headaches. Review of the resident's medical record showed the resident did not have any of the above indications for use. Record review of the manufacturer's guidelines for Depakote DR showed it can cause drowsiness or sleepiness in the elderly. Review of the resident's medical record, dated 8/27/22 to 9/1/22, showed no documented behaviors, no exit seeking behaviors, and no aggression towards staff or other residents. Review of the resident's medical record showed: - Progress notes, dated 9/1/22 at 5:37 P.M., showed Charge Nurse reported the resident was noted to be agitated, insisting to go home and balled his/her fist as if he/she was going to attempt to strike the 1 to 1 staff member. Attempted to calm the resident and explain the Public Administrator would have to give permission. Resident continued to state he/she wanted to go home. Again explained that leaving the facility was not safe, this seemed to increase residents agitation. He/she smacked him/herself in the head several times, approached the writer and slapped him/her with an open palm in the side of the head. Staff members began to gather to assist and resident slapped his/her own head with open palm, then charged at the writer. 911 called for assistance. Resident transported to area emergency room (ER). - 9/1/22 at 6:22 P.M. The resident was sent out, after he/she balled up fist in 1 to 1 staff members face and demanded for door to be opened and him/her let out. Explained he/she needed to talk with social services and he/she began getting agitated. The resident was then taken to the supervisor office. -Progress note on 9/2/22 at 12:49 A.M., showed: The resident returned from ER with no new orders. Review of the POS, dated 9/6/22, showed: -Buspirone Hcl (a medication used to treat anxiety) 5 mg three times a day for anxiety, ordered 9/6/22; administer as ordered. The resident's record did not include details on why the medication was ordered or who ordered it. -Wanderguard (a bracelet and alarm system used to monitor when someone wearing the bracelet is close to a door or attempting to exit a door): check placement and function every shift, ordered 9/6/22. Review of the POS, dated 9/9/22, showed: -Depakote DR order increased to 375 mg three times a day. The diagnosis listed for treatment was agitation, however, there was no documentation to show the reason for the increase. Review of the resident's medical record dated 9/2/22 to 9/11/22 showed no documented behaviors, no exit seeking behaviors, and no aggression towards staff or other residents. Review of the residents medical record showed: -Progress notes, dated 9/12/22 at 11:08 A.M., the resident tested positive for COVID and placed in isolation unit. Review of the POS, dated 9/12/22, showed: -Zyprexa (an antipsychotic used to treat schizophrenia, bipolar disorder) 5mg every 8 hours for agitation/aggression, ordered 9/12/22, administered as ordered. The resident's record did not show documentation as to why the medication was ordered. Review of the manufacturer's guidelines for Zyprexa showed: - it is used to treat certain mental/mood conditions (such as schizophrenia, bipolar disorder); - it may also be used in combination with other medication to treat depression; -side effects include drowsiness -elderly patients with dementia-related psychosis treated with olanzapine are at an increased risk of death compared to placebo. Zyprexa is not approved for the treatment of patients with dementia-related psychosis. Review of the resident's medical record, dated 9/13/22 at 1:51 A.M., showed: -The resident refused vital signs. Resident will not stay in his/her room and becomes agitated with staff when encouraging him/her to stay in his room. Resident tried to push past staff and was threatening. Nurse Practitioner called and order received to send to ER. He/she was given Zyprexa medication in the ER and returned to the facility. Returned at 11:58 P.M. He/she remains 1:1 and resting in his/her new room in isolation. Nurse practitioner called and order for Zyprexa received. Review of the resident's medical record, dated 9/13/22, showed no documentation to address the underlying causes of the distressed behavior; or any non-invasive individualized interventions prior to administering medications, or sending the resident to the hospital. Review of the resident's medical record, dated 9/14/22 to 10/7/22, showed no documented behaviors, no exit seeking behaviors, no aggression towards staff or other residents. Review of Behavior Intervention Monthly Flow Record showed: -No behaviors noted for September 2022; -No documentation of interventions to address the underlying causes of the distressed behavior or any non-invasive individualized interventions prior to the administration of the antipsychotic medication. Review of the POS, dated 10/7/22 to 10/21/22, showed: -Depakote DR order increased to 500mg three times a day ordered 10/7/22, administered as ordered. The resident's record did not contain documentation to support the use or increased dosage of the medication. Review of resident's medical record, dated 10/12/22 to 10/15/22, showed: -Progress notes dated 10/12/22 at 1:29 A.M., The resident was walking and pacing during later evening. Given Vistaril. He/she was sleeping most of this time. -Progress notes, dated 10/14/22 at 12:17 A.M., The resident was pacing the halls most of the evening. Vistaril given. -Progress notes, dated 10/15/22 to 10/21/22, showed no behaviors noted. -No documentation to address the underlying causes of the distressed behavior or any non-invasive individualized interventions. Review of the POS dated 10/22/22 to 10/28/22 showed: - Ativan 0.25mg at 4 PM daily, ordered 10/21/22. The resident's record did not include documentation to support the use of the medications. The order was received verbally, however, there was no physician signature on the order. Review of the manufacturer's guidelines for Ativan showed: -Should be used with caution in elderly due to the risk of sedation and/or musculoskeletal weakness that can increase the risk of falls, with serious consequences in this population; -Elderly or debilitated patients may show a more sensitive response to the effects of Ativan; therefore, these patients should be more frequently monitored and given a reduced dose; -Side effects of sedation, drowsiness, dizziness, ataxia (impaired balance and coordination) Review of the medical records showed no documentation to address the underlying causes of the distressed behavior or any non-invasive individualized interventions prior to the order of the Ativan on 10/21/22. Review of the resident's medical record, dated 10/22/22 to 10/27/22, showed no behaviors documented. Review of the resident's medical record, dated 10/28/22 at 11:47 P.M., showed: -The resident had increased pacing, given Vistaril as ordered. -No documentation to address the underlying causes of the distressed behavior or any non-invasive individualized interventions prior to the administration of the Vistaril. Review of the resident's medical record showed no consultation with psychiatry or psychology to address the behaviors prior to the administration of the antipsychotic medications. No documentation of the resident or the administration of the antipsychotic medication in the weekly risk management meetings. Review of Behavior Intervention Monthly Flow Record showed: -Continuous pacing and striking out noted on October 25, 27, and 30, 2022; with intervention of medication. -No other interventions noted for times of pacing/striking out. -No documentation to address the underlying causes of the distressed behavior or any non-invasive individualized interventions prior to the administration of the antipsychotic medication. Review of the resident's Medication Administration Record showed Vistaril was given without documentation to address the underlying causes of the distressed behavior or any non-invasive individualized interventions prior to the administration of the antipsychotic medication: -10/11/22 at 8:30 P.M. for anxiety, follow up showed resident was resting; -10/18/22 at 8:30 P.M. for anxiety, follow up showed resident was asleep; -10/25/22 at 7:30 P.M. no indication for use; -10/27/22 at 7:30 P.M. no indication for use, follow up showed resident was resting; -10/29/22 at 7:30 P.M. for anxiety; -10/30/22 at 7:30 P.M. for anxiety, follow up showed resident was resting; -10/31/22 at 1:30 P.M. for anxiety; Observations on 11/01/22 beginning at 8:44 A.M., showed: - Resident was lying in bed, on top of covers, head to the far left corner and feet toward the far right corner; one shoe off and one shoe on, snoring with mouth open, staff sitting at bedside. -At 10:54 A.M., the resident remained in bed in the same position and continued to snore with mouth open. -At 1:21 P.M., The resident was in bed, remained in same position, continued to snore with mouth open. -Staff sitting at bedside with no resident interaction. During an interview on 11/1/22 at 1:21 P.M., Certified Nurse Aide (CNA) F said: -Staff stay with the resident all the time. -He/she sleeps a lot and does not get up much. -He/she sleeps more in the last couple of weeks. -There have been no behaviors today; he/she has only slept today. -He/she was 1:1 for trying to leave. -Staff are to call the nurse if behaviors occur. -No other interventions, call nurse for assistance. Observation on 11/02/22 at 10:51 A.M., showed: -The resident was in bed, on his/her back. -One side half covered by sheet. -Staff sitting at bedside no with resident interaction. When asked about the resident still being in bed, staff replied he/she was sleeping in. Observation on 11/02/22 at 12:01 P.M., showed: -CNA D in room. -The resident was physically assisted to stand and sit in a bed side chair by CNA D. -The resident was having difficulty keeping eyes open when talking. -The resident's speech was slow and soft, words are slow and elongated during enunciation. -Resident's bottom sheet noted to have multiple and varying brown rings of dried urine. -CNA D assisted the resident to the restroom with fresh clothing. During an observation and interview on 11/02/22 at 12:09 P.M., showed: -The resident was in bed, lying on his/her back. -CNA D said: -The resident had not been up today. -The resident had been sleeping a lot recently. -He/she calls the nurse if behavior occurs. -There are no other interventions for behaviors, except calling the nurse. During an interview on 11/03/22 at 8:55 A.M., CNA G said: -The resident has never had behaviors with him/her. -If the resident starts patting his/her head staff need to back away, and give him/her some space. -The resident's behaviors are about how he/she was approached. -When staff introduce themselves and start kindly it all goes well, and he/she has no behaviors. -Staff can't tell him/her what to do, that does not work. -His/her family made this care plan (indicating the care plan on the wall) and it was very helpful, if it's used. -He/she would notify the nurse if behaviors occurred. During an interview on 11/03/22 at 9:21 A.M., Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) E said: -If the resident has any behaviors the CNAs will yell for help. -When staff call for help, the resident is assessed and redirection is attempted by him/her. -Medication is administered if needed. -Only nurses can administer as needed medication. -If that doesn't work then the Police are called for assistance. -The resident only hit staff one time, early in his/her stay in the facility. -The resident had never been away from his/her family so it's very hard for him/her. -If the resident was having a bad day he/she calls the family. They have a very good relationship. Observation on 11/3/22 at 3:30 P.M., showed: -The resident was up walking in the hall. -Steps are slow and shuffling. -He/she answers questions with one word answers. -Resident requested to dance, then walked back to his/her room. During an interview on 11/03/22 at 3:46 PM the Social Service Director (SSD) said: -The resident was currently 1 on 1 with CNAs. -He/she did not have 1 on 1 visits with the resident. -He/she does rounds every morning to ensure the resident has his/her wanderguard bracelet on. -The resident was not seen by psychologist. -The resident had an order for a Psychiatry consult, then got COVID. -The resident has been seen by Psychiatry. -He/she was unsure why the Psychiatry notes aren't in the residents chart. -There are no other interventions to deal with the resident's behaviors besides those that are listed in the care plan. During an interview on 11/03/22 at 3:50 P.M., the Social Service Aide said: -He/she does not sit or visit with the resident. -He/she waves or says hello only. During an interview on 11/03/22 at 3:45 P.M., the Director of Nursing (DON) said: -He/she expects staff to follow the care plan for any resident specific needs prior to medication use. -He/she expects staff to notify the Charge Nurse to handle behaviors. -He/she expects staff to have ongoing training and education about behaviors and interventions. -Medications are ordered by the nurse practitioner or physician and adjusted as needed. During an interview on 11/03/22 at 4:05 P.M., the administrator said: -He/she expects staff to attempt redirection for behaviors. -He/she expects staff to notify the Charge Nurse of behaviors. -He/she expects the resident care plan to be followed. -Medications are adjusted after behavior meeting every week if needed. During an interview on 11/23/22 at 9:03 A.M., the facility Medical Director/Primary Care Physician (PCP) A said: -Behavior meetings are conducted every week, which includes discussions of behaviors and medications. He/she does attend these meetings. -He/she does not remember discussing this particular resident at the weekly meetings. -Zyprexa should not have been started without an approved diagnosis. -Agitation is not an approved diagnosis for use of Zyprexa. -Shuffling gait, slow speech and sleeping long amounts of time are considered extrapyramidal side effects (a group of symptoms that can occur in people taking antipsychotic medications which can include slower thought processes, slower movements, rigid muscles, difficulty speaking, feeling restless, or muscles to involuntarily contract and contort). -The use of antipsychotic medications with for a dementia diagnoses only is unacceptable. -Psychotropics should be added one at a time to determine the effectiveness of each medication. -He/she was not aware the resident was on all of the medications.
CONCERN (E) 📢 Someone Reported This

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

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

Deficiency F0675 (Tag F0675)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

Based on observation interview and record review the facility failed to train direct care staff on non-pharmalogical interventions and approaches to assist one resident (Resident #84) in achieving his...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation interview and record review the facility failed to train direct care staff on non-pharmalogical interventions and approaches to assist one resident (Resident #84) in achieving his/her highest practicable well-being. The facility failed to incorporate the family's approaches to care with the resident in the care plan and educate staff on their use. The facility failed to ensure non-pharmalogical interventions were used, prior to the administration of antipsychotic medication. The facility census as 89. Review of the facility provided policy; Behavior Management and Psycho-Pharmacological Medication Monitoring Protocol, dated 3/2018 showed in part: -Residents who receive antipsychotic, antidepressant, sedative/hypnotic or anti-anxiety medication are to be maintained at the safest lowest dosage necessary to manage the resident's condition. Residents will be reviewed routinely for effectiveness and monitored for side effects of these medications. Residents with behaviors that are displayed routinely, that effect the resident's psychosocial well-being or that of other residents, or behaviors that can have potential for harm to self or others will be assessed with development of a behavior program. Definitions: -Behavioral Interventions are individualized non-pharmacological approaches to care that are provided as part of a supportive physical and psychosocial environment, and are directed toward understanding, preventing, relieving, and/or accommodating a resident's distress or loss of abilities as well as maintaining or improving a residents mental, physical and psychosocial well-being. Established resident with new onset of adverse behaviors: -The admitting physician will be notified to rule out medical causes, which may be contributing to the behavior. 1. Review of Resident #84 admission Minimum Data Set (MDS a federally mandated assessment tool completed by facility staff) dated 9/1/22 showed: -BIMS of 99: indicates the resident's inability to complete the assessment, or severe cognitive defect -Independent for ADLs - Always continent of bowel and bladder -Physical behaviors (such as hitting, kicking or spitting) 1-3 days. -No rejection of cares -Wanders (traveling aimlessly place to place: a typical behavior with dementia diagnosis) 4-6 days -Reading books/magazines, music, current news,going outside, and religious practices are somewhat important to the resident -Diagnosis: Alzheimer's (a brain disorder that affects the ability to remember, think clearly, communicate, and perform daily activities and may cause changes in mood and personality), Hypertensive Heart Disease (heart problems that occur because of high blood pressure), Review of the resident's Instant Care Plan dated 10/20/22 showed: -No behaviors noted. -Incontinence (bowel/bladder) was not marked. -Assist to toilet was not marked. Review of the undated Care Plan showed: -at risk for ADL function impairment related to mood disorder, his/her needs will be met, requires set up assistance from staff; -has expressive aphasia; -speaks very few words but is still capable of making choices; -has shown interest in food socials but mostly likes to watch TV; -staff to provide appropriate accommodations for family to visit; -staff to provide supplies for his/her personal leisure activities of choice; -alert him/her to activities occurring that are of his/her interest and preference. Review of family written Care Plan posted on the resident's wall showed the resident: -please show him/her anything while talking. Point at stuff while talking/explaining things to help him/her get a full understanding and if there are different options involved; -if he/she is not responding or understanding - show him/her; -he/she doesn't need much done for him/her but explain what he/she is doing and how it will help him/her or you; -We have to follow the rules; -for women project loudly as he/she has a hard time hearing women's voices; -go slow, be patient; -do one thing at a time; -say things in ways that he/she is helping others by doing what you are having him/her do; -any way you can say it to help you or him/her, NOT a demand; -he/she had a pool table and likes to play; -he/she enjoys: Music: 80/90s country, Beach Boys and Monkeys TV: Historical, crime/police,comedy, sports events -he/she does not like westerns or basketball; -signs of frustration include: -scratching back of head and slowly becomes more intense -looking around, straightening out and not making eye contact - means he/she wants you to go away or stop having him/her do what it is -grinding teeth -a straight blank focused stare -shaking of head - like he/she is shaking off what you ' re telling him/her -tight squeezing of hands in and out -hitting his/her own head with his/her hands or against something -this is when he /she is very overwhelmed and peak frustration/anger. Review of Monthly Activity Participation Record for October and November 2022 showed: -October 13th indoor/outdoor walk, marked A for Active; -October 15th arts and crafts, marked A for Active; -October 31st Trunk or Treat, marked A for Active; -November 3rd Games/Cards, marked A for Active. Review of the resident's physician orders sheet (POS) dated November 2022 showed: -Donepezil Hcl (a medicine that helps with some types of dementia and can improve memory, attention, the ability to interact with others, speak, think clearly, and perform regular daily activities.) 10 milligrams (mg) 1 tablet daily for Alzheimer's,ordered 8/27/22; -Depakote DR ( a mood stabilizer that decreases the excitability of brain cells and can cause sedation) 125 mg sprinkle caplets, take 2 (250 mg three times a day ordered 8/27/22; -Vistaril (a medication used to treat anxiety or itching and may be used as sedation) 25 mg every 8 hours as needed for anxiety, ordered 8/27/22 -Buspirone Hcl ( a medication used to treat anxiety) 5 mg three times a day for Anxiety, ordered 9/6/22 -Wanderguard (a bracelet and alarm system used to monitor when someone wearing the bracelet is close to a door or attempting to exit a door) : check placement and function every shift. ordered 9/6/22 -Depakote DR 375mg three times a day, ordered 9/9/22, -Zyprexa 5mg every 8 hours for agitation/aggression, ordered 9/12/22 -Depakote DR 500mg three times a day ordered 10/7/22. -Ativan 0.25mg at 4 PM daily ordered 10/21/22, Review of the resident's medical record showed: -Progress noted dated 8/27/22 at 2:56 P.M.: The resident admitted with a diagnosis of Dementia. He/she is alert and oriented x2-3, only uses 1-2 words to answer. He/she is wandering and exit seeking. He/she is not aggressive. -Progress notes dated 8/27/22 to 9/1/22 showed no behaviors -Progress note dated 9/1/22 at 5:37 P.M.: Charge Nurse reported the resident was noted to be agitated, insisting to go home and balled his/her fist as if he/she was going to attempt to strike the 1:1 staff member. Attempted to calm the resident and explain that the Public Administrator would have to give permission. Resident continued to state he/she wanted to go home. Again explained that leaving the facility was not safe, this seemed to increase residents agitation. He/she smacked him/herself in the head several times, approached the writer and slapped him/her with an open palm in the side of the head. Staff members began to gather to assist and resident slapped his/her own head with open palm, then charged at the writer. 911 called for assistance. Resident transported to area emergency room (ER). 9/1/22 at 6:22 P.M. The resident was sent out, after he/she balled up fist in 1:1 staff face and demanded for door to be opened and him/her let out. Explained he/she needed to talk with social services and he/she began getting agitated. The resident was then taken to the supervisor office. -Progress note on 9/2/22 at 12:49 A.M. showed: The resident returned from ER with no new orders. -Progress notes 9/2/22 to 9/11/22 showed no aggressive behaviors, resident occasionally pacing. -Progress notes dated 9/12/22 at 11:08 A.M. :The resident tested positive for COVID and placed in isolation unit. (Facility policy for COVID 19 dated 10/22 showed: The infected resident in a private room can remain in his/her room on precautions with the door closed. Residents are to be confined to their room as much as possible) -Progress notes dated 9/13/22 at 1:51 A.M. :The resident refused vital signs. Resident will not stay in his/her room and becomes agitated with staff when encouraging him to stay in his room. Resident tried to push past staff and was threatening. Nurse Practitioner called and order received to send to ER. He/she was given Zyprexa medication in the ER and returned to the facility. Returned at 11:58 P.M. He/she remains 1:1 and resting in his/her new room in isolation. Nurse practitioner called and order for Zyprexa received. -Progress notes 9/13/22 to 10/7/22 showed no behaviors; -Progress notes dated 10/12/22 at 1:29 A.M. The resident is walking and pacing during later evening. Given Vistaril .He/she is sleeping most of this time. -Progress notes dated 10/14/22 at 12:17 A.M. The resident is pacing the halls most of the evening. Vistaril given. -Progress notes dated 10/15/22 to 10/21/22 showed: no behaviors noted -Progress notes dated 10/22/22 to 10/27/22 showed no behaviors noted. -Progress notes dated 10/28/22 at 11:47 P.M. The resident has increased pacing, given Vistaril as ordered. -No Psychiatry progress notes noted in medical record. Review of Behavior Intervention Monthly Flow Record showed: -No behaviors noted for September 2022 -Continuous pacing and striking out noted on October 25, 27 and 30, 2022; with intervention of medication. -No other interventions noted for times of pacing/striking out. Review of the resident's Medication Administration Record showed as needed Vistaril was given: -10/11/22 at 8:30 P.M. for anxiety -10/18/22 at 8:30 P.M. for anxiety -10/25/22 at 7:30 P.M. no indication for use. -10/27/22 at 7:30 P.M. no indication for use -10/29/22 at 7:30 P.M .for anxiety -10/30/22 at 7:30 P.M. for anxiety -10/31/22 at 1:30 P.M. for anxiety Observations on 11/01/22 beginning at 8:44 A.M. showed: - Resident is lying in bed; on top of covers; head to the far left corner and feet toward the far right corner; one shoe off and one shoe on, snoring with mouth open, hair unkempt; nails long; in red t-shirt and black athletic shorts; face with several days growth of beard; staff sitting in room, lights off , blinds closed. -At 10:54 A.M. The resident remains in bed in the same position and continues to snore with mouth open. -At 1:21 P.M. The resident is in bed, remains in same position, continues to snore with mouth open. Staff remain in room. Observation on 11/02/22 at 10:51 A.M. showed: -The resident is in bed, on his/her back. -One side half covered by sheet. -He/she is wearing red T-shirt, black athletic shorts, moccasins on both feet. -Rusty brown substance on top sheet at top fold and on lower 1/2. -Staff sitting in room. During an interview on 11/1/22 at 1:21 P.M. Certified Nurse Aide (CNA) F said -Staff stay with the resident all the time. -He/she sleeps a lot and does not get up much. -There have been no behaviors today; he/she has only slept today. -He/she is 1:1 for trying to leave. -He/she tried to take the resident to the bathroom, he/she said no. -He/she will try when the resident is more awake. -Staff are to call the nurse if behaviors occur. -No other interventions, call nurse for assistance Observation on 11/02/22 at 12:01 PM showed: -CNA D in room. -The resident was physically assisted to stand and sit in a bed side chair by CNA D. -The resident is having difficulty keeping eyes open when talking. -The resident's speech is slow and soft, words are slow and elongated during enunciation. -Resident's bottom sheet noted to have multiple and varying brown rings of dried urine. -An old, musty urine smell noted in resident's room. -CNA D assisted the resident to the restroom with fresh clothing. During an interview on 11/02/22 at 11:30 A.M. the Activity Director said: -activities are done with residents who stay in bed or in their rooms; -those activities include: playing music, Bible verses, snacks and chatting, coloring sheets and crosswords; -he/she uses the care plan for guidance. -preferences from residents or family is used to make the care plan. During an observation and interview on 11/02/22 at 12:09 P.M.: -The resident in fresh clothes and back in bed, lying on his/her back. -His/her hands remain dirty with an unshaven face . -CNA D said: -The resident will allow a male staff to assist him/her more than a female staff member. -The resident has not been up today. -He/she was able to change resident's clothing. -The resident has been sleeping a lot recently. -He/she calls the nurse if behavior occurs. -There are no other interventions for behaviors, except calling the nurse. During an interview on 11/03/22 at 8:55 A.M. CNA G said: -The resident has never had behaviors with him/her. -If the resident starts patting his/her head staff need to back away, and give him/her some space. -The resident's behaviors are about how he/she is approached. -When staff introduce themselves and start kindly it all goes well, and he/she has no behaviors. -Staff can't tell him what to do, that does not work. -His family made this care plan (indicating the care plan on the wall) and it is very helpful, if it's used. -He/she would notify the nurse if behaviors occurred. During an interview on 11/03/22 at 9:21 A.M. Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) E said: -If the resident has any behaviors the CNAs will yell for help. -When staff call for help, the resident is assessed and redirection is attempted by him/her. -Medication is administered if needed. -Only nurses can administer as needed medication. -If that doesn't wok then the Police are called for assistance. -The resident only hit staff one time, early in his/her stay in the facility. -The resident has never been away from his/her family so it's very hard for him/her. -if the resident is having a bad day I call the family. They have a very good relationship. Observation on 11/3/22 at 3:30 P.M. showed: -The resident is up walking in the hall. -Steps are slow and shuffling -He/she answers questions with one word answers. -Resident requested to dance, then walked back to his/her room. During an interview on 11/03/22 at 3:46 PM the Social Service Director (SSD) said: -The resident is currently 1:1 with CNAs. -He/she does not have 1:1 visits with the resident. -He/she does rounds every morning to ensure the resident has his/her wanderguard bracelet on. -The resident is not seen by psychology. -The resident had an order for Psychiatry consult, then got COVID. -The resident has been seen by Psychiatry. -He/she is unsure why the Psychiatry notes aren't in the residents chart. During an interview on 11/03/22 at 3:50 P.M. the Social Service Aide said: -He/she does not sit or visit with the resident. -He/she waves or says hello only. During an interview on 11/03/22 at 3:45 P.M. the Director of Nursing (DON) said: -He/she expects staff to follow the care plan for any resident specific needs. -He/she expects for activities for residents with specific needs to be provided and accommodate the resident. -He/she expects staff to notify the Charge Nurse to handle behaviors. -He/she expects staff to have ongoing training and education about behaviors and interventions. During an interview on 11/03/22 at 4:05 P.M. the administrator said: -He/she expects residents to have activities geared to their specific needs. -He/she expects staff to attempt redirection for behaviors. -He/she expects staff to notify the Charge Nurse of behaviors. -He/she expects the resident care plan to be followed. During an Interview on 11/15/22 at 11:53 A.M. the resident family said: -The resident went to the gym three times a week, liked walks, and to watch sporting events. -He/she had specific television shows programmed for the resident, if staff would turn them on for the resident. -Staff cannot tell the resident what to do, the resident has to be talked to. -The resident is now incontinent, has a shuffling walk, and needs help that he/she did not need before. During an interview on 11/23/22 at 9:03 A.M. the Primary Care Physician (PCP) A said: -Behavior meetings are conducted every week, which includes discussions of behaviors and medications. -Zyprexa should not have been started without an approved diagnosis. -Agitation is not an approved diagnosis for Zyprexa. -The resident has symptoms of Extrapyramidal side effects (a group of symptoms that can occur in people taking antipsychotic medications which can include slower thought processes, slower movements, rigid muscles, difficulty speaking, feeling restless, or muscles to involuntarily contract and contort) -The use of antipsychotic medications with a Dementia diagnoses only is unacceptable.
Understanding Severity Codes (click to expand)
Life-Threatening (Immediate Jeopardy)
J - Isolated K - Pattern L - Widespread
Actual Harm
G - Isolated H - Pattern I - Widespread
Potential for Harm
D - Isolated E - Pattern F - Widespread
No Harm (Minor)
A - Isolated B - Pattern C - Widespread

Questions to Ask on Your Visit

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

Our Honest Assessment

Strengths
  • • Licensed and certified facility. Meets minimum state requirements.
Concerns
  • • Multiple safety concerns identified: 1 life-threatening violation(s), Special Focus Facility, 1 harm violation(s), $145,591 in fines, Payment denial on record. Review inspection reports carefully.
  • • 47 deficiencies on record, including 1 critical (life-threatening) violation. These warrant careful review before choosing this facility.
  • • $145,591 in fines. Extremely high, among the most fined facilities in Missouri. Major compliance failures.
  • • Grade F (0/100). Below average facility with significant concerns.
Bottom line: This facility is on CMS's Special Focus list for poor performance. Consider alternatives strongly.

About This Facility

What is Riverside Nursing & Rehabilitation Center, Llc's CMS Rating?

RIVERSIDE NURSING & REHABILITATION CENTER, LLC does not currently have a CMS star rating on record.

How is Riverside Nursing & Rehabilitation Center, Llc Staffed?

Staff turnover is 73%, which is 27 percentage points above the Missouri average of 46%. High turnover can affect care consistency as new staff learn residents' individual needs. RN turnover specifically is 100%, which is notably high. RNs provide skilled clinical oversight, so turnover in this role can affect medical care quality.

What Have Inspectors Found at Riverside Nursing & Rehabilitation Center, Llc?

State health inspectors documented 47 deficiencies at RIVERSIDE NURSING & REHABILITATION CENTER, LLC during 2022 to 2025. These included: 1 Immediate Jeopardy (the most serious level, indicating potential for serious harm or death), 1 that caused actual resident harm, and 45 with potential for harm. Immediate Jeopardy findings are rare and represent the most serious regulatory concerns. They require immediate corrective action.

Who Owns and Operates Riverside Nursing & Rehabilitation Center, Llc?

RIVERSIDE NURSING & REHABILITATION CENTER, LLC is owned by a for-profit company. For-profit facilities operate as businesses with obligations to shareholders or private owners. The facility is operated by NORBERT BENNETT & DONALD DENZ, a chain that manages multiple nursing homes. With 180 certified beds and approximately 118 residents (about 66% occupancy), it is a mid-sized facility located in RIVERSIDE, Missouri.

How Does Riverside Nursing & Rehabilitation Center, Llc Compare to Other Missouri Nursing Homes?

Compared to the 100 nursing homes in Missouri, RIVERSIDE NURSING & REHABILITATION CENTER, LLC's staff turnover (73%) is significantly higher than the state average of 46%.

What Should Families Ask When Visiting Riverside Nursing & Rehabilitation Center, Llc?

Based on this facility's data, families visiting should ask: "What changes have been made since the serious inspection findings, and how are you preventing similar issues?" "How do you ensure continuity of care given staff turnover, and what is your staff retention strategy?" "Can I visit during a mealtime to observe dining assistance and food quality?" "How do you handle medical emergencies, and what is your hospital transfer rate?" These questions are particularly relevant given the facility's Immediate Jeopardy citations and the facility's high staff turnover rate.

Is Riverside Nursing & Rehabilitation Center, Llc Safe?

Based on CMS inspection data, RIVERSIDE NURSING & REHABILITATION CENTER, LLC has documented safety concerns. Inspectors have issued 1 Immediate Jeopardy citation (the most serious violation level indicating risk of serious injury or death). The facility is currently on the Special Focus Facility watch list (a federal program monitoring the lowest-performing 1% of nursing homes nationwide). The facility has a 0-star overall rating and ranks #100 of 100 nursing homes in Missouri. Families considering this facility should ask detailed questions about what corrective actions have been taken since these incidents.

Do Nurses at Riverside Nursing & Rehabilitation Center, Llc Stick Around?

Staff turnover at RIVERSIDE NURSING & REHABILITATION CENTER, LLC is high. At 73%, the facility is 27 percentage points above the Missouri average of 46%. Registered Nurse turnover is particularly concerning at 100%. RNs handle complex medical decisions and coordinate care — frequent RN changes can directly impact care quality. High turnover means new staff may not know residents' individual needs, medications, or preferences. It can also be disorienting for residents, especially those with dementia who rely on familiar faces. Families should ask: What is causing the turnover? What retention programs are in place? How do you ensure care continuity during staff transitions?

Was Riverside Nursing & Rehabilitation Center, Llc Ever Fined?

RIVERSIDE NURSING & REHABILITATION CENTER, LLC has been fined $145,591 across 2 penalty actions. This is 4.2x the Missouri average of $34,535. Fines at this level are uncommon and typically indicate a pattern of serious deficiencies, repeated violations, or failure to correct problems promptly. CMS reserves penalties of this magnitude for facilities that pose significant, documented risk to resident health or safety. Families should request specific documentation of what issues led to these fines and what systemic changes have been implemented.

Is Riverside Nursing & Rehabilitation Center, Llc on Any Federal Watch List?

RIVERSIDE NURSING & REHABILITATION CENTER, LLC is currently on the Special Focus Facility (SFF) watch list. This federal program identifies the roughly 1% of nursing homes nationally with the most serious and persistent quality problems. SFF facilities receive inspections roughly twice as often as typical nursing homes. Factors in this facility's record include 1 Immediate Jeopardy finding and $145,591 in federal fines. Facilities that fail to improve face escalating consequences, potentially including termination from Medicare and Medicaid. Families considering this facility should ask for documentation of recent improvements and what specific changes have been made since the designation.