SERIOUS
(G)
Actual Harm - a resident was hurt due to facility failures
Accident Prevention
(Tag F0689)
A resident was harmed · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY**
Based on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure the resident environment remains as free of ac...
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 the resident environment remains as free of accident hazards as is possible by failing to ensure safety in the outdoor courtyard for one resident (Resident #235) with a history of falls when the ground next to the pathway to the courtyard had washed away, leaving an approximate 5 inch drop to the ground from the pathway. The resident self-propelled in a wheelchair to the courtyard and the wheelchair tipped off the side of the pathway. This failure resulted a serious injury of three fractured ribs and required the resident to be sent to the hospital. In addition, the facility failed to follow their transfer policy for one resident that was transferred in a Hoyer lift (mechanical lift) without the required two person assistance (Resident #26). The census was 137 with 99 residents in certified beds.
1. Review of the facility's fall management and reduction program policy, revised 3/2019, showed:
-Purpose: To provide guidelines to manage and attempt to reduce the incidence of resident falls;
-Responsibility: It is the responsibility of all staff to know and follow this policy;
-Policy: All residents admitted will be assessed upon admission, quarterly and as needed for fall risk using the MORSE fall risk scale (method of assessing a resident's risk of falling). Appropriate safety interventions, including potentially being placed in a fall reduction program, will be implemented. A fall interdisciplinary team (IDT) will consist of nursing, therapy and other disciplines as appropriate. This team will meet at least weekly to review and make appropriate recommendations for residents who have fallen;
-Practice: Upon admission to the facility, all residents will be assessed using the MORSE fall risk scale;
-At a score above 45, the resident is identified at a high risk of falls. A fall reduction program will be initiated;
-If at any time the MORSE fall risk assessment receives a total score above 45 and the resident is not already in the fall prevention/reduction program, the nurse will place the resident in the program and update the care plan;
-The fall management/reduction program (a score above 45) requires the following:
-To alert staff to the increased fall risk by communicating in shift reports and in the care plan. It is also identified in the resident's electronic record denoting high fall risk status. Other safety interventions specific to the individual resident will be implemented as deemed appropriate by the nurse or supervisor and added to the care plan.
Review of Resident #235's medical record, showed:
-admitted on [DATE];
-Diagnoses included: End stage kidney disease, history of syncope (fainting) and collapse.
Review of the resident's admission nursing flowsheet, showed:
-On 9/21/19 at 4:48 P.M.: The resident is a new admission and medications were verified;
-Transfer assistance: Partial/moderate assistance;
-Used a manual wheelchair;
-Ability to wheel 50 to 150 feet with two turns: substantial/maximal assistance;
-Barriers to learning: cognitive deficits, memory problems;
-General symptoms: confusion, disorientation, edema (swelling), faintness and weakness;
-Neurological symptoms: faintness, memory problems;
-Makes self-understood and understands others;
-Tremors (shaking): yes;
-General safety measures: frequent checks on rounds;
-Fall in the last three months: yes, presence of a secondary diagnosis;
-Gait weak or impaired fall risk: impaired;
-Mental status MORSE: forgets limitations;
-MORSE fall risk score: 75;
-Participative in fall prevention: yes;
-Behaviors exhibited: calm and impulsive;
-Orientation assessment: Orientated times four;
-Assistive device: wheelchair;
-Locomotion on unit and support provided: total dependence of one person physical assist;
-Elopement or wandering: no;
-Short term memory: impaired;
-Precautions observed: bleeding, fall risk, transfer and mobility.
Review of the resident's admission physician order sheet, showed:
-An order dated 9/21/19 at 5:37 P.M., for fall risk precautions, constant order. The resident is a high fall risk, keep the bed in the lowest position when in bed and the bed against the wall per resident's spouse.
Review of the resident's completed nursing Morse Fall Scale assessments, showed:
-On 9/21/19 at 6:54 P.M., the resident scored a 75 (high fall risk), had a history of falls in the last three months, had a secondary diagnosis, no use of ambulatory aid and used bed rest, had an impaired weak gait or impaired fall risk and mental status or forgetting limitations.
Further review of the resident's nursing flow sheet assessments, dated 9/21/19 at 9:00 P.M. into 9/22/19, showed:
-Behaviors exhibited: agitated, impulsive, irritable, refused care and uncooperative;
-Verbally aggressive description: cursing;
-Interventions used after behavior: comfort and compassion, constant monitoring, toileting;
-Impact on behavior on the resident: significantly interferes with the resident's care;
-Resident used wheelchair: yes;
-Wheel 50-150 feet: independent;
-Gait weak or impaired fall risk MORSE: impaired;
-Mental status fall risk MORSE: forget limitations;
-MORSE fall risk score: 75;
-Date, time of fall: 9/22/19 at 3:15 P.M;
-Fall witness: unwitnessed;
-Interventions in place to prevent falls: adequate lighting, attendance while in bathroom, frequent observations;
-Injury: bruise and no treatment needed;
-Location of fall: resident's bathroom;
-Description of fall: unknown, found on the floor. Physician notified and no new orders. Family notified;
-Neurological symptoms: memory problems;
-Gait: unsteady.
Review of the resident's completed nursing Morse Fall scale assessments, showed:
-On 9/22/19 at 3:15 P.M., the resident scored a 75 (high fall risk), had a history of falls in the last three months, had a secondary diagnosis, no use of ambulatory aid and used bed rest, had an impaired weak gait or impaired fall risk and mental status or forgetting limitations.
Review of the admission baseline care plan, updated on 9/22/19, showed:
-Activities of Daily Living (ADL, are routine daily care tasks or activities): The resident is on fall precautions. He/she is at the facility for physical and occupational therapy. He/she requires assistance with ADLs. Staff to encourage the resident to do as much as possible for himself/herself and encourage him/her to call for assistance as needed;
-Goal: To return to pre-hospital level of independence of ADL capacity. The resident can self-propel in his/her wheel chair throughout the facility;
-General information: The resident has diagnoses of end stage renal disease and syncope. He/she is alert and oriented times four and able to make needs known. He/she is on fall precautions. He/she has behaviors of impulsiveness and noncompliance, staff to remind him/her to ask for assistance for transfers as needed.
Further review of the resident's completed nursing Morse Fall scale assessments, showed:
-On 9/23/19 at 2:00 A.M., the resident scored a 75 (high fall risk), had a history of falls in the last three months, had a secondary diagnosis, no use of ambulatory aid and used bed rest, had an impaired weak gait or impaired fall risk and mental status or forgetting limitations.
Further review of the resident's nursing admission flow sheet, dated 9/23/19 at 2:00 A.M., through 4:52 P.M., showed:
-Neurological symptoms: memory problems;
-General safety measures: frequent checks on rounds;
-History of fall in the last three months: yes;
-Use of ambulatory aid MORSE: none, bed rest, wheelchair or nurse;
-Gait weak or impaired: impaired;
-Mental status fall risk MORSE: impaired and forgets limitations;
-MORSE fall risk score: 75;
-Locomotion on the unit: independent.
Further review of the resident's nursing admission flow sheet, dated 9/24/19 at 1:56 A.M., through 12:28 P.M., showed:
-Neurological symptoms: none;
-Orientation assessment: orientated x four;
-Gait: unsteady.
Observation on 9/24/19 at 10:50 A.M., showed the resident lay on the ground in the landscaping outside the rehab unit leading into the courtyard. Multiple staff present and provided assessment of the resident. The resident told staff he/she had propelled himself/herself out of the rehabilitation unit doorway into the courtyard. The front wheels of his/her wheelchair caught the edge of the concrete pad and he/she tipped forward out of the wheelchair, fell and hit the pipe that protruded out of the ground. He/she did not hit his/her head. He/she heard a loud pop when he/she fell onto the pipe and his/her left lower rib area hurt. Staff called emergency services. During an observation and interview at 10:52 A.M., the facility onsite physician responded to assess the resident. The physician stated the resident had marks, bruising and pain from hitting the pipe. The resident did not hit his/her head and the facility had called emergency services.
During an interview on 9/24/19 at 10:55 A.M., Certified Occupational Therapy Assistant (COTA) C said he/she had been sitting at a table outside in the courtyard working with another resident and heard someone yell out. He/she looked up and saw the resident lying down on his/her side on the ground and the wheelchair lying on top of the resident. He/she ran over to the resident and pulled the wheelchair off of him/her. The physical therapist walked outside and COTA C told him/her to go get help, while he/she remained with the resident until nurses arrived.
During an observation and interview on 9/24/19 at 11:00 A.M., emergency services arrived on scene and provided care to the resident. The resident noted to voice pain to the area of his/her left lower ribs. Maintenance supervisor D said the depth of the concrete pad from the top of the pad to the ground was five inches, the area where the resident fell had a sprinkler head and the dirt had been washed out. During an interview at 11:45 A.M., the maintenance supervisor said he had called the groundskeeper and dirt would be added to the area to back fill in the low spot. He did not know how long the low spot had been like that, the area could have been like that for six months or a year. The sprinkler maybe causing the dirt to wash out. At 12:02 P.M., the maintenance supervisor added the vent pipe the resident fell onto measured 7 3/4 inches from the top of the pipe to the ground.
During an interview on 9/24/19 at 1:40 P.M., the Director of Nursing (DON) said the emergency room had called and notified the facility the resident had fractured some of his/her ribs. The facility would be starting an investigation.
During an interview on 9/24/19 at 1:49 P.M., the hospital emergency room (ER) registered nurse (RN) called and informed the surveyor the resident had fractured his/her left 6th, 7th and 8th ribs. The resident had experienced a lot of pain and the ER. RN had administered morphine (narcotic pain medication) to control the resident's pain. The hospital will be conducting further scans.
Observation of the courtyard on 9/24/19 at 2:50 P.M., showed the area where the fall had occurred, showed no changes or improvements. No safety precautions noted in place.
Review of the resident's emergency room visit and assessment notes, dated 9/24/19 at 11:36 A.M., showed:
-Subjective: The patient presents to the emergency room from a fall at 11:00 earlier today. The patient was in his/her wheelchair when a wheel fell off the sidewalk and the wheelchair fell over and he/she impaled himself/herself onto a PVC pipe. The patient complains of rib pain. He/she is in a wheelchair due to weakness in his/her legs after last hospital admission;
-Review of skin: Abrasions to the left flank (side) and left medial (middle) ecchymosis (bruising);
-Radiology impression: Fractures of the left sixth, seventh and eighth ribs with minimal displacement;
-Summary statement: Discharge with oral Dilaudid (narcotic pain medication) and Lidocaine (pain medication) patches.
Review of the resident's readmission nurse note, dated 9/24/19 at 10:29 P.M., showed the resident readmitted into the facility. Diagnosis of rib fracture related to fall in the yard out of his/her wheelchair. Instructed to splint his/her chest with a pillow in order to take deep breaths with the least amount of pain. Educated the resident and spouse regarding risk of pneumonia if unable to deep breathe. Physician onsite with the resident and discussed future care with the resident and spouse. New orders for Dilaudid and pain patch. The resident rates pain a 10 out of 10 (0 indicated no pain and 10 indicated the worse pain imaginable). Pain medications given. The resident unable to sit up and must keep the head of the bed low. He/she had to eat dinner with the head of the bed low and cannot tolerate the head of the bed being elevated.
Review of the resident's readmission physician progress note, dated 9/24/19, showed:
-History and physical: admitted for fall, near syncope and passing out. Recent fall and broke three ribs;
-Past medical history: stroke, irregular heartbeat, diabetic neuropathy (loss of sensation in fingers and feet) and kidney failure;
-Neuro: Alert and orientated times one;
-Plan: Rib fractures pain management.
Review of the resident's readmission nursing assessment pain flow sheet, showed:
-On 9/24/19 at 8:28 P.M., a pain rated 10, or the worst pain possible in the chest. Pain medication given. At 3:00 A.M., no pain noted;
-On 9/25/19 at 5:10 A.M., and 6:02 A.M., a pain rated 10. Medication administered and effective.
Review of the resident's physician order sheet (POS), reviewed on 9/25/19 at 7:57 A.M., showed:
-An order for Lidocaine 4 percent (%) patch- apply daily for chest pain;
-Hydromorphone (Dilaudid) 2 milligram (mg) every four hours as needed for severe pain, administered on 9/24/19 at 8:28 P.M., with a pain 10/10, administered 9/25/19 at 5:10 A.M. with a 10/10 pain scale.
Observations on 9/25/19, showed:
-At 8:25 A.M., the resident sat in his/her wheelchair in the dining room for breakfast. He/she talked to other residents and noted to brace his/her left arm against his/her left side. He/she appeared pale and slow to move in his/her wheelchair;
-At 8:28 A.M. and 9:32 A.M., no dirt, rock or material had been placed in the area of the courtyard where the resident fell.
During an interview on 9/25/19 at 9:37 A.M., the therapy program director said the resident had been admitted to the facility the weekend before. He/she received the initial therapy evaluation on Sunday and had been noted to have impaired cognition by the occupational therapist. The physical therapy assistant saw the resident on 9/25/19 in the morning, however the resident did not perform much of the session related to his/her pain and the therapy session stopped.
During an interview on 9/25/19 at 10:15 A.M., Certified Nurse Aide (CNA) F said he/she had taken care of the resident on the day of his/her fall, on 9/24/19 and had also cared for him/her the morning of 9/25/19. On the morning of 9/24/19 the resident did not want to get up and had slept in, and ate a late breakfast while in bed. CNA F felt the resident had been confused and after the resident ate, he/she assisted the resident out of the bed and into the bathroom. When the resident had finished in the bathroom, he/she assisted him/her to get dressed and into the wheelchair. The resident seemed slightly confused at times and unsteady during the transfers from the bed and in the bathroom. The resident appeared comfortable and wanted to remain in his/her room. A facility housekeeper began to clean the resident's room and was talking to the resident. CNA F reported to the resident's nurse he/she was going to lunch break and the resident was in his/her room. While he/she was on break, staff reported that a resident had fallen in the courtyard.
Observation of the courtyard on 9/25/19 at 11:04 A.M., showed no dirt, rock or safety markers in place.
During an interview on 9/25/19 at 12:40 P.M., Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) G said the courtyard is used by the facility rehabilitation residents. The area is usually used by residents who are alert and orientated. Nursing staff usually use the courtyard as a walk through as it connects different areas of the rehab hallways. At times, physical therapy staff will work with a resident out in the courtyard. Nursing staff do not monitor which residents use the courtyard. Staff know if a resident is out in the courtyard by seeing them through the windows or hearing the doors close. There are no alarms on the doors to the courtyard. The courtyard is in disrepair.
During an interview on 9/25/19 at 1:32 P.M., RN H said that he/she had not been told or in-serviced on additional safety precautions regarding the courtyard since the resident had fallen on 9/24/19.
During an interview on 9/25/19 at 1:42 P.M., Housekeeper I said he/she entered the resident's room on 9/24/19 and started to clean the room. The resident had told him/her that he/she wanted to go outside and he/she liked to be outside. Housekeeper I told the resident he/she needed to let someone know he/she wanted to go outside. The resident told housekeeper I that he/she did not need to tell anyone, and the resident propelled himself/herself out of the room. Housekeeper I did not tell nursing staff of the resident's desire to go outside. Housekeeper I continued to clean the resident's room, and looked out the resident's window that faced the courtyard and noted the resident coming out of the facility door into the courtyard. He/she assumed a staff member had let the resident out of the door. A few minutes later, he/she looked out the window again and observed the resident on the ground next to the concrete sidewalk and several staff around the resident.
During an observation and interview on 9/25/19 at 2:05 P.M., the courtyard was noted to not have any new safety precautions in place, no dirt to back fill in the area of the fall. The administrator said that the company grounds management is aware and a plan is in place to address the issue. There was no immediate plans to repair the area. He/she did have bags of dirt at the facility but the sprinkler needed to be repaired first or the dirt would wash away. He/she could not place a hand rail at that location and he/she was waiting to speak to the vice president.
During an interview on 9/25/19 at 2:18 P.M., the maintenance director said he had contacted the company grounds director and he came and observed the area of the courtyard where the resident had fallen. There had been no decision made if rock or dirt would be added to the site. It had been discussed the sprinkler head needed to be repaired first or it would wash away any dirt.
During an interview on 9/25/19 at 3:48 P.M., the administrator said she had placed a large planter in the courtyard in the area of the fall incident. She will be working with corporate to repair the area of the courtyard.
2. Review of Resident #26's quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS), a federally mandated assessment instrument completed by facility staff, dated 7/3/19, showed:
-A Brief Interview of Mental Status (BIMS) score of 10 out of 15, showed the resident cognitively moderately impaired;
-Diagnoses included high blood pressure, diabetes, hyperlipidemia (high level of lipids), stroke, hemiplegia (paralysis on one side of the body) and depression;
-Total dependence and required two person assist for transfers;
-Impairment on one side of the upper and lower extremities;
-Uses a wheelchair.
Review of the resident's care plan, dated 7/12/19, showed resident needed extensive assist of two with bed mobility, dressing and toileting. He/she used a Hoyer (mechanical) lift for transfers.
Observation on 9/23/19 at 1:56 P.M., showed the surveyor knocked on the resident's door. There was no answer; surveyor opened the door to the resident's door and said hello. The resident was observed in a sling that was hooked to a Hoyer lift. He/she was suspended approximately two feet above his/her wheelchair. CNA F was observed with the electronic remote in his/her hand. There was no other staff in the room except the resident and CNA F. CNA F continued to transfer the resident while he/she was suspended in the air. CNA F managed the hand control to transfer the resident from his/her wheelchair to the bed. The resident's body received no guidance during the transfer. The resident was transferred and lowered onto the bed. CNA F unhooked the sling and moved the Hoyer lift to the middle of the resident's room. CNA F said another staff will come in and assist him/her with turning the resident. CNA F exited the room.
During an interview on 9/23/19 at 2:00 P.M., the resident said he/she is often transferred by one staff using the Hoyer lift. It depended on which staff was operating the Hoyer lift that determined if he/she felt safe during the transfer.
Review of the facility's Use of Mechanical Lift policy and procedure, revised November 2017, showed facility policy requires two persons when using any mechanical lift. Resident's transfer needs should be assessed upon admission, quarterly, and as needed. This is to be documented in the resident's care plan.
During an interview on 9/23/19 at 2:10 P.M., the administrator and DON said they would expect staff to follow the facility's policy in regards to Hoyer transfers. They would expect the residents to be transferred by two staff. There should be one staff to operate the lift and the other staff to guide the resident's body. The administrator confirmed that the CNA F had received training and education on transfers.
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0551
(Tag F0551)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to allow an immediate family member to act on behalf of a resident in ...
Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to allow an immediate family member to act on behalf of a resident in order to support the resident in decision-making for medical and financial matters. In addition, the facility failed to pursue a legal representative or court-appointed guardian after the immediate family member's rights were revoked by the facility and after it was determined that the resident was not capable of making their own medical and financial decisions (Resident #85). The facility census was 137 with 99 residents in certified beds.
Review of the facility's Resident Handbook, revised [DATE], showed the following:
-Resident's representative: The person designed in writing by the resident or resident's legal representative to receive communication on behalf of resident and to make health care or financial decisions, or both, on behalf of the resident. The resident's representative may be the resident's legal representative and/or the resident's immediate family member;
-Surrogate: A person identified from the Missouri statutes to make decisions regarding medical treatment for a resident who lacks decisional capacity, who has a qualifying condition and who does not have an Advance Directive in effect. The facility recognizes the following order of authority: legal representative, spouse, adult children, parents, adult brothers/sisters, grandparents, adult grandchildren and guardian of the estate.
Review of the Resident #85's medical record, showed on a Durable Power of Attorney (DPOA) for Financial Management was signed on [DATE]. deceased Family Member A was named as the DPOA for Financial Management.
Review of the resident's progress notes, showed:
-On [DATE], Family Member B contacted social services on [DATE] and reported Family Member A passed away last week. The Family Member A was Financial Power of Attorney (FPOA) and responsible party for the resident. Family Member B was requesting to become POA. Social services reviewed resident's FPOA in the chart and there was no second agent listed. Social services discussed with social worker supervisor. Social services contacted Family Member B and notified him/her due to resident's capacity and unable to make decisions, he/she would need to pursue guardianship. Social services noted he/she had resources available regarding guardianship. Family Member B stated he/she believes the resident can make that decision. After discussing with the charge nurse and nurse manager, social services informed son that psych can complete an evaluation with resident for capacity/ability to complete POA. Family Member B was aware and agreeable to psych consult. Family Member B requested to be present for psych visit. Social services will follow;
-On [DATE], Social services followed up with Family Member B on [DATE] after psych saw resident. Psych noted in resident's chart he/she does not have the capacity to appoint a POA. Social services notified Family Member B. Social services provided resources to Family Member B about guardianship. Family Member B plans to review documents and follow up with social services. Social services will follow;
-On [DATE], Family Member B notified social services on [DATE] that he/she no longer plans to pursue guardianship due to costs. Social services discussed with social services supervisor. Social services will follow;
-On [DATE], Social Worker N and Social Services Supervisor O contacted Missouri Adult and Abuse hotline on [DATE] and reported suspected financial exploitation from deceased Family Member A regarding resident's Long Term Care (LTC) insurance. In addition, social services contacted state for guidance regarding the resident's LTC insurance checks and how to proceed due to resident no longer having financial POA due to Family Member A passing away. Staff explained resident's current financial situation. Social Services Coordinator O, Social Worker N, and assistant administrator contacted Family Member B on [DATE]. On [DATE], Family Member B notified social services that he/she planned for a bank representative to come to the facility in order to open a bank account in the community. On [DATE], social services supervisor discussed with Family Member B that resident no longer having a financial POA due to Family Member A's passing and the inability to create a new one because of the resident's cognitive status. Family Member B said he/she planned to deposit the resident's un-cashed checks from the resident's LTC insurance into the account. Social services supervisor explained facility's role with protective oversight for resident re-explained psych determined the resident does not have the mental capacity to appoint a POA or open a bank account in the community. Family Member B questioned what his/her role as a family is. Social services followed up and explained his/her role of being a family member and providing support to the resident, but legally he/she is unable to handle financial or health affairs regarding the resident due to no second agent listed on the previous POA. Social services supervisor notified Family Member B that the facility had contacted the state of Missouri to receive guidance on how to proceed with the checks. Supervisor advised Family Member B to cancel the bank appointment until we receive feedback and direction regarding the checks.
Review of the resident's medical record, showed:
-A progress note on [DATE], showed the resident moaning out in pain this morning. Resident was seen pulling oxygen nasal cannula off. Resident moaned in excess pain while he/she was getting out of bed. Tylenol, as needed (PRN) given with some effectiveness. Noticed hospice consult was ordered on [DATE], but he/she has not been admitted . Called hospice to see if he/she was evaluated and what the status was. Registered nurse (RN) not aware of consult order. RN came in to see resident at 1:15 P.M. During this time, resident's breathing pattern changed to cheyn stoke (abnormal breathing pattern). Hospice RN called the physician for comfort mediations. This nurse called Family Member B to make sure hospice was the route he/she wanted to go and he/she said yes. While RN was speaking with the physician, he/she was informed the resident is a ward of the state, so his/her Family Member cannot sign hospice papers;
-No documentation the resident was a ward of the state;
-No documentation to warrant the facility revoking Family Member's right to make medical decisions for the resident, such as the right to sign for hospice services.
During an interview on [DATE] at 8:36 A.M., Social Worker N and Social Services Coordinator O said they were actively involved in the resident's case. On [DATE], the resident's surviving family member contacted Social Worker N to notify him/her that Family Member A passed away and he/she wanted to be the resident's POA. They reviewed the documentation and it showed that there was no second party. The resident needed an evaluation to determine if he/she could make decisions. Family Member B believed the resident could make decisions. They did not believe Family Member B was present during the evaluation, but they would have to confirm that. They discussed the process of guardianship with Family Member B. He/she was given information on resources and was told he/she would need a lawyer. Family Member B later said it was too costly. In February 2019, he/she appeared with LTC paperwork and checks that were sent to Family Member A since his/her death. Social Worker N and Social Services Coordinator O met with corporate compliance and education nurse to discuss the financial issue. The resident's surviving family member wanted to take the resident to the bank, the facility called the hotline for assistance regarding misappropriation and medical. They spoke to the investigator. He/she came out to the facility, but they did not remember when. The investigator said he/she would follow up. They played phone tag in March and April. They attempted to contact the investigator again on [DATE] and the administrator called [DATE]. The facility never received any documentation or a letter regarding the investigation. The facility did not contact the facility's attorney on how to settle the matter of guardianship for the resident. There was no attempt to get an emergency guardian. There was a concern as to who would sign the hospice documents. They knew the resident was sick and declined quickly, but they were not aware if the resident was on hospice. They confirmed that there are morning meetings Monday through Friday. It was obvious that the resident was declining. The resident continued to receive care and the facility met his/her needs. They have care plan meetings quarterly and if there was a significant change. The resident's surviving family member (Family Member B) was on the consent and disclosure form. He/she attended a couple of care plan meetings; however, they did not know the dates of attendance. They confirmed that the resident was not a ward of the state or had a guardian. Social Worker N did not contact the physician about the resident's guardianship status once it was established that the resident could no longer make his/her own decisions. If there was an order for a hospice consultation, they would call the resident's family to make them aware and they would call hospice. Either nursing or the social worker would fax the information to hospice. Social Worker N confirmed he/she did not fax the order to hospice.
During an interview on [DATE] at 10:09 A.M., the hotline investigator said he/she received a hotline call from the facility in February 2019. There was one allegation that was financial. There were no allegations or information about the facility requesting assistance with guardianship in the initial report. The resident received a large check and they believed that the surviving family member would spend the money without the resident knowing about it. There were checks from LTC insurance in the amount of $4900. The investigator contacted the surviving family member who said the facility called the bank and told the bank employee that he/she would spend the money. He/she also tried to take the resident to the bank, but he/she was stopped by the facility. On [DATE], the investigator spoke to him/her regarding guardianship. The family members said he/she would like to do it because the LTC checks would cover it; however, he/she was no longer able to after the facility contacted the bank. The bank would not allow him/her to cash the checks. The investigator visited the facility and interviewed the resident. The resident was asked who was handling the money and who he/she wanted to handle the money. The resident continued to say, I don't know, I don't know. The investigator confirmed that he/she tried to contact Social Worker N, but they continued to miss each other. The investigator had a conversation with Social Worker N about how the surviving family member could use the money to hire an attorney to assist with guardianship. There was no discussion on how the investigator could assist the facility with guardianship for the resident and this was not within the scope of his/her job. The investigator confirmed that the LTC check had in care of and the family member's name on it. Family Member B's name was not on the bank account, but his/her name was on the check. The investigator also confirmed that the allegation was unsubstantiated.
During an interview on [DATE] at 1:47 P.M., Social Worker N said the resident's surviving family member reported that the resident's checks were going to the deceased family member's house and LTC insurance company asked why the checks were not cashed. Family Member B did not know what to do with the checks and he/she asked the facility what to do with them. The facility contacted the LTC company and it was reported the checks had not been cashed, but they were going to be re-issued in the resident's name. Social Worker N said the resident's family wanted to spend the money on the resident, and they were told they would have to provide receipts. The resident's son planned to go to the bank, but Social Worker N called the bank to make them aware that the resident did not have a POA. They called the hotline for misappropriation, but they also wanted to see what the surviving family member's motives were and if he/she was appropriate to be the resident's POA. They asked the investigator if he/she was the appropriate person to be a guardian. The family member was advised of the option of using the checks for an attorney, but he/she declined to be a guardian. Social Worker N did not know why he/she no longer wanted to do it. He/she did have difficulty understanding the POA process. He/she believed the resident could appoint a POA. There was no indication of misappropriation prior to the son receiving the LTC checks.
During an interview on [DATE] at 2:25 P.M., Business Office Manager P said the resident's deceased family member was the POA for finances. The resident's surviving family member came to the facility with three checks from LTC insurance and asked what to do with them. He/she was told to call the deceased family member's spouse for more information and the social worker said he/she could use those checks to establish guardianship because it would be expensive. According to the LTC insurance company, the checks were not cashed. Business Office Manager P was not involved with the checks, but he/she recalled when Family Member B wanted to take the resident to the bank, but he/she did not witness it. The LTC insurance checks were sent to the family, and the family would pay the facility. The facility does not receive the checks from LTC insurance. The resident's surviving family member could have used the money to provide for the resident. Business Office Manager P was very familiar with the resident. He/she was always well taken of. Business Office Manager P said he/she did not think there was any misappropriation. The facility can provide assistance for a POA for medical decisions, but an attorney would have to assist for financial decisions.
During an interview on [DATE] at 3:48 P.M., the administrator said she was not the administrator at the time, so she did not have any knowledge of the event regarding the checks. She was not aware of any restrictions regarding Family Member B leaving the facility with the resident. She was not aware of any indications that the surviving family member misappropriated the resident's money. She did not believe she said the resident was a ward of the state. The facility was seeking guidance from the state. She did not know why the physician believed the resident was a ward of the state. If the resident was a ward of the state, there would be documentation in the medical record. They did not have a family member that could fill out the hospice paperwork. They contacted the investigator to attempt to have a guardian in place in February 2019, and it was still on-going at the time of the resident's passing. The administrator did not know if the facility reached out to an attorney, but they did reach out to corporate compliance. In determining who made the resident's medical and financial decisions after the hotline call and the psych evaluation, the administrator said she did not know if there were any decisions to be made regarding medical or financial matters, but the facility would have updated the next of kin. The administrator confirmed that proceedings were not made to provide guardianship to the resident once the surviving family member stated he/she was no longer interested. There is no policy regarding guardianship.
During an interview on [DATE] at 4:38 P.M., Social Worker N and Social Services Coordinator O said there were no issues or concerns with misappropriations prior to the surviving family member attempting to cash the checks. He/she told the facility he/she was going to take the resident to a restaurant, but he/she also planned to take him/her to the bank. They confirmed that they needed guidance to help the resident with the money and they did not know what the surviving family member's intentions were. The surviving family member was told not to take the resident out of the facility due to uncertainty. The resident's family member did continue to visit the resident and there were no other concerns. The corporate office advised Social Worker N and Social Service Coordinator O to contact the hotline and to ask about guardianship.
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Employment Screening
(Tag F0606)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to check the Nurse Aide Registry to ensure new employees did not have a Federal Indicator for abuse or neglect (which means the individual can...
Read full inspector narrative →
Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to check the Nurse Aide Registry to ensure new employees did not have a Federal Indicator for abuse or neglect (which means the individual cannot work in a certified long-term care facility without a good cause waiver) prior to hire for two out of eight sampled employees. The census was 137 with 99 in certified beds.
1. Review of Floor Finisher A's employee record, showed the following:
-Date of hire: 9/10/18;
-No record of a Federal Indicator check.
2. Review of Activity Assistant B's employee record, showed the following:
-Date of hire: 1/14/19;
-No record of a Federal Indicator check.
3. During an interview on 9/24/19 at 4:00 P.M., Human Resources confirmed that the two employees did not have a federal indicator check completed. It was not included in their employee file. All new employees are required to have a federal indicator check completed.
4. During an interview on 9/24/19 at 5:15 P.M., the administrator said she would expect new employees to have a federal indicator check completed.
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0658
(Tag F0658)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure services provided or arranged by the facility, meet professional standards of quality by failing to clarify medication ...
Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure services provided or arranged by the facility, meet professional standards of quality by failing to clarify medication orders, for one of 18 sampled residents (Resident #191). The census was 137 with 99 in certified beds.
Review of Resident #191's care plan, dated 9/20/19, showed:
-Resident admitted for rehabilitation services following a hospitalization. Diagnoses included stroke, left sided weakness. Resident takes significant medication to help prevent blood clots which may cause bruising, or to bleed more easily. Please tell the nurse if you see any bruising or active bleeding. If resident complains of light headedness, or dizziness or appears to be light headed, or dizzy please tell the nurse.
Review of the resident's physician orders sheet, showed an order dated 9/19/19 for Hydralazine (used to treat high blood pressure), 25 milligrams (mg), every 6 hours. Next to the order a note, *At home, patient was taking the medication with the following details: Special instructions, hold if systolic blood pressure (the top number; refers to the amount of pressure in the arteries during the contraction of the heart muscles) is less than 140. No clarification if the medication is to continue to be held if less than 140 during the stay at the facility.
Review of the resident's medication administration record, showed Hydralazine 25 mg every 6 hours, administered on the following dates and times:
-On 9/20/19 at 6:00 A.M, 11:52 A.M., and 6:55 P.M.;
-On 9/21/19 at 12:00 A.M., 5:45 A.M., 11:51 A.M, and 6:00 P.M.;
-On 9/22/19 at 12:00 A.M., 5:08 A.M., 11:30 P.M, and 6:59 P.M.;
-On 9/23/19 at 12:30 A.M., 6:44 A.M, 12:08 P.M., 5:53 P.M., and 11:46 P.M.
Review of the resident's vital sign record, showed:
-On 9/20/19 at 9:51 A.M., blood pressure documented as 137/67;
-On 9/21/19 at 10:54 P.M., blood pressure documented as 128/61;
-On 9/22/19 at 2:48 P.M, blood pressure documented as 117/66;
-On 9/23/19 at 10:00 A.M., blood pressure documented as 94/53;
-On 9/24/19 at 9:56 A.M., blood pressure documented as 114/52.
During an interview on 9/24/19 at 12:00 P.M., Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) R said the parameters were the ones the resident used at home. The orders should have been clarified upon admission. Upon reviewing the admission orders in the hard chart, the order showed to hold if systolic BP is less than 140. This should not have been added as a note, it should have been included in the order. During the interview the physician called and the nurse said the surveyor is asking about the resident's Hydralazine parameters. The physician then provided an order to hold if systolic blood pressure is less than 100.
During an interview on 9/25/19 at 9:37 A.M., the Director of Nursing said the staff should follow physician orders and the facility policy regarding medication administration.
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0661
(Tag F0661)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on interview and record review, the facility staff failed to complete a comprehensive discharge summary for one of three closed record sampled residents (Resident #86). The census was 137 with 9...
Read full inspector narrative →
Based on interview and record review, the facility staff failed to complete a comprehensive discharge summary for one of three closed record sampled residents (Resident #86). The census was 137 with 99 in certified beds.
Review of Resident #86's closed medical record, showed the resident discharged to the community on 6/22/19. Staff did not complete a discharge summary, which would include a final summary of the resident's status, a reconciliation of all pre and post discharge medications and a post-discharge plan of care.
During interviews on 9/24/19 at 6:37 P.M. and 9/25/19 at 9:37 A.M., the Director of Nursing (DON) said there is not a nursing discharge summary in the resident's file. It is the nurse's responsibility to ensure that the discharge packet is completed. After the nurse gives the information to the resident and places it in the chart, medical records then reviews it to ensure that it is complete.
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
ADL Care
(Tag F0677)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview and record review the facility failed to ensure residents who are unable to carry out activities...
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 who are unable to carry out activities of daily living receive the necessary services to maintain good personal hygiene by failing to follow the perineal care (cleansing from the front of the hips, between the legs and buttocks) policy and ensure appropriate perineal care was provided for two of three observations (Residents #6 and #42). The census was 137 with 99 in certified beds.
Review of the facility's perineal care policy, revised 11/2017, showed:
-Purpose: To provide guidelines for performing perineal care;
-Responsibility: it is the responsibility of all nursing staff to follow this policy;
-Policy: Perineal care is to be done at least daily and as needed for incontinence for residents who are unable to perform self-care. Perineal care is done to cleanse the perineum (groin) to prevent growth of bacteria, prevent skin breakdown and promote good personal hygiene;
-Perineal care: always work from the dirtiest to the cleanest area or front to back. To prevent the spread of fecal matter into the genital area. A new area of the washcloth should be used for each wipe. Always pat the area dry, do not scrub the skin.
-Female perineal care: Gently cleanse the inner legs and outer groin area, spread the groin tissue and clean the internal groin fold cleansing in a front to back motion. Dry the skin with a clean towel;
-Male perineal care: Perineal care should be performed from the genitals and cleanse toward the anal area. A separate washcloth should be used each time. Cleanse other skin between the legs working from a clean to dirty area. Pat the area dry.
1. Review of Resident #6's Significant change Minimum Data Set (MDS), a federally mandated assessment instrument completed by facility staff, dated 6/18/19, showed:
-Cognitively intact;
-Total staff dependence for toileting and hygiene;
-Always incontinent of bowel and bladder;
-Diagnoses included: arthritis, seizure disorder and urine retention.
Review of the resident's care plan, updated 9/18/19, showed:
-He/she is incontinent of bowel and bladder and uses incontinence products. Keep him/her clean, dry and odor free.
During an observation and interview on 9/20/19 at 9:24 AM, Certified Nurse Aide (CNA) L entered the resident's room, explained care, washed his/her hands and applied gloves. He/she removed the covers and unfastened the urine saturated brief. He/she lowered the brief and exposed the front of the groin. CNA L applied perineal care body wash on a moistened washcloth. He/she cleaned all areas of the genitals using the same section of the wash cloth. He/she disposed of the wash cloth, sanitized hands and reapplied gloves. CNA L obtained a moistened wash cloth, applied perineal care body wash, assisted the resident onto his/her side, and exposed the buttocks. CNA L used the wash cloth and cleaned the anal area in a back and forth motion. He/she did not clean the buttocks. CNA L removed his/her gloves, sanitized hands, reapplied gloves and applied barrier cream to buttocks and posterior thighs. CNA L said he/she did not realize he/she did not change areas of the washcloth or get a clean washcloth for the cleansing of the different areas of the genitals. He/she had forgotten to cleanse the buttocks of urine.
2. Review of Resident #42's quarterly MDS, dated [DATE], showed:
-Severe cognitive impairment;
-Total staff dependence for all care needs;
-Always incontinent of bowel and bladder;
-Diagnosis included: quadriplegia (paralysis in all four limbs) and seizure disorder.
Review of the resident's care plan, dated 7/17/19, showed:
-Incontinent of bowel and bladder. He/she wears briefs, change him/her routinely and he/she is unable to verbalize his/her needs.
During an observation on 9/20/19 at 9:08 A.M., CNA M entered the room, washed hands, applied gloves and explained care to the resident. CNA M unfastened a urine saturated brief and tucked the brief under the resident's hip, then turned the resident over onto his/her side. He/she exposed the buttocks and then assisted the resident onto his/her back. CNA M obtained a soapy washcloth and wiped the front groin in a downward motion. He/she did not separate the groin skin folds and clean the inner skin folds. CNA M removed his/her gloves, washed hands and applied gloves. He/she assisted the resident on to his/her side and exposed the buttocks. A scant amount of stool noted on the pull sheet under the resident. CNA M obtained a wash cloth from the soapy basin and wiped in between the buttocks in back and forth motion and did not change areas of the wash cloth. He/she used the same wash cloth and wiped up toward the groin in a back and forth motion. He/she disposed of the washcloth and obtained another wash cloth and wiped the anal area in a back and forth motion.
3. During an interview 9/24/19 at 1:01 P.M., the Director of Nursing said that buttocks and hips should be cleaned during perineal care. Staff should follow the facility's perineal care policy.
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Quality of Care
(Tag F0684)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure one resident received treatment and care in accordance with ...
Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure one resident received treatment and care in accordance with professional standards of practice when the facility failed to ensure the resident's physician's order for a hospice consult was followed timely (Resident #85). In addition, incorrect information regarding the resident being a ward of the state provided to the hospice company resulted in the resident's hospice consult being declined. The facility failed to clarify the error with the hospice company. This resulted in the resident not receiving hospice services, which are services provided above and beyond the services provided by the facility, to include additional care aides and nurses, chaplain services and bereavement services for the family for a year after the resident passes. The facility census was 137 with 99 residents in certified beds.
Review of the facility's Resident Handbook, revised [DATE], showed the following:
-Surrogate: A person identified from the Missouri statutes to make decisions regarding medical treatment for a resident who lacks decisional capacity, who has a qualifying condition and who does not have an Advance Directive in effect. The facility recognizes the following order of authority: legal representative, spouse, adult children, parents, adult brothers/sisters, grandparents, adult grandchildren and guardian of the estate.
Review of the resident's quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS), a federally mandated assessment instrument completed by facility staff, dated [DATE], showed the following:
-Moderate cognitive impairment;
-No behaviors;
-Total dependence on two staff for transfers and moving on/off the toilet;
-Assistance of one staff for bed mobility, dressing and personal hygiene;
-Diagnoses included high blood pressure, diabetes, dementia, seizure disorder and depression.
Review of the resident's face sheet, showed:
-An admission date of [DATE];
-Emergency contact, Family Member B;
-Financially responsible, Family Member B.
Review of the resident's social service notes, showed:
-On [DATE], Family Member B contacted social services and reported Family Member A, passed away last week. Family Member A was the financial power of attorney (FPOA) and responsible party for the resident. Family Member B was requesting to become power of attorney (POA). Social services reviewed resident FPOA in chart and there was no second agent listed. Social services discussed with social services supervisor. Social services contacted Family Member B and notified him/her due to the resident's capacity and was unable to make decisions. He/she would need to pursue guardianship. Social services noted he/she had resources available regarding guardianship. Family Member B stated he/she believes the resident can make that decision. After discussing with the charge nurse and nurse manager, social services informed Family Member B that psych can complete an evaluation with the resident for capacity/ability to complete a POA. Family Member B aware and agreeable to psych consult. Family Member requested to be present for psych visit. Social services to follow.
Review of the resident's psychiatric care and wellness assessment, dated [DATE], showed the resident seen at staff request. Family needs to appoint a new POA and wonders if the resident has the capacity to do so. On exam, the resident is pleasantly confused. No agitation or depression. Only oriented to self. Clearly does not understand the meaning of a POA or guardian, does not have the capacity to appoint a POA.
Further review of the resident's social services notes, showed:
-On [DATE], Social services follow up after Psych saw resident. Social services provided resources to Family Member about guardianship. Family Member plans to review documents and follow up with social services;
-On [DATE], annual MDS completed, resident was laying down due to not feeling well. Resident seemed to have some confusion during assessment. Resident reported he/she just feels like she doesn't know what to do with him/herself. Family Member is involved in resident's care;
-On [DATE], Family Member B notified social services he/she no longer plans to pursue guardianship due to costs. Social services to follow.
Review of the resident's physician's orders, dated [DATE], showed an order for a hospice consult.
Review of the resident's nurse's notes, showed:
-On [DATE] at 2:24 P.M., the resident is having some episodes of lethargy. No appetite for breakfast and lunch. Resident is up in wheelchair at the dining room table for meals. This nurse attempted to assist resident with eating and resident did not respond. Resident had head in his/her hands. When questioning resident if he/she was having any pain, he/she would look up at this nurse and did not respond and placed his/her head back in his/her hands. Staff placed resident in his/her bed. Took morning medication. Refused to drink. Skin color pale, warm to touch. Not responding to verbal commands. Call placed to physician, waiting on call back. Spoke with Family Member B and informed him/her about the resident's change in condition, said he/she was on his/her way;
-On [DATE] at 9:49 P.M., the physician returned the call around 4:00 P.M., gave an order for a Hospice Evaluation. Family Member B was here at the time, informed him/her of the doctor order;
-On [DATE] at 9:59 P.M., resident in bed this shift, lethargic at times. Family here visiting;
-On [DATE] at 11:15 A.M., resident continues to be lethargic at times, refused to open eyes or acknowledge staff at breakfast, refused to take all medications. Family aware of condition, per supervisor, family discussing hospice;
-On [DATE], resident in bed, requesting fluids, alert and talking, Family Member visiting;
-On [DATE], resident moaning out in pain this morning. Resident was seen pulling oxygen nasal cannula off. Resident moaned in excess pain while he/she was getting out of bed. Tylenol, as needed (PRN) given with some effectiveness. Noticed hospice consult was ordered on [DATE], but he/she has not been admitted . Called Hospice to see if he/she was evaluated and what the status was. Registered nurse (RN) not aware of consult order. RN came in to see resident at 1:15 P.M. During this time, resident's breathing pattern changed to cheyn stoke (abnormal breathing pattern). Hospice RN called the physician for comfort mediations. This nurse called Family Member B to make sure hospice was the route he/she wanted to go and he/she said yes. While RN was speaking with the physician, he/she was informed the resident is a ward of the state, so his/her Family Member cannot sign hospice papers;
-On [DATE], resident unresponsive, not breathing and no pulse. Called Family Member B and made aware of resident's death. Call placed again to Family Member B to see what time he/she will be coming in to see resident and the funeral home the resident will be sent to. Family Member B said the preferred funeral home. Family Member B here.
Review of the resident's medical record, showed no documentation the resident was a ward of the state.
During an interview on [DATE], the Social Services supervisor said Family Member B was on the consent and disclosure form and he/she did attend care plan meetings. On [DATE], the resident did not have a state appointed guardian and no attempt had been made through the facility attorney for guardianship. With a consult order, the first step is to call the family and make them aware of the order. Next to call hospice, then fax the order and face sheet to hospice. The facility did not fax the information.
During an interview on [DATE], the hospice administrative secretary said they never received any documentation regarding the resident and the next of kin (NOK) would have been able to sign the hospice agreement.
Review of the resident's medical examiner death certificate, showed pronounced dead on [DATE] at 8:25 A.M. Is patient enrolled in a Hospice program: No.
During an interview on [DATE] at 5:54 P.M., when the surveyor inquired about the resident's hospice consult order, the administrator said the resident was a ward of the state and the hospice agreement could not be signed. She said the resident's Family Member was incompetent. When asked who deemed the Family Member incompetent, the administrator said he/she wasn't incompetent, he/she was nervous and did not want to make those decisions.
During an interview on [DATE] at 10:30 A.M., Family Member B said following his call to Social Services inquiring about taking over POA, nothing happened. He/she did not have a lot of money and after visiting with an attorney, he/she decided he/she could not afford to go through the court system to become POA. The facility took over POA once Family Member A died. The facility took complete control over the resident and he/she had no control over any decisions. He/she was the resident's last remaining relative. He/she was not aware the resident was not on hospice. He/she wanted hospice services provided for him/her. During the resident's final days, he/she was in and out of consciousness and in a lot of pain. All he/she could do was pray the Lord would take the resident.
During an interview on [DATE] at 3:48 P.M., the administrator said she did not say the resident was a ward of the state. If the resident was a ward of the state, there would be documentation in the hard chart and business office. Regarding the hospice consult order, social services said the facility did not have a guardian who could fill out the paperwork. She would have expected the physician's order to be followed.
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
Deficiency Text Not Available
Read full inspector narrative →
Deficiency Text Not Available