SERIOUS
(G)
Actual Harm - a resident was hurt due to facility failures
Pressure Ulcer Prevention
(Tag F0686)
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 document assessment of - including characteristics, f...
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 document assessment of - including characteristics, failed to re evaluate weekly per facility policy, or revise one resident's (Resident #41), in a review of two sampled residents with wounds, care plan during the development and treatment of a new pressure ulcer. The resident presented with a pressure injury described as a fluid filled blister on the heel following a change in mobility status which deteriorated to a Stage III pressure ulcer (full thickness loss of skin, where adipose (fat) is visible in the ulcer and granulation tissue and rolled wound edges are often present). The facility census was 53.
1. Review of NPUAP guidelines, dated September 2016, showed the following definitions:
-Stage I pressure injury is intact skin with localized area of non-blanchable (when you press on the area of redness the redness does not go away) erythema (redness). Presence of blanchable erythema changes in sensation, temperature, or firmness may precede visual changes;
-Stage II pressure injury is a partial-thickness loss of skin with exposed dermis (the thick layer of living tissue below the top layer of skin that forms the true skin). The wound bed is viable, visible and deeper tissue are not visible. Granulation tissue (new connective tissue), slough (dead tissue in the process of separating from the body which is usually light colored, soft, moist, or stringy), and eschar (dead tissue that sheds or falls off from health skin) are not present;
-Stage III pressure injury is a full thickness loss of skin, where adipose (fat) is visible in the ulcer and granulation tissue and rolled wound edges are often present. Slough and eschar may be visible, but do not obscure the extent of tissue loss. The depth of tissue damage varies by the location on the body. Undermining and tunneling may occur. Fascia (a thin sheath of fibrous tissue), muscle, tendon, ligament, cartilage or bone are not exposed;
-Stage IV pressure injury is a full-thickness skin and tissue loss with exposed or directly palpable fascia, muscle, tendon, ligament, cartilage or bone in the ulcer. Slough and or eschar may be visible, but do not obscure the extent of tissue loss. Rolled edges, undermining and or tunneling often occur. Depth varies by location;
-Unstageable pressure injury is a full thickness skin and tissue loss in which the extent of tissue damage within the ulcer cannot be confirmed because it is obscured by slough or eschar;
-Deep Tissue Pressure Injury is an intact or non-intact skin with localized area of persistent non-intact skin with localized area of persistent non-blanchable deep red, maroon, purple discoloration or epidermal separation revealing a dark wound bed or blood filled blister. This injury results from intense and/or prolonged pressure and shear forces at the bone-muscle interface. The wound may evolve rapidly to reveal the actual extent of tissue injury, or may resolve without tissue loss. If necrotic tissue, subcutaneous tissue, granulation tissue, fascia, muscle, or other underlying structures are visible, this indicates a full thickness pressure injury (unstageable, Stage III or Stage IV pressure injury).
2. Review of the facility's policy Skin Assessment, undated, showed the following:
-Residents who enter the facility without pressure ulcers do not develop pressure ulcers unless the resident's clinical condition demonstrates that they were unavoidable;
-Skin assessments will be conducted by the nurse on admission, weekly for four weeks, then monthly;
-CNAs will monitor for signs of skin breakdown daily with care and bathing and report :
a. purple or dark areas;
b. edema;
c. hardening of skin;
d. redness;
e. bogginess;
-Document the status of the resident's kin in the resident's record once per week and in the resident's monthly summary.
Review of the facility's Pressure Ulcer policy, undated, showed the following:
-Pressure ulcer is localized damage to the skin and/or underlying soft tissue usually over a bony prominence or related to a medical or other device;
-Residents who enter the facility without pressure ulcers do not develop pressure ulcers unless the resident's clinical condition demonstrates that they were unavoidable;
-At risk residents are identified and given care to prevent the development of pressure ulcers;
-Braden scale (pressure ulcer risk assessment tool) assessment will be completed upon admission/readmission, with the quarterly, annual, and significant change of condition assessments;
-Residents with pressure ulcers will receive necessary treatment and services to promote healing, prevent infection and prevent new sores from developing;
-Staff will monitor interventions are implemented to prevent skin breakdown:
a. instruct CNAs on interventions implemented to prevent kin breakdown;
b. monitor skin issues identified during the resident's showers;
c. monitor devices are in place;
-Provide wound care as prescribed by the physician;
-Pressure ulcers identified may be:
a. non-open areas or areas covered with stable eschar;
b. Unruptured serous(fluid)-filled or blood filled blisters;
c. open areas;
d. open areas with slough or unstable eschar;
e. deep tunneling wounds;
-Licensed nurses will track the healing progress of pressure ulcers and alter the plan of care and treatment when needed:
a. Complete skin integrity documentation for each resident with skin breakdown that includes:
1. Type of wound;
2. Location;
3. shape;
4. Measurements in centimeters: width, length, and depth;
5. Stage;
6. Color, redness, warmth, swelling;
7. Granulation, surrounding tissue, ulcer edges;
8. Exudate (drainage), or bleeding;
9. odor;
10. Treatments, dressing changes, medications;
11. Presence of infection or other complications;
12. Pain;
b. Evaluating pressure ulcer treatments weekly for effectiveness and inform the resident's physician of pressure ulcer status;
c. Care plan team to alter the pressure ulcer care plan and implement new interventions when healing is not adequate;
-The director of nursing (DON) will monitor the weekly wound report, and ensure proper documentation is completed.
3. Review of Resident #41's face sheet showed the resident was admitted to the facility on [DATE].
Review of the resident's Braden assessment, dated 7/24/19, showed a score of 14 indicating moderate risk for development of pressure ulcers.
Review of the resident's admission Minimum Data Set (MDS),a federally mandated assessment instrument completed by facility staff dated 8/7/19, showed the following:
-Moderate cognitive impairment;
-Requires supervision of staff for bed mobility;
-Requires limited assistance of one staff member for transfers, and toilet use;
-At risk to develop pressure ulcers;
-No pressure ulcers present.
Review of the resident's care plan, dated 8/15/19, showed the following:
-At risk for pressure ulcers due to incontinence;
-Check and change the resident every two hours;
-Any evidence of skin break down the nurse will be notified immediately so a treatment can be started.
Review of the resident's nurses notes, dated 10/30/19, showed the following:
-Late entry for 10/7/19:
-Resident found by staff on the side of his/her bed on the floor;
-Resident said he/she had fallen out of bed.
Review of the resident's nurses notes, dated 10/17/19, showed the resident guarding and complained of pain in the right hip.
Review of the resident's care plan showed no new interventions after the resident complained about the pain in his/her hip related to decreased mobility.
Review of the resident's shower sheet, dated 10/22/19, showed no documentation of any skin breakdown or bruising.
During an interview on 11/21/19, at 4:46 P.M., RN H said the following:
-The resident developed a pressure ulcer before he/she went to the hospital;
-Staff found the wound around 10/22/19, and it was a large fluid filled blister on his/her left heel;
-The resident had not been moving himself/herself around much because of the hip pain, they later found out it was fractured;
-He/She did not remember if interventions were started to float the heels when the wounds were found.
Review of the resident's physician's orders, dated 10/23/19, showed the physician directed staff to cleanse the area on the left heel with cleanser, apply barrier cream, hydrocolloid (an opaque or transparent dressing that protects wounds) dressing, and cover with foam dressing, change daily and as needed until healed.
Review of the resident's treatment administration record, dated 10/23/19 through 10/25/19, showed staff documented treatment for the left heel completed as ordered on 10/24/19 and 10/25/19.
Review of the resident's record, dated 10/1/19-10/25/19, showed no documentation of measurements in centimeters: width, length, and depth; stage; color, redness, warmth, swelling; granulation, surrounding tissue, ulcer edges; exudate (drainage), or bleeding for the identified left heel presssure injury the resident developed while in the facility. Review of the resident's care plan showed the plan did not address the resident's left heel pressure injury.
Review of the resident's nurses notes, dated 10/25/19, showed the following:
-Treatment to left heel completed;
-X-ray results obtained and called to physician;
-Order to send to the emergency room for further evaluation.
Review of the resident's census record showed the resident transferred to the hospital on [DATE] and the resident returned on 10/31/19.
Review of the resident's hospital physician progress notes, dated 10/30/19, showed pressure ulcers to bilateral (both) heels present on admission to the hospital.
Review of the resident's facility admission nursing assessment, dated 10/31/19, showed an unstageable pressure ulcer to the left heel.
Review of the resident's nurses notes, dated 10/31/19, showed the following:
-Resident returned from the hospital with right hip hemiarthroplasty (surgical procedure);
-Dressing applied to left heel;
-Pressure reduction boots applied bilaterally.
Review of the resident's medical record, dated 11/1/19-11/18/19, showed no documentation of measurements in centimeters: width, length, and depth; stage; color, redness, warmth, swelling; granulation, surrounding tissue, ulcer edges; exudate (drainage), or bleeding for the identified pressure ulcer on the left heel.
Review of the resident's wound assessment, dated 11/19/19, showed the resident has a left heel blister, measures 4 inches in length, and 3.2 inches in width, and the treatment order changed to Santyl (an ointment that removes dead tissue enzymatically).
Review of the resident's care plan, dated 11/1/19-11/22/19, showed no update the resident developed a pressure ulcer, new interventions to treat the pressure ulcer, pressure relieving boots, or to float the resident's heels.
During an interview on 11/21/19 at 7:22 A.M., Certified Nurse Aide (CNA) N said the resident did not want to get up because his/her heel hurt.
Observation on 11/21/19 at 4:31 P.M., showed the following:
-Registered Nurse (RN) H changed the resident's dressing to the left heel;
-The soiled dressing showed serosanguinous (blood and yellowish fluid) drainage;
-A large open area on the left heel approximately the size of a baseball, center of the wound bed covered with slough (dead tissue in the process of separating from the body which is usually light colored, soft, moist, or stringy), the edges of the wound bed were shiny, the wound had depth, the wound edges were hard and calloused.
During an interview on 11/21/19, at 4:46 P.M., RN H said the following:
-The resident had a large fluid filled blister on his/her left heel prior to going to the hospital;
-The blister had opened while in the hospital;
-The wound was the size of a medium orange and was at least a Stage III. The wound could be deeper, but there was slough in the center of the wound;
-Staff were doing a treatment to protect the blister before the resident went to the hospital.
During an interview on 11/22/19, at 8:23 A.M., the Director of Nurses said the following:
-The facility had a wound nurse that did weekly measurements and wound tracking;
-He/She was not working at this time and was out with medical issues;
-The wound nurse's documentation on the resident's heel was missing and could not be accessed;
-If a resident developed a wound the physician and resident/responsible party should be notified, the care plan should be updated, a treatment obtained, and the wound should be fully documented;
-Staff were expected to re-evaluate pressure ulcers weekly, and document findings in the resident's medical record.
During an interview on 12/5/19, at 1:30 P.M., the resident's physician said the following:
-He was notified and gave a treatment order for the resident's pressure ulcer to the left heel on 10/23/19;
-He expected staff to measure the wound/ulcer when discovered and document weekly the measurements, tissue type, stage, drainage, etc. and notify him of any deterioration;
-Staff were expected to update the care plan with the development of a wound especially with turnover of staff so they know what interventions are in place to treat the wound, and prevent new wounds;
-There was a wound nurse and something happened to him/her and the facility could not find the documentation;
-The resident had hip pain that caused more immobility and this may have contributed to the development of the pressure ulcer/wound.
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Abuse Prevention Policies
(Tag F0607)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on interview and record review the facility failed to develop and implement written policies to report abuse and/or neglect for suspicion or allegations that do not result in serious bodily inju...
Read full inspector narrative →
Based on interview and record review the facility failed to develop and implement written policies to report abuse and/or neglect for suspicion or allegations that do not result in serious bodily injury within 24 hours as required. The facility census was 53.
1. Review of the facility's policy Abuse and Neglect Prohibition and Prevention Policies and Procedures, undated, showed the following:
-Definitions:
a. Abuse: The willful infliction of injury, unreasonable confinement, intimidation or punishment with resulting physical harm, pain or mental anguish. Abuse also includes the deprivation by an individual, including a caretaker, of goods and services that are necessary to attain or maintain physical, mental and psychosocial well-being:
1. Verbal abuse: The use of oral written or gestured language that willfully includes disparaging and derogatory terms to residents or their families or within hearing distance, regardless of age, ability to comprehend or disability;
2. Sexual abuse: Non-consensual sexual contact of any type with a resident, including but is not limited to sexual coercion and sexual assault;
3. Physical abuse: Hitting, slapping, pinching, kicking or controlling behavior through corporal punishment;
4. Mental abuse: Includes humiliation, harassment, threats of punishment or deprivation;
b. Involuntary seclusion: Separation of a resident from other residents or from his/her room or confinement to his/her room against the resident's will;
c. Exploitation: Taking advantage of a resident for personal gain through the use of manipulation, intimidation, threats or coercion;
d. Misappropriation of resident property: Deliberate misplacement, exploitation or wrongful, temporary or permanent use of resident's belongings or money without the resident's consent;
e. Mistreatment: Inappropriate treatment or exploitation of a resident;
f. Neglect: failure to provide goods and services to a resident that is necessary to avoid physical harm, pain, mental anguish or emotional distress;
g. Injuries of Unknown Origin: An injury should be classified as an injury of unknown source when both of the following conditions are met:
1. the source of the injury was not observed by any person or the source of the injury could not be explained by the resident;
2. The injury is suspicious because the extent of the injury or the location of the injury, (e.g. the injury is located in an area not vulnerable to trauma) or the number of injuries observed at one particular point in time or the incidence of injuries over time;
h. Immediately: Immediately for the purpose of reporting abuse, neglect, financial exploitation and/or misappropriation, a covered individual shall report immediately to the Missouri Hotline and to local law enforcement not more than two (2) hours after forming the suspicion. An injury of unknown origin that is suspicious in nature resulting in serious bodily injury should be reported immediately to the Missouri Hotline and local law enforcement.
i. Adverse event: Untoward, undesirable and usually unanticipated event causing or risking death or serious injury.
-Reporting:
a. Any allegation of abuse will be reported immediately to his/her supervisor;
b. The Administrator/Director of Nursing/Designee will file a self-report to the Department of Health and Senior Services (DHSS) immediately, and follow up with the state agency on the investigation progress;
c. Local law enforcement will be contacted within the two (2) hour time frame for abuse, neglect, misappropriation/financial exploitation, and immediately for an injury of unknown origin suspicious in nature resulting in serious bodily injury.
d. The Administrator/Director of Nursing/Designee will notify the local ombudsman office of any allegations of abuse;
e. Administrator/Director of Nursing/Designee will notify DHSS within five (5) business days of the original report, on the outcome of the investigation, if the allegation was verified and the corrective action taken.
f. Administrator/Director of Nursing/Designee will document the abuse allegation on the abuse/neglect log.
The policy did not contain direction to the staff when to report the events that cause the suspicion do not result in serious bodily injury.
During interview on 11/26/19 at 9:10 A.M. the administrator said the facility abuse policy did not include that each covered individual shall report to the State Agency not later than 24 hours if the events that cause the suspicion do not result in serious bodily injury.
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Report Alleged Abuse
(Tag F0609)
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 report injuries of unknown origin to the state agency as required fo...
Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview and record review the facility failed to report injuries of unknown origin to the state agency as required for one additional resident (Resident #2). The facility census was 53.
1. Review of the facility's policy Abuse and Neglect Prohibition and Prevention Policies and Procedures, undated, showed the following:
-Prohibit and prevent abuse, neglect, exploitation of residents and/or misappropriation of resident property;
-Definitions:
a. Injuries of Unknown Origin: An injury should be classified as an injury of unknown source when both of the following conditions are met:
1. the source of the injury was not observed by any person or the source of the injury could not be explained by the resident;
2. The injury is suspicious because the extent of the injury or the location of the injury, (e.g. the injury is located in an area not vulnerable to trauma) or the number of injuries observed at one particular point in time or the incidence of injuries over time;
b. Immediately: Immediately for the purpose of reporting abuse, neglect, financial exploitation and/or misappropriation, a covered individual shall report immediately to the Missouri Hotline and to local law enforcement not more than two (2) hours after forming the suspicion. An injury of unknown origin that is suspicious in nature resulting in serious bodily injury should be reported immediately to the Missouri Hotline and local law enforcement.
c. Adverse event: Untoward, undesirable and usually unanticipated event causing or risking death or serious injury.
-Reporting:
a. Any allegation of abuse will be reported immediately to his/her supervisor;
b. The Administrator/Director of Nursing/Designee will file a self-report to the Department of Health and Senior Services (DHSS) immediately, and follow up with the state agency on the investigation progress;
c. Local law enforcement will be contacted within the two (2) hour time frame for abuse, neglect, misappropriation/financial exploitation, and immediately for an injury of unknown origin suspicious in nature resulting in serious bodily injury.
d. The Administrator/Director of Nursing/Designee will notify the local ombudsman office of any allegations of abuse;
e. Administrator/Director of Nursing/Designee will notify DHSS within five (5) business days of the original report, on the outcome of the investigation, if the allegation was verified and the corrective action taken.
f. Administrator/Director of Nursing/Designee will document the abuse allegation on the abuse/neglect log.
-The policy did not contain direction to the staff when to report the events that cause the suspicion do not result in serious bodily injury.
2. Review or Resident #2's face sheet, showed the resident admitted to the facility on [DATE] with a diagnosis of Alzheimer's disease.
Review of the resident's nursing admission assessment, dated 3/12/19, showed the resident was confused, and required physical assistance of staff with his/her activities of daily living.
Review of the resident's nurses notes, dated 6/719, showed the following:
-Hospice called order to apply pressure dressing to wound for 30 minutes;
-Order for a pressure dressing to the resident's head;
-0.5 inch opening/incision to the top of the resident's head.
Review of the facility's investigation, dated 6/8/19 at 10:00 A.M., showed the following:
-On 6/7/19 early morning resident noted to have a 0.5 inch gash with minimal depth to top of his/her head;
-Large amount of blood noted upon rounds;
-Questioned staff assigned to the resident;
-Certified Nurse Assistant (CNA) G said as he/she was rolling the resident towards him/her during care, the resident was combative;
-The CNA said on the next rounds he/she found blood on the resident's head pillow and hands;
-When first questioned the CNA said he/she didn't think the two were connected until he/she spoke with the Director of Nursing (DON);
-CNA instructed to document behaviors and resisting care and to stop care and re-approach with assistance from other staff if a resident is combative;
The investigation did contain the incident was reported to the state agency.
Review of the resident's nurses notes, dated 6/11/19, showed staff documented a bruise to resident's right forearm, does not know when or from where the bruise came. The note contained no documentation of notification to the DON, physician, administrator or responsible party.
Review of the resident's admission MDS, dated [DATE], showed the following:
-Severe cognitive impairment;
-No behaviors;
-Requires extensive physical assistance of two or more staff members for bed mobility;
-Dependent on two or more staff members for transfers, and toilet use;
-No falls since admission.
Review of the resident's nurses notes, dated 3/12/19 through 6/15/19 showed no documentation of the resident having behaviors.
Review of the resident's significant change in status assessment MDS, dated [DATE], showed the following:
-Severe cognitive impairment;
-No behaviors;
-Requires extensive physical assistance of two or more staff members for bed mobility;
-Dependent on two or more staff members for transfers, and toilet use;
-No falls since prior assessment.
Review of the resident's nurses notes, dated 10/3/19, showed the following:
-Bruising and swelling, exhibits with fingers x 5 and wrist;
-Resident and staff unsure of how it happened;
-Order for x-ray obtained;
-No fractures with x-ray.
Review of the facility's investigation, dated 10/4/19, showed the following:
-Video on 10/3/19 reviewed of back of B hall;
-Nothing noted on video with resident that showed trauma to his/her hand;
-Staff on day shift schedule found the bruise;
-Resident does not have a history of being combative with any type of care;
-List of staff scheduled;
-Video review on 10/2/19 show resident sitting outside room near end of hall;
-At approximately 5:15 P.M. a visitor pushed the wheelchair forward, and resident's hand at wheels;
-Conclusion: resident may have been moved by a visitor unfamiliar to the resident and not aware of safety when transporting or pushing residents;
-The investigation did contain documentation the incident was reported to the state agency.
During an interview on 11/21/19, at 3:28 P.M., Registered Nurse (RN) H said the following:
-He/She was the charge nurse and documented the bruise to the resident's hand on 10/3;
-The bruise was at the top of the resident's hand;
-He/She does not remember if bruise went to the wrist;
-He/She let the DON know about the bruise, but they never determined how it happened;
-Maybe the resident hit his/her hand on something;
-He/She reported the injury to the DON.
During an interview on 11/22/19, at 12:28 P.M. the resident's family member said the following:
-The resident was totally dependent on care;
-About four months ago he/she found a large gash on the top of resident's head and no one told him/her, he/she found it;
-Staff did not provide treatment for the resident's head that he/she was informed about, and it was somewhat deep. It looked like it would have bled a lot, and the resident did not go anywhere to get treatment;
-Shortly after that the resident had a large bruise on his/her forearm;
-In October (2019) the resident's hand was black and blue and swollen all the way down all four fingers, around to the palm of his/her hand and his/her wrist;
-The bruising on the inside of the hand was significant;
-He/She reported the bruising to the social worker;
-No one knew what happened;
-About a month ago the resident had a bruise on his/her nose and another one on his/her cheek, they were not as significant, but he/she noticed them because they were green;
-He/She was concerned about the amount of injuries and the locations of the injuries.
During an interview on 11/22/19, at 2:56 P.M., the DON said the following:
-She investigated the resident's head injury and hand injury;
-She was not sure if she reported the resident's injuries to the administrator;
-The investigation of the resident's head laceration showed the CNA said the resident was combative so they assumed the resident hit his/her head on the bedside table;
-She did not interview anyone else about the head laceration;
-She watched the video and did not see the resident's hand in the wheel of his/her wheelchair, but assumed that the resident's hand got caught in the wheelchair;
-She did not report the injuries to the state agency as required.
During an interview on 11/22/19, at 3:32 P.M., the administrator said:
-She does not remember any injuries that were investigated with the resident;
-She was out of the country with the October incident;
-The DON is expected to conduct the investigations and notify her;
-The DON lets her know if it needs to be reported;
-She did not know if any incidents were reported as injury of unknown origin.
During additional interview on 11/26/19 at 9:10 A.M. the administrator said the following:
-The resident's injuries met the definition of an injury of unknown origin;
-Staff should have completed an investigation and followed the facility policy regarding injuries of unknown origin and should have reported the injuries to the state agency;
-The investigation should include written staff statements or interviews regarding the injuries;
-Staff did not report the injuries of unknown origin to the state agency as required.
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Investigate Abuse
(Tag F0610)
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 complete investigations as the facility policy directed for two inst...
Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview and record review the facility failed to complete investigations as the facility policy directed for two instances of injuries of unknown origin for one additional resident (Resident #2). The facility census was 53.
1. Review of the facility's policy Abuse and Neglect Prohibition and Prevention Policies and Procedures, undated, showed the following:
-Abuse Investigation:
a. All reports of abuse (mistreatment, neglect or abuse, including injuries of unknown origin, exploitation and/or misappropriation of property) are promptly and thoroughly investigated;
b. When an allegation of abuse is made, the employee should first ensure the safety of the resident;
c. The Administrator/Director of Nursing/Designee will being an immediate investigation with the assistance from other key personnel to assist with reporting, investigation and follow up. The investigation will consist of at least the following:
1. nature of alleged incident;
2. interview with reporting person(s), written statement(s);
3. interview with involved resident;
4. obtaining of witness statements;
5. resident assessment, injuries identified with medical care provided (when applicable);
6. environmental considerations.
2. Review or Resident #2's entry Minimum Data Set (MDS), a federally mandated assessment, dated 3/12/19, showed the resident was admitted to the facility on [DATE].
Review of the resident's nurses notes, dated 6/719, showed the following:
-Hospice called order to apply pressure dressing to wound for 30 minutes;
-Order for a pressure dressing to the resident's head;
-0.5 inch opening/incision to the top of the resident's head.
Review of the facility's investigation, dated 6/8/19 at 10:00 A.M., showed the following:
-On 6/7/19 early morning resident noted to have a 0.5 inch gash with minimal depth to top of his/her head;
-Large amount of blood noted upon rounds;
-Questioned staff assigned to the resident;
-Certified nurse assistant (CNA) G said as she was rolling the resident towards her during care the resident was combative, he/she thought the resident hit her head on the nightstand;
-The CNA said on the next rounds she found blood on the resident's head pillow and hands;
-When first questioned the CNA said she didn't think the two were connected until she spoke with Director of Nursing (DON);
-CNA instructed to document behaviors and resisting care and to stop care and re-approach with assistance from other staff if a resident is combative.
The investigation did not include other staff interviews, written statements, or resident interview (attempted interview).
Review of the resident's significant change in status assessment MDS, dated [DATE], showed staff assessed the resident as:
-Severe cognitive impairment;
-No behaviors;
-Requires extensive physical assistance of two or more staff members for bed mobility;
-Dependent on two or more staff members for transfers, and toilet use;
-No falls since prior assessment.
Review of the resident's nurses notes, dated 10/3/19, showed the following:
-Bruising and swelling, exhibits with fingers x 5 and wrist;
-Resident and staff unsure of how it happened;
-Order for x-ray obtained;
-No fractures with x-ray.
Review of the facility's investigation, dated 10/4/19, showed the following:
-Video on 10/3/19 reviewed of back of B hall;
-Nothing noted on video with resident that shows trauma to his/her hand;
-Staff on day shift schedule found the bruise;
-Resident does not have a history of being combative with any type of care;
-List of staff scheduled;
-Video review on 10/2/19 show resident sitting outside room near end of hall;
-Approximately 5:15 P.M. a visitor pushed the wheelchair forward, and resident's hand at wheels;
-Conclusion: resident may have been moved by a visitor unfamiliar to the resident and not aware of safety when transporting or pushing residents.
The investigation did not include written statements, or interviews with any staff or the resident (s)/ attempted interview with the resident.
During an interview on 11/22/19, at 2:56 P.M., the DON said:
-She investigated the resident's head injury and hand injury;
-She gets oral statements from staff and doesn't write them down or the date or time of the interview, she did not know it was the facility's policy;
-The investigation of the resident's head laceration showed the CNA said the resident was combative so they assumed the resident hit his/her head on the bedside table;
-She did not interview anyone else about the resident's head laceration;
-She watched the video and did not see the resident's hand in the wheel, but assumed, and was not sure;
-Staff were called and interviewed but he/she did not get written statements from the staff.
During an interview on 11/22/19, at 3:32 P.M., the administrator said the following:
-The DON is expected to conduct the investigations and notifies her;
-She did not know if there are written statements for the investigations.
During additional interview on 11/26/19 at 9:10 A.M. the administrator said the following:
-The resident's injuries met the definition of an injury of unknown origin;
-Staff should have completed an investigation and followed the facility policy regarding injuries of unknown origin;
-The investigation should include written staff statements or interviews regarding the injuries.
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 dependent on the staff for care recei...
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 dependent on the staff for care received services to meet the hygiene needs for two residents (Resident #23, and #34) , of 16 sampled resident's. The facility census was 53.
1. Review of the facility undated policy Dining Room Meals showed the following:
-CNA staff should assist resident to perform appropriate hygiene prior to the meal;
-Dress residents appropriately for dining;
-Assist residents with hygiene and cleanliness after meals. Staff should assist with clean clothing, wash hands and face.
2. Review of the Nurse Assistant in a Long-Term Care Facility, Student Reference, 2001 Revision, showed the following:
-Activities of personal care section:
a. cleanliness - taking a tub or shower bath once or twice weekly may be sufficient because the skin in elderly people became dryer and thinner. Some people preferred daily baths;
d. shaving - evaluate the resident's need for shaving daily. Let residents shave themselves if they were able;
f. hair care - providing hair care was another way of helping the resident maintain self-esteem. Shampooing should be done once a week or more often if necessary.
3. Review of Resident #23's significant change in status Minimum Data Set (MDS), a federally mandated assessment, dated 10/2/19, showed the following:
-Severe cognitive impairment;
-Requires oversight and cueing with personal hygiene;
-Requires physical help in part of the bathing activity.
Observation on 11/20/19, at 12:32 P.M., showed the resident at the dining room table. The resident had a red substance on his/her shirt and food on his/her pants. The resident had long facial hair, and grabbed individual hairs on his/her eye brows and face attempting to pull them out.
Observation on 11/20/19, at 2:39 P.M. showed the resident stood in the 100 hall. The resident had a red substance on his/her shirt, and the crotch of his/her gray pants was wet. Certified Medication Technician (CMT) O said to the resident, I see the food all over your shirt, what did you eat to day?, and walked away from the resident.
Observation on 11/20/19, at 3:15 P.M., showed the resident in the entry hall. Observation showed the resident has a red substance on his/her shirt, and a discolored yellow area on the crotch of his/her gray pants.
4. Review of Resident #34's admission MDS, dated [DATE], showed the following:
-Severe cognitive impairment;
-Requires limited physical assistance of one staff member with bed mobility, locomotion on and off unit, and transfers;
-Requires extensive physical assistance of one staff member with bathing.
Review of the resident's care plan, dated 4/28/19, showed the following:
-Requires assist of one staff member with bathing;
-Requires set up from staff with grooming and hygiene;
-Ensure the resident is properly groomed at all times,
Review of the resident's quarterly MDS, dated [DATE], showed the following:
-Severe cognitive impairment;
-Wandering present 1-3 days out of seven;
-Independent with bed mobility, and transfers;
-Requires staff supervision and cueing for hygiene;
-Requires extensive physical assistance of one staff member with bathing.
Review of the resident's bath record, dated 11/1/19-11/22/19, showed no documentation staff provided bathing from 11/1/19-11/9/19, or 11/13/19-11/22/19.
Observation on 11/19/19, at 11:34 A.M., showed the resident in the 100 hall in his/her wheelchair. The resident's hair was oily, uncombed, and the resident has long hairs on his/her neck and chin.
Observation on 11/20/19, at 8:23 A.M. and 11:51 A.M. , showed the resident sat at the dining room table in his/her wheelchair. The resident's hair was oily, uncombed, and the resident has long hairs on his/her neck and chin.
Observation on 11/20/19, at 2:45 P.M., showed the resident lay in his/her bed. The resident's hair was oily, the resident has long hairs on his/her neck and chin, and food particles from lunch on his/her shirt.
Observation on 11/21/19, at 11:57 A.M., showed the resident sat at the dining room table in his/her wheelchair. The resident's hair was oily, uncombed, and the resident has long hairs on his/her neck and chin.
5. During an interview on 11/27/19, at 1:30 P.M., Certified Nurse Assistant (CNA) J said:
-Baths are assigned in the morning by the charge nurse;
-Staff are expected to shave the residents on the bath days and as needed;
-After meals staff are supposed to make sure residents do not have food on their clothing or hands, or they need to clean them up;
-He/She does not know why some of the baths are not done.
During an interview on 11/27/19, at 1:37 P.M., CNA I said:
-Baths are assigned every day based on the shower list;
-Staff are expected to document the shower on a paper shower sheet;
-Residents are shaved when the need it;
-Residents should be cleaned up after meals if their clothing is soiled.
During an interview on 11/27/19, at 1:42 P.M., CNA L said:
-there is a shower book and it list the residents shower days;
-Residents should always get their baths;
-The charge nurses make sure everyone gets their baths.
During an interview on 11/22/19 at 8:45 A.M., Registered Nurse (RN) H said:
-Charge nurse assigns the baths every morning;
-Used to get paper shower sheets but thought they now document electronically;
-He/She was not sure who monitored to ensure residents get their showers.
6. During interview on 11/26/19 at 12:00 P.M. the Director of Nursing said the following:
-Staff should groom residents every day and provide showers at least two times weekly;
-Staff should wash residents' hands and face every morning before breakfast;
-Staff should shave residents daily or as needed;
-Staff should change residents' soiled clothing as needed;
-If a resident's care plan directed staff to assist the resident they should do so.
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Incontinence Care
(Tag F0690)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to provide appropriate treatment and services consistent ...
Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to provide appropriate treatment and services consistent with acceptable standards of practice to prevent and treat urinary tract infections (UTIs) for one resident of 16 sampled residents (Resident #151) who had an indwelling urinary catheter (a sterile tube inserted into the bladder to drain urine). The facility identified one resident with an indwelling urinary catheter. The facility census was 53.
1. Review of the facility's undated policy for Urinary Catheter Care showed the following:
-Certified Nursing Assistants (CNA) should do catheter and perineal care with A.M. and P.M. care, after each bowel movement, and as needed (PRN):
a. Always wash hands before and after handling the catheter, tube or bag and wear gloves following standard precautions for infection control;
b. Clean the area where the catheter was inserted by wiping away from the insertion site to prevent germs from being moved from the anus (the opening from which feces is removed from the body) to the urethra (duct from which
urine is conveyed out of the body);
c. Hold the end of the catheter tube to to keep it from being pulled while cleaning;
d. Wash the catheter with soapy water to remove any blood or other materials from the catheter wiping downwards from the urethra. Avoid frequent and vigorous cleaning at the entry point;
e. Do not use powder around the catheter insertion site;
f. Check for irritation, redness, tenderness, swelling, drainage, or leaking around the catheter entry site and report to the charge nurse if noted;
-Catheter tubing and bag:
a. Check frequently to be sure there were no kinks or loops in the tubing and that the resident was not lying on the tubing. Tubing should be secured to keep from falling onto the floor;
b. To prevent the catheter from being pulled out, secure the catheter tubing to the thigh without tension on the tubing;
c. Keep the bag below the level of the resident's bladder at all times;
d. Use a catheter bag cover to protect the resident's dignity while in bed or up in the wheelchair/chair
2. Review of Resident #151's face sheet showed the following:
-admission date 1/3/19;
-Diagnoses of retention of urine, urinary tract infection and dementia.
Review of the resident Physician's Order Sheet (POS) dated 4/5/19 showed indwelling urinary catheter and change monthly related to urinary retention.
Review of the resident's nurse's note dated 6/18/19 showed staff documented the resident complained of abdominal pain, had decreased urinary output and was despondent. The physician ordered a urinalysis. The resident's urinary catheter was removed with immediate urine output of approximately 500 milliliters (ml) of straw colored urine and bloody urine. A sterile urinary catheter was inserted, urine sample obtained and sent to the laboratory. Total output following urinary catheter insertion was 1575 ml of bloody urine.
Review of the resident's urinalysis report dated 6/18/19 showed the following:
-Clarity: cloudy (normal - clear);
-Blood: 3+ (normal - negative);
-White Blood Cells (WBCs fight infection): greater than 100 cells per high power field (HPF) (area visible under the maximum magnification power of microscope) (normal - 0-2/hpf);
-Red Blood Cells (RBCs): greater than 100 cells per HPF (normal - 0-2/hpf);
-Bacteria: 1+ (normal - negative) (indicates infection);
-Culture: greater than 100,000 proteus mirabilis (a type microorganism growing in the urine and the source of the urinary tract infection) (normal - no growth);
-Sensitivity report: susceptible to numerous antibiotics (list of antibiotic medications to treat the urinary tract infection).
Review of the resident's medical record showed no documentation the physician was notified of the resident's urinalysis results or the culture and sensitivity report.
Review of the resident's nurse's note dated 6/19/19 showed staff documented the resident was sleeping at the dining room table, attempted to arouse the resident without success. Blood pressure was 92/45 millimeters of mercury (mmHg) (normal 120/80 mmHg). The physician was notified and orders received to transfer the resident to the hospital for evaluation and treatment.
Review of the resident's POS dated 6/19/19 showed send to the hospital for evaluation and treatment.
Review of the resident's nurse's note dated 6/24/19 showed staff documented the resident returned to the facility.
Review of the resident's physician history and physical dated 6/25/19 showed the following:
-Diagnosis of complicated urinary tract infection (UTI);
-Late onset Alzheimer's disease, chronic kidney disease, urine retention;
-hospitalized for UTI, completing two additional days of Vantin (antibiotic mediation) 200 mg daily for two days.
Review of the resident's quarterly MDS Minimum Data Set (MDS) a federally mandated assessment instrument, completed by facility staff, dated 8/8/19 showed the following;
-Moderately impaired cognition;
-Required limited assistance of one staff member with bed mobility, dressing, toileting and personal hygiene;
-Required an indwelling urinary catheter;
-Occasionally incontinent of bowel.
Review of the resident's care plan dated 8/20/19 showed the following:
-The resident required an indwelling urinary catheter. Staff should record any urine discoloration or odor and report to the charge nurse immediately. Staff should monitor for urine infection. No staff direction regarding care, cleaning or positioning of the indwelling urinary catheter, drainage bag and tubing;
-The resident required staff assistance with bathing, grooming and hygiene to remain clean and free from body odor, properly groomed and washed up for the day at all times. No staff direction regarding incontinence care.
Review of the resident's nurse's note dated 9/2/19 showed staff documented the resident acted lethargic, blood pressure 178/65. Resident said he/she did not feel good. Skin color was pale. Speech somewhat slurred. Urinary catheter draining yellow urine. Physician notified and new orders for laboratory testing and urinalysis. Started on Cipro (antibiotic medication often used as UTI treatment) 250 mg twice daily for three days. Urine specimen was obtained and sent to the laboratory.
Review of the resident's POS dated 9/2/19 showed Cipro 250 mg twice daily for three days.
Review of the resident's urinalysis report dated 9/2/19 showed the following:
-Clarity: cloudy (normal - clear);
-Blood: 1+ (normal - negative);
-WBCs: greater than 100 /HPF (normal - 0-2/hpf);
-RBCs: 26-50/HPF (normal - 0-2/hpf);
-Bacteria: 3+ (normal - negative) (indicated infection).
Review of the resident's POS dated 9/4/19 showed continue Cipro 250 mg twice daily for four additional days.
Review of the resident's physician progress note dated 9/4/19 showed the resident was not acting him/herself and was difficult to arouse. Urinalysis was suspicious for UTI which he/she had in the past. Started on Cipro for complicated UTI.
Review of the resident's nurse's note dated 10/19/19 showed the resident said he wanted to kill him/herself. Resident sent to hospital for evaluation.
Review of the resident's hospital Discharge summary dated [DATE] showed the following:
-Diagnosis of chronic kidney disease;
-UTI with treatment of Rocephin (antibiotic medication).
Observation on 11/21/19 at 7:15 A.M. showed the following:
-Certified Nurse Assistant (CAN) J obtained disposable wipes and washed the resident's front perineal area and urinary catheter tubing from the distal end (furthest away from the resident's body) toward the catheter insertion site. CNA J did not wash the resident's skin folds around the catheter insertion site;
-CNA J turned the resident to his/her side, washed the resident's buttocks, turned the resident to his/her back and placed the urinary catheter drainage bag on the bed. The tubing contained urine;
-CNA J threaded the urinary drainage bag and tubing through the resident's clean incontinence brief as he/she raised the urinary drainage bag above the level of the resident's bladder. Urine ran from the drainage bag tubing toward the resident's bladder. He/She laid the drainage bag on the bed and pulled up the resident's incontinence brief. Urine ran from the resident's bladder down into the tubing;
-CNA J threaded the urinary drainage bag and tubing through the resident's pants as he/she raised the urinary drainage bag above the level of the resident's bladder. Urine ran from the drainage bag tubing toward the resident's bladder. He/she laid the drainage bag on the bed and urine ran from the resident's bladder down into the tubing;
-Restorative Aide (RA) M entered the room and assisted CNA J reposition the resident's clothing and drainage bag tubing and transferred the resident to a wheelchair;
-CNA J placed the urinary catheter drainage bag under the resident's wheelchair in a privacy pouch. The drainage bag tubing extended out the bottom of the resident's pant leg and laid on the floor;
-CNA J pushed the resident's wheelchair to the dining room dragging the urinary drainage bag tubing on the floor.
Observation on 11/21/19 at 10:30 A.M. showed the resident sat in the wheelchair in the facility common area. His/her urinary drainage bag tubing laid on the floor under the wheelchair.
During interview on 11/26/19 at 12:00 P.M. the Director of Nursing said the following:
-Staff should wash all the resident's genitalia parts while providing urinary catheter care and wash all surrounding skin folds;
-Staff should maintain the urinary catheter and drainage bag tubing below the level of the bladder at all times and off the floor;
-Staff should clean the resident with an indwelling catheter well to prevent pain and infection;
-Elevating the resident's drainage bag above the level of the bladder allowed urine to run back into the bladder and cause infection;
-The resident had a history of UTI and this practice could attribute to chronic UTI's.
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0692
(Tag F0692)
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 identify weight loss, notify the physician and dietic...
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 identify weight loss, notify the physician and dietician of further weight loss, implement interventions, provide quarterly dietitian visits, provide adequate servings of food and fluids, and evaluate effectiveness of the interventions for one resident (Resident #34), who had significant weight loss and signs of dehydration, in a review of 16 sampled residents. The facility census was 53.
1. Review of the facility's policy Weight Loss, undated, showed the following:
-Ensure each resident maintains parameters of body weight unless the resident's clinical condition demonstrates that this is not possible;
-Ensure each resident is weighed monthly or as ordered by the physician;
-Ensure all residents with unplanned weight loss are monitored the physician and dietitian;
-Monitor all residents with unplanned weight loss to ensure interventions and documentation are appropriate;
-Monitor intake records to ensure they are recorded appropriately;
-Notify the physician, dietitian, a family member and the Minimum Data Set (MDS) nurse and document in the medical record;
-Schedule the resident to be weighted weekly or more frequently as ordered by the physician or dietitian;
-The dietitian will review weights and calculate weight losses:
a. 5% weight loss in one month;
b. 7.5% weight loss in three months;
c. 10% weight loss in six months;
-Every resident assessment triggering weight loss is investigated by the care plan team;
-Ensure weight loss is addressed by the care plan team and a comprehensive care plan is developed for weight loss that includes:
a. Evaluation and interventions by the dietitian;
b. Evaluation of all medications;
c. Monitoring of intake and weight;
-Perform audits of the facility's weight loss documentation, care planning, interventions, and staff practices to ensure:
a. Physician, dietitian, resident and family are notified of weight loss;
b. dietary progress notes address weight loss;
c. Care plans and interventions are appropriate for nutritional status.
2. Review of the facility's policy Hydration, undated, showed the following:
-Ensure each resident is provided with sufficient fluid intake to maintain proper hydration and health;
-Monitor for signs and symptoms of dehydration, and notify physician if symptoms are observed;
-Initiate an acute care plan for dehydration if a resident is observed to be at risk and whenever a condition is present that places the resident at risk such as:
a. Excessive urine output;
b. Vomiting;
c. Excessive sweating;
d. Presence of infection of fever;
e. Frequent use of laxatives, enemas, diuretics;
f. Swallowing problems;
-Ensure residents are provided with adequate fluid;
-Remind and assist residents to drink fluids several times per shift by encouraging oral in take each time staff are in the resident's room;
-Follow each resident's care plan for providing fluids and monitoring intake and output;
-Inform the charge nurse if the resident exhibits the following signs that he/she may be dehydrated such as:
a. Increased thirst;
b. Low fluid intake;
c. Dry mouth or skin;
d. Poor skin turgor (elasticity of the skin);
e. Dark concentrated or strong-smelling urine;
g. Low urine output;
-Ensure each resident has fresh water within reach;
-Check with the charge nurse if the resident is on thickened liquids;
-Refill each resident's water pitcher with fresh ice and water every shift and as needed.
3. Review of Resident #34's admission Minimum Data Set (MDS), a federally mandated assessment, dated 4/26/19, showed the following:
-Severe cognitive impairment;
-Required set up assistance for eating;
-Weighed 142 pounds (lbs);
-Mechanically altered diet;
(Nutrition triggered the facility to care plan the resident for nutrition risk, the facility did not indicate it was addressed on the care plan.)
Review of the resident's care plan, dated 4/28/19, showed the following:
-Required assist of one staff member with eating;
-Nectar thick water (additive in drinks to thicken the consistency) in the resident's room at all times;
-Pureed food and nectar thick liquids;
The care plan did not identify directions for staff regarding the resident's nutritional risk.
Review of the resident's physician's orders, dated 4/13/19, showed the resident's diet order is pureed (ground to a smooth texture) with nectar thick liquids related to Parkinson's (medical condition that causes tremors and swallowing issues).
Review of the resident's weight record showed the following:
-On 4/13/19, the resident weighed 142.2 lbs;
-On 5/1/19, the resident weighed 132.6 lbs (loss of 9.6 lbs, 6.75% significant weight loss in less than 30 days).
Review of the resident's progress note, dated 8/23/19, showed the nurse practitioner documented:
-Weight loss;
-Weight 142 lbs in April and 135 lbs now.
Review of the resident's weight record showed on 10/4/19, the resident weighed 129.2 lbs (a 9.14 % weight loss since 4/13/19).
Review of the resident's registered dietitian note, dated 10/16/19, showed the following:
-Current weight 129.2 lbs;
-Pureed diet with nectar thickened liquids;
-No nutritional interventions;
-Noted weight loss of 10 lbs over the past six months (7.2%);
-Suggest Medpass (a dietary supplement to promote weight gain) 60 milliliters (ml) three times a day for additional calories and protein.
Review of the resident's medication administration records, dated October 2019, showed Medpass 2.0, 90 ml administered three times a day on 10/18/19-10/20/19, and one time on 10/21/19, then discontinued. The record did not show why the Medpass stopped.
Review of the resident's quarterly MDS, dated [DATE], showed the following:
-Severe cognitive impairment;
-Required set up assistance for eating;
-Weighed 129 lbs;
-Mechanically altered diet.
Review of the resident's weight record showed on 11/4/19, the resident weighed 123.8 lbs (an 11.06 % weight loss since 4/27/19).
Review of the resident's registered dietitian note, dated 11/14/19, showed the following:
-Resident experienced a significant weight loss over three months (8.6%);
-Current weight 123.8 lbs;
-Pureed diet with nectar thickened liquids;
-Consumption at meals was usually good;
-Resident feeds himself/herself in the main dining room;
-Suggest Medpass 60 ml three times a day for additional calories and protein.
Review of the resident's physician orders, dated November 2019, showed no order for Medpass.
Review of the resident's Mediation Administration Record, dated November 2019, showed no evidence staff administered Medpass supplement.
Review of the facility spreadsheet menu for lunch on 11/19/19, showed staff were to serve residents on a pureed diet meatloaf, mashed potatoes and gravy, peas, bread and butter, and cheesecake.
Observations on 11/19/19 between 11:55 P.M. and 12:12 P.M., showed the following:
-Staff served the resident a pureed diet on a regular plate and one glass of nectar thick liquids;
-The resident did not receive bread and butter that was on the menu;
-Portions appeared visually small;
-The resident consumed 100%;
-The resident picked up his/her plate and licked it clean;
-The resident's glass was empty and the resident continued to raise the glass to his/her mouth to drink;
-The resident's face was sunken around his/her eyes and cheeks;
-The resident's lips were dry and cracked.
Observation on 11/19/19 at 2:14 P.M., showed the resident did not have a water pitcher or fluids in his/her room.
Observations on 11/19/19 showed the staff did not offer any additional food or fluids.
Observation on 11/20/19 at 8:23 A.M., showed the resident consumed 50% of his/her breakfast, and had one empty glass.
Observation on 11/20/19 at 10:23 A.M., showed the resident did not have a water pitcher or fluids in his/her room.
Observation on 11/2019 on 11:39 A.M., showed the menu posted outside the dining room read: Old Bay Seasoned Fish, Roasted Potato Medley, bread with margarine, spinach Au Gratin, lemon pudding with topping.
Observations on 11/20/19 between 11:41 A.M. and 12:45 A.M., showed the following:
-The resident sat at the dining room table;
-The resident's face was sunken around his/her eyes and cheeks;
-The resident's lips were dry and cracked;
-Staff served the resident a glass with red nectar thick fluid;
-Staff served the resident his/her food on a divided plate. The resident received pureed fish, pureed potatoes, and pureed carrots. The portions appeared small, and staff did not serve bread and margarine;
-The resident's plate slid around the table when the resident attempted to load his/her utensils;
-At 12:04 P.M., the resident loaded each bite of food onto his/her fork with his/her fingers;
-The resident consumed all of his/her drink. The resident fully tilted his/her glass and only a drop came out of the glass;
-The resident consumed all of his/her food;
-At 12:25 P.M., the resident picked up his/her empty glass again and tried to take a drink. He/She tapped the bottom of the glass with his/her other hand;
-The resident left the dining room without any more to drink.
-Observations on 11/20/19 showed the staff did not offer any additional food or fluids.
Observation on 11/21/19, at 6:00 A.M., showed the resident lay in bed. The resident did not have a water pitcher or fluids in his/her room.
Observation on 11/21/19, at 1:46 P.M., showed the following:
-CNA I provided care for the resident in his/her room;
-The resident did not have water or fluids to drink in his/her room;
-The CNA did not offer the resident any fluids to drink.
Observation on 11/21/19 at 11:45 A.M., showed the menu posted outside the dining room read sweet onion cranberry chicken, twisted mac pasta salad, cheesy corn, bread with margarine, chunky monkey brownie.
Observation on 11/21/19 at 11:57 A.M., showed the following:
-The resident sat at the dining room table;
-The resident's face was sunken around his/her eyes and cheeks;
-The resident's lips were dry and cracked;
-Staff served the resident a pureed meal. The resident received meat with gravy, mashed potatoes with gravy, and vegetable on a divided plate;
-Staff did not serve the resident a drink or bread with margarine.
Observations on 11/21/19 showed the staff did not offer any additional food or fluids.
During an interview on 11/27/19, at 1:20 P.M., restorative certified nurse assistant (RNA) M said the following:
-Dietary and nursing staff serve the drinks in the dining room;
-Staff are expected to give the residents an 8 ounce (oz) (240 ml) drink;
-Staff are expected to ask if the residents want refills and water;
-Dietary staff give residents with thickened liquids an 8 oz glass of fluids;
-Staff are expected to give residents with thickened liquids a 180 milliliter cup of prethickened liquids each morning, evening, and night.
During an interview on 11/27/19, at 1:30 P.M., CNA J said the following:
-Staff are expected to give residents two fluids (480 ml), a water and whatever else they want at meals. The residents should have a water and another drink; ;
-Dietary staff prepare thickened liquids during the meals;
-Staff pass the ice water in the rooms every shift. Staff pass 180 ml cups of prethickened liquids to residents on thickened liquids;
-Staff are expected to give residents a drink every time they provide care.
During an interview on 11/27/19, at 1:37 P.M., CNA I said the following:
-Residents should have two drinks (480 ml) at every meal;
-All residents should have a water pitcher in their room filled every shift, except for residents on thickened liquids. Staff give 4 oz (120 ml) of thickened liquids one time each shift.
During an interview on 11/22/19 at 9:14 A.M., Registered Nurse (RN) H said the following:
-Staff obtain the resident's weights every month;
-The dietitian evaluates the weights every month;
-The director of nursing (DON) notifies the charge nurses if there are recommendations, and who is a weight loss;
-The charge nurses obtain any orders requested, carry the orders through, and notify the resident/family member;
-The residents with weight loss are usually put on weekly weights, and it is on their care plan so staff know who they are;
-She was not aware the resident lost 20 lbs since admission;
-Staff should serve residents in the dining room a glass of water and another drink of their choice;
-Dietary staff serve thickened liquids to the residents;
-Residents should have fresh ice and water in their rooms at all times. Staff pass water each shift;
-Staff are to put thickened liquids in the residents' rooms;
-Staff should offer residents a drink each time they provide care, so at least every two hours.
During an interview on 11/22/19 at 11:04 A.M., the Registered Dietitian (RD) said the following:
-The facility did not report the resident's weight loss in May;
-The resident lost 6.75% in May, which is a significant weight loss, so he/she should have seen the resident;
-She was not sure why she did not see the resident, normally she would have looked at him/her;
-She comes to the facility twice a month. She looks at newly admitted residents on the first visit and looks at everyone else mid month;
-The resident did not get evaluated quarterly because she was not sure how to pull the information for who is due so she missed evaluating some of the residents;
-The resident did not have a quarterly visit in July like he/she should have;
-She recommended Medpass in October;
-She did not know it was administered for three days on one shift and then discontinued. She does not have access to the medication administration record;
-She recommended Medpass again in November because she did not see it on the resident's orders;
-She expected staff to try a different supplement if what she recommended did not work;
-If she had known the Medpass did not work, she would have made a different recommendation;
-If there are complicated issues like the resident's blood sugar, the staff are expected to call her;
-The resident lost 20 lbs since April;
-The recommendations are electronically sent to the dietary manager and DON;
-The DON and dietary manager ensure the recommendations are carried through;
-If a resident has weight loss or is at risk for weight loss, it is expected the facility has addressed it on the care plan;
-The resident should have been on a supplement before he/she lost 20 lbs;
-The staff are expected to notify her or the physician with a 20 lb weight loss. She was not notified.
During an interview on 12/5/19, at 1:30 P.M., the resident's physician said the following:
-He was not notified about the resident's weight loss;
-The facility did not know about the weight loss because they did not have a system in place and the facility had problems with the electronic medical record because it was not working right for them;
-The dietitian should have seen the resident in May with the 6.75% weight loss, and quarterly;
-Staff should notify him and the dietitian of weight loss;
-He did not know why the Medpass was discontinued in October;
-The facility did not have a system in place to monitor the resident's weights;
-Staff should offer at least 2 liters (2,000 ml) of fluids to every resident every day;
-Staff should update care plans when a resident has weight loss to ensure all staff know what to do for the resident.
CONCERN
(E)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0567
(Tag F0567)
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 ensure each resident was afforded the right to manage his/her finan...
Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review and interview, the facility failed to ensure each resident was afforded the right to manage his/her financial affairs, when the facility failed to advise residents of money held in the facility operating account that belonged to the resident. The facility failed to deposit funds in excess of $100 in an interest bearing account that was separate from any of the facility's operating accounts, and credit all interest earned on resident funds to that account. The deficient practice affected 27 residents (Residents #1, #4, #6, #11, #13, #14, #16, #17, #21, #23, #28, #38, #40, #149, #151, #301, #302, #303, #304, #305, #306, #307, #308, #309, #310, #311, and #312 ). The facility census was 53.
1. Record review of the facility's maintained Accounts Receivable Aging Report for the period [DATE] through [DATE], showed the following residents with personal funds held in the facility operating account:
-Resident #14 had $4,818.41;
-Resident #6 had $4,775.04;
-Resident #40 had $565.75;
-Resident #312 (resident expired [DATE]) had $6,000;
-Resident #301 had $1,875.35;
-Resident #11 had $110.81;
-Resident #302 (resident discharged [DATE]) had $9,000;
-Resident #303 had $852.50;
-Resident #28 had $2,682.18;
-Resident #304 (resident expired [DATE]) had $1,021.60;
-Resident #305 (resident expired [DATE]) had $1,828.38;
-Resident #306 had $2,000;
-Resident #307 (resident discharged [DATE]) had $200;
-Resident #308 (resident discharged [DATE]) had $454.29;
-Resident #4 had $994.12;
-Resident #13 had $4,716.82;
-Resident #309 (resident expired [DATE]) had $3,711.50;
-Resident #16 had $4,574.47;
-Resident #310 (resident expired [DATE]) had $856.64;
-Resident #311 (resident expired [DATE]) had $1,969.33;
-Total resident funds in the facility's operating account was $53,007.19.
During an interview on [DATE] at 11:24 A.M., the chief financial officer (CFO) said he/she was unaware resident money should be in an interest bearing account separate from the operating account.
During an interview on [DATE] at 3:37 P.M., the CFO said Residents #6, #301, #28, #4, #13 and #16's families requested their money be in the operating account (per the bookkeeper).
During an interview on [DATE] at 4:38 P.M., the administrator said Resident #6, #301, #28, #4, #13 and #16's families requested their money to be held in the operating account to pay for future expenses incurred at the facility. The administrator said there was no written documentation to confirm the requests for holding the residents' money.
During an interview on [DATE] at 3:37 P.M., the CFO said the residents' money was still in the facility's operating account because the accounting program wasn't working. He/She said he/she noticed things weren't working right in September but was unable to get the developer onsite for training until [DATE].
2. Review of the resident trust fund ledgers ending [DATE] showed Resident #17 (private pay) had $120.00. Review showed no evidence the resident's money was deposited into an interest-bearing account.
During an interview on [DATE] at 5:13 P.M., the business officer manager said Resident #17's money was only maintained in petty cash.
Review of the resident trust fund ledgers for February 2019, showed the following:
-On [DATE], Resident #21 (private pay) had $120.00;
-On [DATE], Resident #23 (Medicaid) had $741.00;
-On [DATE], Resident #1 (Medicaid) had $1,169.06.
Review of the resident trust fund ledgers showed no evidence interest was applied to any of the residents' accounts.
Review of the resident trust fund bank statements ending [DATE],showed no interest was applied to the balance in the account.
Review of the resident trust fund ledgers for [DATE], showed the following:
-On [DATE], Resident #151 (Medicaid) had a cash deposit of $50.00. His/Her account balance in the petty cash was $64.02;
-Resident #23 had $741.00;
-Resident #1 had $1,169.06.
Review of the resident trust fund ledgers showed no evidence interest was applied to any of the residents' accounts.
Review of the resident trust fund bank statements ending [DATE], showed no interest was applied to the balance in the account.
Review of the resident trust fund ledgers for [DATE], [DATE], and [DATE] showed the following:
-Resident #23 had $741.00;
-Resident #1 had $1,169.06.
Review of the resident trust fund ledgers showed no evidence interest was applied to any of the residents' accounts.
Review of the resident trust fund bank statements ending [DATE], [DATE], and [DATE], showed no interest was applied to the balance in the account.
Review of the resident trust fund ledgers for [DATE], showed the following:
-Resident #151 had $264.21;
-Resident #23 had $741.00;
-Resident #1 had $1,269.06.
Review of the resident trust fund ledgers showed no evidence interest was applied to any of the residents' accounts.
Review of the resident trust fund bank statement ending [DATE], showed no interest was applied to the balance in the account.
Review of the resident trust fund ledgers for [DATE], showed the following:
-Resident #151 had $314.21;
-Resident #23 had $741.00;
-Resident #1 had $1,319.06
-Resident #149 (private pay) had $150.00;
Review of the resident trust fund ledgers showed no evidence interest was applied to any of the residents' accounts.
Review of the resident trust fund bank statement ending [DATE], showed no interest was applied to the balance in the account.
Review of the resident trust fund ledgers for [DATE], showed the following:
-Resident #151 had $348.21;
-Resident #23 had $741.00;
-Resident #1 had $1,369.06;
-Resident #149 had $150.00;
Review of the resident trust fund ledgers showed no evidence interest was applied to any of the residents' accounts.
Review of the resident trust fund bank statement ending [DATE], showed no interest was applied to the balance in the account.
Review of the resident trust fund ledgers for [DATE], showed the following:
-Resident #151 had $398.21;
-Resident #23 had $741.00;
-Resident #1 had $1,419.06;
-Resident #149 had $150.00;
-Resident #38 (Medicaid) had $150.00.
Review of the resident trust fund ledgers showed no evidence interest was applied to any of the residents' accounts.
Review of the resident trust fund bank statement ending [DATE], showed no interest was applied to the balance in the account.
During an interview on [DATE] at 4:30 P.M., the chief financial officer said the resident trust fund bank account was not an interest bearing account.
CONCERN
(E)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0568
(Tag F0568)
Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents
Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to maintain a system that assured a complete accounting of each resident's personal funds, in accordance with generally accepting accounting p...
Read full inspector narrative →
Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to maintain a system that assured a complete accounting of each resident's personal funds, in accordance with generally accepting accounting principles for nine residents (Residents #1, #17, #21, #23, #38, #149, #151, #350, and #351) who elected for the facility to keep their money in the resident trust since February 2019. The facility failed to reconcile the resident trust fund ledgers with the reconciled bank statements and petty cash reconciliations and failed to reconcile petty cash totals monthly. The facility also failed to provide three residents (Residents #1, #38, and #151) with their monthly personal spending allowance. The facility census was 53.
1. Review of the residents' trust fund ledgers for February 2019 showed a total of $2,054.06 in the resident trust fund account. The residents' ledgers did not differentiate between the amounts maintained in petty cash and in the resident trust fund bank account. (The facility identified Resident #350, Resident #351, Resident #17, Resident #151, and Resident #21's money was maintained in the petty cash fund. Based on this information, the resident's petty cash total was $144.00, and the bank account was $1,910.06.)
Review of the resident trust bank statement for February 2019, showed an ending balance of $1,983.06. (The resident trust fund ledger for money maintained in the bank account totaled $1,910.06, a difference of $73.00.)
Review showed the facility did not reconcile petty cash totals with the resident ledgers monthly. Review showed the facility did not reconcile the resident ledgers (resident trust account and petty cash) with the reconciled bank statements and petty cash reconciliation.
Review of the residents' trust fund ledgers for March 2019 showed a total of $2,034.27 in the resident trust fund account. The residents' ledgers did not differentiate between the amounts maintained in petty cash and in the resident trust fund bank account. (The facility identified Resident #350, Resident #351, Resident #17, Resident #151, Resident #21, and Resident #17's money was maintained in the petty cash fund. Based on this information, the resident's petty cash total was $124.21, and the bank account was $1,910.06.)
Review of the resident trust bank statement for March 2019, showed an ending balance of $1,983.06. (The resident trust fund ledger for money maintained in the bank account totaled $1,910.06, a difference of $73.00.)
Review showed the facility did not reconcile petty cash totals with the resident ledgers monthly. The facility also did not reconcile the monthly resident ledgers with the reconciled bank statements and petty cash reconciliation.
Review of the residents' trust fund ledgers for April 2019 showed a total of $2,018.27 in the resident trust fund account. The residents' ledgers did not differentiate between the amounts maintained in petty cash and in the resident trust fund bank account. (The facility identified Resident #350, Resident #351, Resident #17, Resident #151 and Resident #21's money was maintained in the petty cash fund. Based on this information, the resident's petty cash total was $108.21, and the bank account was $1,910.06.)
Review of the resident trust bank statement for April 2019, showed an ending balance of $1,918.06. (The resident trust fund ledger for money maintained in the bank account totaled $1,910.06, a difference of $8.00.)
Review showed the facility did not reconcile petty cash totals with the resident ledgers monthly. The facility also did not reconcile the monthly resident ledgers with the reconciled bank statements and petty cash reconciliation.
Review of the residents' trust fund ledgers for May 2019 showed a total of $2,071.85 in the resident trust fund account. The residents' ledgers did not differentiate between the amounts maintained in petty cash and in the resident trust fund bank account. (The facility identified Resident #350, Resident #351, Resident #17, Resident #151, and Resident #21's money was maintained in the petty cash fund. Based on this information, the resident's petty cash total was $111.79, and the bank account was $1,960.06.)
Review of the resident trust bank statement for May 2019, showed an ending balance of $1,896.06.
(The resident trust fund ledger for money maintained in the bank account totaled $1,960.06, a difference of $64.00.)
Review showed the facility did not reconcile petty cash totals with the resident ledgers monthly. The facility also did not reconcile the monthly resident ledgers with the reconciled bank statements and petty cash reconciliation.
Review of the residents' trust fund ledgers for June 2019 showed a total of $2,071.85 in the resident trust fund account. The residents' ledgers did not differentiate between the amounts maintained in petty cash and in the resident trust fund bank account. (The facility identified Resident #350, Resident #351, Resident #17, Resident #151, and Resident #21's money was maintained in the petty cash fund. Based on this information, the resident's petty cash total was $111.79, and the bank account was $1,960.06.)
Review of the resident trust bank statement for June 2019, showed an ending balance of $1,996.06.
(The resident trust fund ledger for money maintained in the bank account totaled $1,960.06, a difference of $36.00.)
Review showed the facility did not reconcile petty cash totals with the resident ledgers monthly. The facility also did not reconcile the monthly resident ledgers with the reconciled bank statements and petty cash reconciliation.
Review of the residents' trust fund ledgers for July 2019 showed a total of $2405.85 in the resident trust fund account. The residents' ledgers did not differentiate between the amounts maintained in petty cash and in the resident trust fund bank account. (The facility identified Resident #350, Resident #351, Resident #17, Resident #151, and Resident #21's money was maintained in the petty cash fund. Based on this information, the resident's petty cash total was $111.79, and the bank account was $2294.06.)
Review of the resident trust bank statement for July 2019, showed an ending balance of $2230.06.
(The resident trust fund ledger for money maintained in the bank account showed $2294.06, a difference of $64.00.)
Review showed the facility did not reconcile petty cash totals with the resident ledgers monthly. The facility also did not reconcile the monthly resident ledgers with the reconciled bank statements and petty cash reconciliation.
Review of the residents' trust fund ledgers for August 2019 showed a total of $2621.85 in the resident trust fund account. The residents' ledgers did not differentiate between the amounts maintained in petty cash and in the resident trust fund bank account. (The facility identified Resident #351, Resident #17, Resident #151, and Resident #21's money was maintained in the petty cash fund. Based on this information, the resident's petty cash total was $77.79, and the bank account was $2544.06.)
Review of the resident trust bank statement for August 2019, showed an ending balance of $2330.06.
(The resident trust fund ledger for money maintained in the bank account showed $2544.06, a difference of $214.00.)
Review showed the facility did not reconcile petty cash totals with the resident ledgers monthly. The facility also did not reconcile the monthly resident ledgers with the reconciled bank statements and petty cash reconciliation.
Review of the residents' trust fund ledgers for September 2019 showed a total of $2718.85 in the resident trust fund account. The residents' ledgers did not differentiate between the amounts maintained in petty cash and in the resident trust fund bank account. (The facility identified Resident #17 and Resident #151's money was maintained in the petty cash fund. Based on this information, the resident's petty cash total was $40.79, and the bank account was $2678.06.)
Review of the resident trust bank statement for September 2019, showed an ending balance of $2330.06. (The resident trust fund ledger for money maintained in the bank account showed $2718.85, a difference of $388.69.)
Review showed the facility did not reconcile petty cash totals with the resident ledgers monthly. The facility also did not reconcile the monthly resident ledgers with the reconciled bank statements and petty cash reconciliation.
Review of the residents' trust fund ledgers for October 2019 showed a total of $2868.85 in the resident trust fund account. The residents' ledgers did not differentiate between the amounts maintained in petty cash and in the resident trust fund bank account. (The facility identified Resident #17 and Resident #151's money was maintained in the petty cash fund. Based on this information, the resident's petty cash total was $40.79, and the bank account was $2828.06.)
Review of the resident trust bank statement for October 2019, showed an ending balance of $2266.06. (The resident trust fund ledger for money maintained in the bank account showed $2828.06, a difference of $562.00.)
Review showed the facility did not reconcile petty cash totals with the resident ledgers monthly. The facility also did not reconcile the monthly resident ledgers with the reconciled bank statements and petty cash reconciliation.
During an interview on 11/20/19 at 4:30 P.M., the chief financial officer said she obtained the bank statements from the bank each month and sent them to the facility. She did not reconcile the resident trust fund ledgers with the bank statements.
During an interview on 11/20/19 at 5:15 P.M., the business office manager said she maintains the residents' petty cash in the facility. She does not share the balances of the petty cash with the chief financial officer monthly.
2. Review of the Representative Payee Account ledgers for August 2019 showed the following:
-Resident #151's personal spending allowance in the amount of $50.00 was deposited into the resident trust fund account on 8/16/19;
-Resident #38's personal spending allowance in the amount of $50.00 was deposited into the resident trust fund account on 8/16/19;
-Resident #1's personal spending allowance in the amount of $50.00 was deposited into the resident trust fund account on 8/16/19.
Review of the resident trust fund ledgers showed $50.00 was deposited into the residents' trust fund accounts. The residents did not withdraw any of the monies deposited.
Review of the resident trust bank statement ending 8/30/19, showed a remote/mobile deposit in the amount of $100.00 on 8/27/19. Review showed no further deposits were made during the month. (The facility should have deposited a total of $150.00 into the resident trust fund account for the residents' personal spending allowance.)
Review of the Representative Payee Account ledgers for September 2019 showed the following:
-Resident #151's personal spending allowance in the amount of $50.00 was deposited into the resident trust fund account on 9/15/19;
-Resident #38's personal spending allowance in the amount of $50.00 was deposited into the resident trust fund account on 9/15/19;
-Resident #1's personal spending allowance in the amount of $50.00 was deposited into the resident trust fund account on 9/15/19.
Review of the resident trust fund ledgers showed $50.00 was deposited into the residents' trust fund accounts. The residents did not withdraw the $50.00 received during this month.
Review of the resident trust bank statement ending 9/30/19, showed no deposits were made to the resident fund bank account during the month.
Review of the Representative Payee Account ledgers for October 2019 showed the following:
-Resident #151's personal spending allowance in the amount of $50.00 was deposited into the resident trust fund account on 10/11/19;
-Resident #38's personal spending allowance in the amount of $50.00 was deposited into the resident trust fund account on 10/11/19;
-Resident #1's personal spending allowance in the amount of $50.00 was deposited into the resident trust fund account on 10/11/19.
Review of the resident trust fund ledgers showed $50.00 was deposited into the residents' trust fund accounts. The residents did not withdraw any of the personal spending monies received.
Review of the resident trust bank statement ending 10/31/19, showed no deposits were made to the resident fund bank account during the month.
During an interview on 11/25/19 at 11:34 A.M., the chief financial officer said the facility is representative payee for Residents #1, #38 and #151. The residents' social security checks are deposited into a facility account (not the resident trust). She is to complete an internal transfer to the deposit the residents' personal spending allowance from the facility account into the resident trust fund account. She did not transfer the residents' personal spending allowances to the resident trust fund in August, September or October 2019.
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 provide a final accounting of individual resident fund balances mai...
Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review and interview, the facility failed to provide a final accounting of individual resident fund balances maintained in the facility's operating account within 30 days to the individual or probate jurisdiction administering the resident's estate, in accordance with state law, for ten residents (Residents #302, #304, #305, #309, #310, #311, #312, #313, #314, and #315). The facility census was 53.
Record review of the facility's maintained Accounts Receivable Aging Report for the period [DATE] through [DATE], showed the following residents with personal funds held in the facility operating account:
-Resident #302 (deceased [DATE]), $9000.00;
-Resident #304 (deceased [DATE]), $1021.60;
-Resident #305 (deceased [DATE]), $1828.38;
-Resident #309 (deceased [DATE]), $3711.50;
-Resident #310 (deceased [DATE]), $1531.00;
-Resident #311 (deceased [DATE]), $1969.33;
-Resident #312 (deceased [DATE]), $6000.00;
-Resident #313 (deceased [DATE]), $1570.53;
-Resident #314 (deceased [DATE]), $5000.00;
-Resident #315 (deceased [DATE]), $7400.00.
During an interview on [DATE] at 3:37 P.M., the chief financial officer said the residents' money was still in the facility's operating account because the accounting program wasn't working. He/She noticed things weren't working right in September but was unable to get the developer onsite for training until [DATE].
During an interview on [DATE] at 4:01 P.M., the administrator said she did not know the facility needed to contact the state agency after a resident was deceased and to send an accounting of the resident's remaining funds.
CONCERN
(E)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0637
(Tag F0637)
Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to complete a significant change in status assessment (SC...
Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to complete a significant change in status assessment (SCSA) Minimum Data Set (MDS), a federally mandated assessment instrument required to be completed by facility staff, for three residents (Residents #34, #41 and #18) in a review of 16 sampled residents, within 14 days after the facility determined, or should have determined, there had been a significant change in the resident's physical or mental condition which had an impact on more than one area of the resident's health status and required interdisciplinary review and/or revision of the care plan. The facility census was 53.
1. During interview on 11/26/19 at 12:00 P.M. the Director of Nursing (DON) said the facility followed the RAI 3.0 process for completion of all MDS assessments. Staff should complete a significant change MDS when there were two or more areas of change either improvement or decline and the change was sustained.
2. Review of the Long Term Care Facility RAI User's Manual, version 3.0 showed a significant change is a decline or improvement in a resident's status that:
-Will not normally resolve itself without intervention by staff or by implementing standard disease-related clinical interventions, is not self-limiting;
-Impacts more than one area of the resident's health status;
-Requires interdisciplinary review and/or revision the care plan.
The manual also showed a SCSA was appropriate if there was a consistent pattern of changes, with either two or more areas of decline, or two or more areas of improvement. This may include two changes within a particular domain (e.g., two areas of ADL decline or improvement).
Guidelines for determining significant change in resident status included the following:
-Any decline in an ADL physical functioning area where a resident is newly coded as 3, 4, or 8;
-Resident's incontinence pattern changes from 0 or 1 to 2, 3, or 4;
-Emergence of a pressure ulcer at Stage II or higher, when no pressure ulcers were previously present at Stage II or higher;
-Emergence of an unplanned weight loss problem (5% change in 30 days or 10% change in 180 days).
3. Review of Resident #18's quarterly MDS dated [DATE] showed the following:
-Severely impaired cognition;
-Poor appetite or overeating experienced never or one day only;
-Trouble concentrating on things, such as reading the newspaper or watching television experienced never or one day;
-Moving or speaking so slowly that other people could have noticed, or the opposite-being so fidgety or restless that you have been moving around a lot more than usual experienced never;
-Required limited assistance of two staff members with transfers;
-Required limited assistance of one staff member with locomotion on and off the unit;
-Required limited assistance of one staff member with eating;
-Occasionally incontinent of bowel and bladder;
-Weight 128 pounds.
Review of the resident's quarterly MDS dated [DATE] showed the following:
-Short and long term memory problem;
-Poor appetite or overeating experienced seven to eleven days (half or more of the days);
-Trouble concentrating on things, such as reading the newspaper or watching television experienced seven to eleven days (half or more of the days);
-Moving or speaking so slowly that other people could have noticed, or the opposite-being so fidgety or restless that you have been moving around a lot more than usual experienced seven to eleven days (half or more of the days);
-Required extensive assistance of two staff members with transfers;
-Required total assistance of one staff member with locomotion on and off the unit;
-Required total assistance of one staff member with eating;
-Frequently incontinent of bowel and bladder;
-Weight 112 pounds.
Review of the resident's quarterly MDS dated [DATE] showed the following when compared to the previous quarterly MDS dated [DATE]:
-Decline in poor appetite or overeating from never or one day to seven to eleven days (half or more of the days);
-Decline in trouble concentrating on things, such as reading the newspaper or watching television from never or one day to seven to eleven days (half or more of the days);
-Decline in moving or speaking so slowly that other people could have noticed, or the opposite-being so fidgety or restless that you have been moving around a lot more than usual from never or one day to seven to eleven days (half or more of the days);
-Decline in transfers from limited to extensive assistance of one staff member;
-Decline in locomotion on and off the unit from limited assistance to total assistance of one staff member;
-Decline in eating from limited assistance to total assistance of one staff member;
-Decline in continence of bowel and bladder from occasionally incontinent to frequently incontinent;
-12.5 percent weight loss in three months;
-The resident's assessment met the criteria for significant change in status.
Observation of the resident on 11/20/19 showed the following:
-At 11:30 A.M. showed staff transferred the resident to a high back wheelchair and pushed the resident's wheelchair to the dining room. The resident did not assist with maneuvering the wheelchair;
-At 12:00 P.M. the resident sat in the dining room and attempted to eat lunch. He/She was unable to use a fork and ate with his/her fingers at times. Staff assisted throughout the meal;
-At 2:20 P.M. staff toileted the resident and changed his/her urine soiled incontinence brief, transferred the resident back to the wheelchair and pushed the wheelchair to the common television area.
4. Review of Resident #34's admission MDS, dated [DATE], showed the following:
-Severe cognitive impairment;
-Wandering not present;
-Requires limited physical assistance of one staff member with bed mobility, locomotion on and off unit, and transfers.
Review of the resident's quarterly MDS, dated [DATE], showed the following:
-Severe cognitive impairment;
-Wandering present 1-3 days out of seven;
-Independent with bed mobility, locomotion on and off unit, and transfers;
-Two or more non-injury falls since last assessment;
-Two or more injury falls since last assessment.
The facility did not complete a significant change in status assessment when the resident had new wandering behaviors, several falls, and increased independence with his/her bed mobility, locomotion, and transfers.
5. Review of Resident #41's admission MDS, dated [DATE], showed the following:
-Moderate cognitive impairment;
-Requires supervision of staff for bed mobility
-Requires limited assistance of one staff member for transfers, and toilet use;
-No pressure ulcers present.
Review of the resident's 5 day MDS, dated [DATE], showed the following:
-Fall with major injury since last assessment;
-Diagnosis unspecified fracture of right femur;
-Dependent on staff for bed mobility, transfers, and toilet use;
-One Stage I (an observable, pressure related alteration of intact skin, whose indicators include a defined area of persistent redness)and one Stage II (a partial thickness loss of dermis presenting as a shallow open ulcer with a red-pink wound bed) pressure ulcer (a localized injury to the skin and/or underlying tissue usually over a bony prominence, as a result of pressure, or pressure in combination with shear and /or friction) present.
Review of the resident's quarterly MDS, dated [DATE], showed the following:
-Moderate cognitive impairment;
-Requires extensive physical assistance of two or more staff members for bed mobility, transfers, and toilet use.
-One Stage I and one Stage II pressure ulcer present.
The facility did not complete a significant change in status assessment after the resident had a fall with a fracture and surgical repair; decrease in the resident's bed mobility, transfers, and toilet use; and new pressure ulcers.
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, interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure five of 16 sampled residents (Resident #12, #3...
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 five of 16 sampled residents (Resident #12, #34, #45, #151, #253) and two additional residents (Resident #2, and #354) received care in a manner appropriate to address the residents' safety when staff transferred a resident who did not bear weight with a gait belt, transported residents in wheelchairs without foot pedals, failed to follow a resident's plan of care resulting in a fall from bed, or when the facility failed to review interventions/ add appropriate interventions after an incident/accident to prevent further accidents from occurring. The facility's census was 53.
1. Review of the facility's undated Post-Fall Protocol policy showed the following:
-An episode where a resident lost his/her balance and would have fallen were it not for staff intervention, and a fall without an injury were still considered falls;
-When a resident was found on the floor, most logical conclusion was that a fall had occurred. The facility was obligated to investigate and try to determine how he/she got there and put into place an intervention to prevent this from happening again;
-Charge nurses were responsible for completing and following through with an incident report;
-Incident reports were to include the following information;
a. Time and location of the fall;
b. Location of any injuries;
c. Results of head to toe assessment;
d. Vital signs;
e. The cause of the fall if known, resident explanation when possible;
f. Treatment;
g. Post-Fall interventions;
h. Time the family was notified;
i. Time physician was notified;
j. New fall interventions implemented to prevent reoccurrence of falls with the addition to the working care plan. Suggestions included but were not limited to placing the resident in a low bed or providing a floor mat, monitoring the resident for positioning to prevent sliding/falling, providing proper footwear to prevent slipping, therapy consults, and responding to resident's request timely (e.g. toileting).
-The Minimum Data Set (MDS) Coordinator would maintain and update chronological falls log for residents who had fallen;
-The charge nurse/designee would add the new interventions to the Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA) point of care documentation.
Review of the facility's undated policy for transfers and lifts showed the following:
-The facility would ensure that all staff members were instructed on safe transfers and lifting techniques;
-Staff should know the resident's needs
a. The resident's care plan should be very explicit on exactly how the resident was to be transferred and/or lifted. Staff were to discuss any changes that needed to be made to the way the resident was lifted with the charge nurse;
b. Staff were to know the resident's weight bearing status and balance problems;
c. Always transfer to the resident's strongest side;
d. Know the resident's ability to understand and assist. Did the resident have confusion or sensory deficits or was the resident combative;
-Staff were to ensure they had all equipment or assistance available.
2. Review of Resident #151's face sheet showed the following:
-admission date 1/3/19;
-Diagnosis of muscle weakness, stroke and dementia.
Review of the resident's quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) a federally mandated assessment instrument, completed by facility staff, dated 8/8/19 showed the following;
-Moderately impaired cognition;
-Required limited assistance of one staff member with bed mobility, transfers, dressing, toileting and personal hygiene;
-Walking in room and corridor did not occur;
-Not steady, only able to stabilize with staff assistance while moving from seated to standing position, moving on and off the toilet and surface-to-surface transfers;
-Walking and turning around and facing the opposite direction while walking did not occur;
-No falls since admission/entry or reentry or since the prior assessment;
-Required an indwelling urinary catheter;
-Occasionally incontinent of bowel.
Review of the resident's Fall Risk assessment dated [DATE] showed a score of 12 (total score of 10 or above represented HIGH RISK).
Review of the resident's nurse's note dated 8/18/19 showed staff documented the resident was found sitting on the floor next to his/her bed. The resident said he/she was trying to get into bed without assistance and slid down off the side of the bed onto the floor. The resident denied any injury. Two staff members assisted the resident onto the bed.
Review of the resident's incident and accident report dated 8/18/19 showed the following:
-Attempting to transfer self into bed, the call light was not on. The resident sat close to the edge of the bed and slid down the side of the bed onto the floor;
-Interventions: anticipate needs.
Review of the resident's care plan dated 8/20/19 showed the following:
-The resident required assistance of one staff member with bed mobility. Staff should check on the resident every two hours during rounds and assist with repositioning as needed. The resident would push his/her call light for assistance;
-The resident required a wheelchair for mobility and would remain safe and free from injury while in the wheelchair. He/She was independent in locomotion in the wheelchair and could propel self about;
-The resident was a fall risk and would have decreased falls while in the facility. The resident would ask for assistance with transfers from surface to surface;
-The resident had some cognitive loss related to Alzheimer's disease and his/her needs would be met and kept safe. Staff should remind the resident of meal times and the dining room location;
-The resident required one staff member assistance with transfers and would remain safe. Staff should use a gait belt and assist with all transfers. The resident did not walk.
Review of the resident's Fall Risk assessment dated [DATE] showed a total score of 16 (total score of 10 or above represented HIGH RISK). This assessment was 4 points higher than the previous 8/18/19 assessment.
Review of the resident's nurses' note dated 10/6/19 showed staff documented the resident's roommate yelled the resident needed help. Staff observed the resident slide out of the wheelchair onto the floor.
Review of the resident's incident and accident report dated 10/6/19 showed the following:
-The resident's roommate yelled the resident needed help. Staff observed the resident slide out of the wheelchair onto the floor;
-Interventions: resident was assisted to bed by staff with a gait belt.
Review of the resident's care plan showed fall interventions were not reviewed and/or updated following the resident's fall on 10/6/19.
Review of the resident's nurse's note dated 10/9/19 showed staff documented the resident was found in a seated position next to his bed. He/She said he/she was trying to get to the chair but slipped to the floor.
Review of the resident's incident and accident report dated 10/9/19 showed the following:
-The resident was found in a seated position next to his bed. He/She said he/she trying to get to the chair but slipped to the floor;
-Interventions: reminded to use call light all the time.
Review of the resident's care plan updated 10/9/19 showed the resident fell. He/She tried to transfer self to the wheelchair. Staff should remind the resident to ask and wait for assistance. Staff implemented no new fall prevention interventions following the resident's fall on 10/9/19.
Review of the nurses' notes showed no staff documentation the resident fell on [DATE].
Review of the resident's incident and accident report dated 10/12/19 showed the following:
-Staff saw the resident on the floor. The resident said he/she tried to transfer self to the wheelchair;
-Interventions: All fall interventions in place.
Review of the resident's care plan updated 10/12/19 showed the resident fell. He/She tried to transfer self to the wheelchair without assistance. Staff needed to assist the resident to bed.
Review of the resident's nurse's note dated 10/17/19 showed staff documented on 10/16/19 the resident fell while transferring from the wheelchair to bed. He/She was found on the floor. Encouraged resident to use call light when wanting to get in or out of bed to prevent falls.
Review of the resident's incident and accident report dated 10/16/19 showed the following:
-The resident's roommate said the resident was on the floor;
-Interventions: none
Review of the resident's care plan showed fall interventions were not reviewed and/or updated following the 10/16/19 fall.
Review of the resident's nurse's note dated 10/19/19 showed staff documented on 10/19/19 the resident wanted to kill him/herself because he did not want to be at the facility anymore and he/she had pills in his/her room that he/she would take to kill him/herself. After a long discussion the resident showed staff where the pills were and gave them to the staff. Staff notified the physician and the resident was sent to the emergency room for evaluation.
Review of the resident's undated care plan update showed staff documented the resident said he/she wanted to die. Staff should send the resident to the emergency room for evaluation and treatment.
Review of the resident's baseline care dated 10/21/19 showed the following:
-Safety care problems of falls and transfers. The resident required two staff member assistance with transfers;
-Activity and mobility up as desired with assistance;
-Staff documented check the resident's room every 15 minutes for safety.
Review of the resident's care plan showed no additional safety interventions following the resident's suicidal ideation on 10/19/19.
Review of the resident's face sheet showed the resident readmitted to the facility on [DATE].
Review of the resident's Readmit History and Physical dated 10/26/19 showed the physician documented the resident had suicidal ideation, had a plan and said he/she would take a bottle of pills and then decided to give the pills to the nurses. The resident obtained a bottle of Dilaudid (narcotic pain medication), his/her family believed a friend gave to him/her while visiting. The resident had a psychiatric evaluation, was treated for a urinary tract infection and returned to the facility.
Review of the resident's nurse's note dated 10/31/19 showed staff documented the resident was found on the floor. The resident's roommate reported he/she saw the resident get out of the wheelchair and slide down the side of the bed onto the floor. The resident demonstrated how to use the call light. Staff encouraged the resident to use the call light and wait for assistance.
Review of the resident's Fall Risk assessment dated [DATE] showed a total score of 16 (total score of 10 or above represented HIGH RISK).
Review of the resident's incident and accident report dated 10/31/19 showed the following:
-The resident's roommate reported he/she saw the resident get out of the wheelchair and slide down the side of the bed onto the floor. The resident demonstrated how to use the call light. Staff encouraged the resident to use the call light and wait for assistance;
-Interventions: reviewed call light use and then to wait for someone to respond.
Review of the resident's care plan showed no evidence fall interventions were reviewed and/or updated following the 10/31/19 fall.
Review of the resident's nurse's note dated 11/7/19, showed staff documented Certified Medication Technician (CMT) A found the resident with his/her call light cord wrapped around his/her neck. The resident was sleeping, however when CMT A woke the resident, the resident pulled the cord tight. The resident said he/she wanted to see what it was like to die. The resident also said he/she wanted a gun to shoot him/herself. The resident transferred to the hospital for evaluation.
During interview on 11/19/19 at 2:57 P.M. CMT A said he/she found the resident with the call light cord wrapped around his/her neck. The resident was alert and responded to him/her immediately. He/She thought the resident wanted to commit suicide. The resident was transferred out to the hospital and remained hospitalized .
Review of the resident's hospital Discharge summary dated [DATE] showed the resident was admitted with suicidal ideation. The resident apparently wrapped a cord around his/her neck and made suicidal statements to the staff. The resident was evaluated by behavioral health.
Review of the resident's face sheet showed the resident readmitted to the facility on [DATE].
Review of the resident's care plan showed safety interventions were not reviewed and /or updated following the resident's 11/7/19 suicidal ideation.
During interview on 11/21/19 at 7:00 A.M. Certified Nurse Aide (CNA) J said the resident returned to the facility from the hospital. There was no change in the resident's care needs or monitoring that he/she was aware of, the resident was the same.
Observations on 11/21/19 between 7:00 A.M. and 4:00 P.M. showed the resident's bed was on the far side, near the window. A half wall divided the room. The resident lay in bed with one side of the bed against the half wall out of view from the hall way. The call light was in reach and on the bed. The resident's wheelchair was out of reach. No fall mats were on the floor and the bed was not in a low position. Staff transferred the resident to the wheelchair for meals and provided cares with no additional observed monitoring.
During interview on 11/21/19 at 4:15 P.M. Registered Nurse (RN) H said the resident went out to the hospital following a suicide attempt with the call light cord. There had been no change in monitoring of the resident following return to the facility. The resident had a prior suicide attempt and the resident went out to the hospital. There had been no changes in monitoring following either attempt.
During interview on 11/21/19 at 4:45 P.M. the Director of Nursing (DON) said the resident attempted suicide on two separate occasions. The resident had pills in his/her room to take and he/she wrapped the call light cord around his/her neck. Each time the resident was sent out for evaluation. She did not know about any new monitoring interventions for safety. The resident was more debilitated and denied suicide ideations. Staff should monitor the resident for safety and change in behavior. The call light was still in reach and staff did not assess if the resident was able to wrap the cord around his/her neck. The care plan should be updated regarding safety with new interventions for staff monitoring and should be updated following each fall with new interventions. The Resident Fact Sheet kept at the nurses' desk for CNA staff to review should be updated with new interventions regarding falls, safety interventions, increased monitoring and change in care needs. No new interventions were added to the care plan following the resident's falls or suicide attempts.
Review of the Resident Fact Sheet on 11/21/19 at 5:00 P.M. showed Resident #151 was one staff member assist with transfers and used a wheelchair. His/Her special needs included a catheter. There were no updated interventions or needs regarding the resident's falls or safety included on the Resident Fact Sheet.
Observation on 11/22/19 at 10:30 A.M. showed the resident lay in bed out of line of sight from the hall way. The resident's call light was in reach on the bed. No fall mats were on the floor and the bed was not in a low position.
During interview on 11/22/19 at 10:30 A.M. the resident said he/she fell often trying to get out of bed. He/She tried to hurt him/herself and still wanted to get out of the facility. He/She felt sad. He/She spent all day in bed or in the dining room. He/She would like to walk again but his/her feet hurt.
2. Record review of Resident #354's significant change MDS dated [DATE], showed the following:
-Moderate cognitive impairment;
-The resident required total assistance of two staff for transfers;
-The resident required extensive assistance of two staff for bed mobility;
-The resident had functional limitation in range of motion (ROM) on one side.
Record review of the resident's physician's progress note dated 8/5/19 showed the following:
-The resident had two falls in the last 12 months;
-The resident's diagnoses included cerebral vascular accident (CVA) (stroke) with right hemiparesis, Alzheimer's disease, chronic kidney disease and congestive heart failure.
Record review of the resident's care plan, dated 8/19/19, showed the following:
-The resident was at risk for falls due to the diagnosis of CVA;
-The resident fell out of bed during care 8/19/19;
-The resident will have two care givers when getting changed at all times.
Record review of the resident's fall investigation dated 8/19/19 at 4:14 A.M. showed the following:
-During the 2:00 A.M. rounds the CNA was attempting to assist the resident to lay on the resident's right side;
-The CNA reports the resident started to slide from the scooped mattress, and the CNA was able to hold onto the resident;
- Due to the resident's weight and position, the CNA was unable to keep the resident from sliding out of the bed;
-The resident's feet fell first, then his/her legs, torso and head were lowered to the floor;
-The resident was laid on the floor in a prone position;
-The resident had a light purple bruise on his/her right upper arm, a light purple bruise above his/her left eye measuring 0.5 centimeters (cm.) x 0.5 cm.;
-Two additional staff were required to assist the resident back to bed.
During interview on 9/19/19 at 2:26 P.M. Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) S said the following:
-The resident was being repositioned;
-The resident pulled himself/herself forward and slid out of bed;
-The CNA tried to catch the resident so he/she wouldn't get hurt;
-The resident ended up on the floor face down;
-Additional staff were called to assist getting the resident in bed.
During interview on 9/10/19 at 2:25 P.M. CNA F said the resident was a two person assist for all care after the resident fell, the staff was in serviced and the care plan was updated.
During interview on 9/10/19 at 2:40 P.M. the administrator said the following:
-The resident was in a hospital bed with bolsters;
-The resident had poor trunk control;
-The resident had a CVA which affected one side of his/her body;
-The resident was a two person assist for transfers, and after he/she fell the resident received assist of two staff for repositioning;
-The fall resulted in an abrasion to the resident's head.
3. Review of Resident #253's medical record showed the following:
-He/She was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses of Alzheimer's disease, dementia, history of uterine cancer, and pain control;
-He/She was placed on hospice.
Review of the resident's Physician Order Sheet (POS) showed an order dated 11/15/19 for use of a geri-chair (large padded comfortable reclining chair designed to allow elderly to sit comfortably while being fully supported and transported) and assistance of two staff (with transfers).
Review of the resident's baseline care plan upon admission dated 11/15/19 showed the following:
-He/She was confused;
-He/She was admitted to long-term care services due to safety and he/she required daily nursing care;
-He/She required assistance of two staff and gait belt use for transfers;
-Provided mobility devices included a Broda chair (chair used to for support while seated and transported).
Review of the CNA undated Resident Fact Sheet showed the following:
-He/She required assistance of two staff with transfers;
-The resident was to use a Broda chair as a his/her mobility device;
-There was no documentation that directed staff to use a wheel chair.
Observation on 11/20/19 at 4:06 P.M. showed the following:
-CNA D and CMT C assisted the resident from his/her Broda chair by use of gait belt onto the bed to provide incontinence care;
-When finished providing care, CMT C placed a gait belt on the resident, sat the resident on the side of the bed and CNA D and CMT C transferred the resident to the wheel chair (not Broda chair as directed on resident's plan of care);
-The resident did not bear weight during the transfer and the two staff had to lift the resident by use of the gait belt during the transfer.
During an interview, on 11/20/19 at 4:20 P.M., CMT C said the following:
-The resident used the Broda chair 99% of the time, but he/she sat in a regular wheelchair at meals because he/she could sit under the table better;
-The resident had good days and bad days where he/she would assist with the transfer.
During an interview on 11/20/19 4:30 P.M., CNA D said the following:
-He/She did not normally work on the rehab unit and he/she had not worked with the resident prior;
-He/She was told by CMT C that the resident sat in the wheelchair for meals, but was in the Broda chair 99% of the time;
-He/She went by what the CNAs and nurses reported to him/her on direction of care;
-He/She also looked at the care plan book and expected it to be updated with current interventions for the resident's plan of care;
-He/She had not looked at the resident's care plan prior to assisting the resident.
Observation on 11/20/19 at 4:35 P.M., showed the following:
-The resident was unable to hold his/her head up and leaned on the table with his/her head hunched forward;
-The resident's spouse (who was also a resident with dementia), unlocked the resident's wheelchair brakes and pushed him/her out of the dining room.
During an interview on 11/20/19 at 4:54 P.M., RN E said the following:
-The resident should be in a Broda chair and he/she would consider it unsafe for the resident to use a regular wheelchair because he/she was so hunched over and could fall out;
-He/She was not aware staff placed the resident in regular wheelchair for meals;
-Assistive devices particular to a resident should be documented on the care plan under assistive devices used;
-There was a communication book for CNAs that directed care such as what assistive devices the residents required;
-The communication book was not located at the nurse's station and he/she did not know where it was;
-The communication book was updated at least weekly on the rehab unit because of frequent changes in a resident's condition and level of activity.
During an interview on 11/21/19 at 7:35 A.M., the DON said the following:
-She expected staff to follow direction of care as listed on the Resident Fact Sheet;
-The resident would not be safe to sit in a wheelchair because he/she was so hunched over and could fall out;
-The resident's spouse transferred the resident and also tried to pick him/her up and he/she was not able to if the resident was in the Broda chair.
4. Review of Resident #45's face sheet showed he/she was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses of pelvic and rib fractures and dementia with behaviors.
Review of the resident's baseline care plan upon admission, dated 11/5/19, showed the following:
-He/She was admitted for skilled services due to post-fall;
-Safety measures would be monitored and managed until further instruction of an official care plan;
-Interventions included to monitor the resident's physical safety.
Review of the resident's fall risk assessment dated [DATE] showed:
-He/She had a history of one or two falls within the last month;
-He/She was chair bound;
-He/She was considered to be high risk for falls.
Review of the resident's nursing progress note dated 11/6/19 at 11:40 A.M., showed the following:
-He/She was observed by the transporter sliding out of his/her wheelchair;
-He/She had his/her feet propped up on the bed and when he/she tried to take his/her feet down he/she slid out of the chair.
Review of the resident's plan of care showed there was no documentation that addressed the resident sliding out of his/her chair.
Review of the facility's incident and accident report dated 11/6/19 showed the following:
-He/She was witnessed to slide out of his/her wheelchair by the transporter;
-He/She had his/her feet propped up on the bed and when he/she tried to take his/her feet down, he/she slid out of the chair;
-He/She said he/she did not hit his/her head and denied pain;
-He/She was not at high risk for falls, (resident was assessed to be at high risk of falls);
-He/She was weak from a recent fall;
-Safety devices in use included the bed's position;
-There were no documented interventions to prevent the incident from reoccurring.
Review of the resident's nursing progress notes dated 11/11/19 at 5:36 P.M. showed the following:
-The resident was found on the floor in his/her room;
-There was a pack of disposable briefs on the floor next to the resident and the resident told staff that he/she was trying to get in the bathroom to brush his/her teeth;
-Staff re-educated the importance of using the call light and how he/she should always call for help even if it was only walking a few feet;
-Staff returned to the resident's room five minutes later to check on the resident and the resident was on the floor again and had hit his/her head on the corner of the bed;
-He/She had a large bump on the back of her head and at first said he/she was okay, but after a couple of minutes said he/she felt tired and requested to go to the hospital.
Review of the resident's nursing progress notes dated 11/12/19 at 3:18 A.M. showed the resident returned from the hospital with no acute findings documented.
Review of the resident's medical record showed there was no incident and accident report completed after this fall.
Review of the CNAs undated Resident Fact Sheet showed the following:
-The resident was at risk for falls;
-There were no documented interventions such as bed positioning, cushion for chair, or any intervention to prevent falls and/or sliding out of his/her chair.
Review of the resident's care plan showed interventions were not reviewed and/or updated after the resident fell on [DATE].
During an interview on 11/20/19 at 4:54 P.M., RN E said the following:
-Nursing staff were responsible for completion of the resident's baseline care plans upon admission;
-When a resident fell, they completed an incident and accident report, notify the DON and the MDS coordinator of the falls and they would update the care plans;
-The nurses did not update/change the admission care plans once they were completed;
-They did not make changes to the care plan if condition warrants a change with current interventions;
-There was a CNA communication book that was used and directed staff on how to care for residents based on their individual needs;
-He/She did not know where the book was, it was normally kept at the nursing desk.
5. Review of Resident #34's admission MDS, dated [DATE], showed the following:
-Severe cognitive impairment;
-Wandering not present;
-Requires limited physical assistance of one staff member with bed mobility, locomotion on and off unit, and transfers.
Review of the resident's care plan, dated 4/28/19, showed the following:
-Goal: remain safe from falls;
-Resident is at risk for falls related to his/her diagnosis of Parkinson's disease (disease that causes tremors and loss of control of muscles);
-Staff will walk with resident when he/she wants to walk.
Review of the resident's fall log showed the following:
-5/11/19, fall;
-6/11/19, fall in resident room;
-7/29/10 fall, bruise, resident room;
-8/4/19 fall, skin tear, found on floor, resident room;
-8/15/19 fall, resident room;
-9/30/19 fall, lobby;
-10/5/19, fall, skin tear, found on floor resident room;
-10/6/19 fall, common area
-10/7 found by bed resident room
-10/18 fall abrasion found on floor resident room
-11/4 found on floor bathroom
-11/6 fall abrasion found on floor common area
Further review of the resident's care plan showed the following:
-Goal: no injuries from falls;
-On 6/11/19 the resident fell in his/her room out of his/her recliner, remind the resident to ask for assistance with transfers;
-On 6/30/19 the resident fell in his/her room in front of his/her recliner, use wheelchair for man made transportation.
The resident's care plan did not include re-evaluation, updates, or revisions after the multiple falls from 7/29/19-11/6/19.
Observation of the resident on 11/19/19, at 11:34 A.M., showed the following:
-The activity assistant propelled the resident down the 100 hall way without foot pedals;
-The resident's feet slid down the hall against the carpet making a friction sound.
Observation on 11/19/19, at 12:21 P.M., showed:
-RN U propelled the resident through the dining room;
-The resident's feet slid on the dining room floor;
- RN U propelled the resident down the hall on the carpet and the resident's feet made a friction sound on the carpet
Observation on 11/19/19, at 12:21 P.M., showed:
-CNA I propelled the resident from the dining room down to hall to his/her room without foot pedals;
-The resident's feet slid on the floor, and stopped the wheelchair when his/her feet went under the chair.
6. Review of Resident #2's quarterly MDS, dated [DATE], showed staff assessed the resident as:
-Severe cognitive impairment;
-Requires extensive physical assistance of two or more staff members for bed mobility;
-Dependent on two or more staff members for transfers, locomotion on and off the unit, and toilet use;
-No falls since prior assessment.
Observation on 11/19/19, at 12:24 P.M., showed CNA J propel the resident in his/her chair down the hall from the dining room to his/her room with one foot on the foot rest, and the other hanging down. The resident's toes slid across the floor.
During an interview on 11/27/19, at 1:30 P.M., CNA J said staff ask the residents to hold their feet up if the staff need to propel the resident, and the resident does not have foot rest. Sometimes the residents drop their feet so they stop and let the residents lift their feet back up.
7. Review of Resident #12's quarterly MDS, dated [DATE], showed the following:
-Severe cognitive impairment;
-Requires limited physical assistance of two or more staff members for bed mobility, and transfers;
-Requires extensive physical assistance of one or more staff members for dressing, and toilet use;
-Dependent on staff for locomotion on and off the unit and bathing.
Observation on 11/19/19, at 11:39 P.M., showed:
-The activity assistant propelled the resident down the 100 hall way;
-One of the resident's feet was on the foot pedal and the other hung down behind the foot pedal;
-The foot that hung down slid on the carpet making a friction sound.
During an interview on 11/27/19, at 1:15 P.M., the activity assistant said when staff propel residents in wheelchairs, staff are expected to make sure the foot rests are on the wheelchair.
During an interview on 11/27/19, at 1:37 P.M., CNA I
CONCERN
(E)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Drug Regimen Review
(Tag F0756)
Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview, and record review the facility failed to report any irregularities to the attending physician and act on irr...
Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview, and record review the facility failed to report any irregularities to the attending physician and act on irregularities noted by the pharmacist during the monthly medication regimen review for three residents (Resident #23, #41, and #36) in a review of 16 sampled residents. The facility census was 53.
1. Review of the facility's undated policy for Pharmacy Consultants showed the following:
-The consultant pharmacist provided consultations on all aspects of the provision of pharmacy services in the facility;
-The consultant pharmacist reviewed each medication of all residents in the facility once per month to examine for supporting diagnosis, and unnecessary medication use;
-The pharmacist would report any irregularities, issues, or problems to the resident's physician and the Director of Nursing (DON);
-The DON would give the charge nurse a copy of the unit's monthly consultation report;
-The charge nurse would ensure that all of the recommendations were acted upon, all of the recommendations were reported to the resident's physician by the unit nurses, there was documentation in the resident's chart that notification and follow-up occurred, return the copy of the consultation report to the DON when notifications, follow-ups, and documentation had been completed, and remind the resident's physician to sign the resident's consultation report that was filed in the resident's chart.
2. Review of Drugs.com showed the following:
-Metoprolol succinate ER was used to treat high blood pressure and heart failure. Swallow the medication whole and do not crush, chew, break, or open it;
-Metformin ER was used to treat diabetes. Swallow the medication whole and do not chew, break or crush.
3. Review of Resident #36's Physician Order Sheet (POS) dated 7/11/19 showed the following:
-May crush medications per manufacturer's recommendations;
-Metformin (diabetic medication) ER (Extended Release, slow release medication administered whole) 500 milligrams (mg) tablet Extended Release 24 hour, take two daily with breakfast;
-Metoprolol succinate (heart failure, high blood pressure medication administered whole) ER 25 mg tablet extended release 24 hour, take one tablet twice daily.
Review of the resident's Consultant Pharmacist's Monthly Medication Regimen Review recommendations created between 7/1/19 and 7/17/19 showed the following:
-The resident had an order to crush medication and orders for metformin ER and metoprolol succinate that should not be crushed. Please update the administration instructions to specify do not crush. If he/she was unable to swallow these tablets whole, consider changing the dosage form to the immediate release.
Review of the resident's MAR dated July 2019 showed the following:
-May crush medications per manufacturer's recommendations;
-From 7/11/19 through 7/31/19 staff documented administration of metformin ER 500 mg two daily with breakfast;
-From 7/11/19 through 7/31/19 staff documented administration of metoprolol succinate ER 25 mg twice daily.
Review of the resident's Consultant Pharmacist's Monthly Medication Regimen Review recommendations created between 8/1/19 and 8/12/19 showed the following:
-The resident had an order to crush medication and orders for metformin ER and metoprolol succinate that should not be crushed. Please update the administration instructions to specify do not crush. If he/she was unable to swallow these tablets whole, consider changing the dosage form to the immediate release.
Review of the resident's MAR dated August 2019 showed the following:
-May crush medications per manufacturer's recommendations;
-From 8/1/19 through 8/31/19 staff documented administration of metformin ER 500 mg two daily with breakfast;
-From 8/1/19 through 8/31/19 staff documented administration of metoprolol succinate ER 25 mg twice daily.
Review of the resident's MAR dated September 2019 showed the following:
-May crush medications per manufacturer's recommendations;
-From 9/1/19 through 9/30/19 staff documented administration of metformin ER 500 mg two daily with breakfast;
-From 9/1/19 through 9/30/19 staff documented administration of metoprolol succinate ER 25 mg twice daily.
Review of the resident's Consultant Pharmacist's Monthly Medication Regimen Review recommendations created between 10/1/19 and 10/10/19 showed the following:
-The resident had an order to crush medication and orders for metformin ER and metoprolol succinate that should not be crushed. Please update the administration instructions to specify do not crush.
Review of the resident's MAR dated October 2019 showed the following:
-May crush medications per manufacturer's recommendations;
-From 10/1/19 through 10/31/19 staff documented administration of metformin ER 500 mg two daily with breakfast;
-From 10/1/19 through 10/31/19 staff documented administration of metoprolol succinate ER 25 mg twice daily.
Review of the resident's quarterly MDS dated [DATE] showed the following:
-Diagnosis of heart failure and diabetes;
-Moderately impaired cognition;
-Required staff supervision and set up help with eating and personal hygiene.
Review of the resident's MAR dated November 2019 showed the following:
-May crush medications per manufacturer's recommendations;
-From 11/1/19 through 11/25/19 staff documented administration of metformin ER 500 mg two daily with breakfast;
-From 11/1/19 through 11/25/19 staff documented administration of metoprolol succinate ER 25 mg twice daily.
Observation on 11/26/19 at 9:00 A.M. showed Certified Medication Technician (CMT) A obtained metformin ER 500 mg and metoprolol succinate ER 25 mg from the medication cart, crushed the medications with the resident's other medications and mixed the crushed medications in applesauce. CMT A administered the cup of crushed medications with water.
During interview on 11/26/19 at 9:05 A.M. CMT A said he/she crushed all the resident's medications that he/she could to make it easier for the resident to swallow. One medication he/she gave whole and one medication he/she opened and poured the contents into the applesauce mixture.
During interview on 11/26/19 at 1:10 P.M. CMT A said the following:
-The resident's MAR included may crush medications per manufacturer's recommendations;
-The MAR did not include do not crush metoprolol ER or metformin ER;
-He/She should not crush extended release medications;
-He/She should inform the nurse and obtain a different form of the medications that could be crushed.
4. Review of Resident #23's significant change in status Minimum Data Set (MDS), a federally mandated assessment, dated 10/2/19, showed the following:
-Severe cognitive impairment;
-Antipsychotic and antidepressant medication administered daily;
-Antipsychotic medications received on a routine basis;
-Gradual dose reduction has not been attempted, and has not been documented by a physician as clinically contraindicated.
Review of the monthly pharmacist medication review, dated 5/10/19, showed the following:
-PRN (as needed) psychotropic drugs are limited to a 14 day supply;
-In order to extend the PRN order beyond 14 days the prescriber must:
1. Document the rationale for extending the duration in the medication record;
2. Document the rationale for extending the duration for the PRN order;
-Review order for hydroxyzine 25 mg every six hours PRN;
-Recommend physician review medication order and document rationale along with specified stop date and/or indicated duration.
The pharmacist recommendation did not include a physician response.
Review of the monthly pharmacist medication review, dated 6/10/19, showed the following:
-PRN psychotropic drugs are limited to a 14 day supply;
-In order to extend the PRN order beyond 14 days the prescriber must:
1. Document the rationale for extending the duration in the medication record;
2. Document the rationale for extending the duration for the PRN order;
-Review order for hydroxyzine 25 mg every six hours PRN (as needed) for anxiety;
-Recommend physician review medication order and document rationale along with specified stop date and/or indicated duration.
The pharmacist recommendation did not include a physician response.
Review of the monthly pharmacist medication review, dated 6/10/19, showed the following:
-Review order for hyoscyamine 0.125 mg every four hours PRN, and has not been administered in the past 90 days per the Medication Administration Record;
-Recommend physician review medication order and consider discontinuing for non-use.
The pharmacist recommendation did not include a physician response.
5. Review of Resident #41's entry MDS, dated [DATE], showed the resident admitted to the facility on [DATE].
Review of the resident's physician's orders, dated July 2019-November 2019, showed the physician ordered alprazolam (medication for anxiety) 0.25 mg tablet three times a day PRN, on 7/29/19, and the order did not designate a stop date.
Review of the resident's admission MDS, dated [DATE], showed staff assessed the resident as:
-Moderate cognitive impairment;
-No psychotropic medications.
Review of the monthly pharmacist medication review, dated 9/12/19, showed the following:
-PRN (as needed) psychotropic drugs are limited to a 14 day supply;
-In order to extend the PRN order beyond 14 days the prescriber must:
1. Document the rationale for extending the duration in the medication record;
2. Document the rationale for extending the duration for the PRN order;
-Reviewed order for alprazolam 0.25 mg three times a day PRN;
-Recommend physician review medication order and document rationale along with specified stop date and/or indicated duration.
The pharmacist recommendation did not include a physician response.
6. During interview on 11/26/19 at 12:00 the Director of Nursing said staff should not crush extended release medications. A different form of the medication should be obtained that could be crushed. Staff should follow-up on all pharmacy recommendations.
7. During an interview on 12/5/19, at 1:30 P.M., the resident's physician said:
-The pharmacist is supposed to do a monthly review of all resident's medications;
-Facility staff communicate the recommendations to the physician;
-He has not been getting the pharmacist recommendations;
-The facility does not have a process to ensure the pharmacist recommendations are delivered to the physician, and then orders received are carried through;
-He was getting the recommendations in the Spring and they stopped coming.
CONCERN
(E)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Medication Errors
(Tag F0758)
Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview and record review the facility failed to ensure three residents (Residents #253, #26, and #41) in a review of...
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 three residents (Residents #253, #26, and #41) in a review of 16 sampled residents' orders for as needed (PRN) antipsychotic medications were limited to 14 days and PRN antianxiety medications were limited to 14 days as required, except if an attending or prescribing physician believed that it was appropriate for the PRN order to be extended beyond 14 days, then the physician should document their rationale in the resident's medical record and indicate the duration for the PRN order. The facility also failed to ensure residents had an appropriate diagnosis for use of antipsychotic medications for two residents (Resident #253 and #26), and failed to incorporate into the comprehensive care plan for one resident (Resident #26), resident centered anti-psychotic medication related goals and parameters for monitoring the resident's condition, including the likely medication effects and potential for adverse consequences. The facility census was 53.
1. Review of the facility's undated policy for antipsychotic medication use showed the following:
-The facility would ensure that each resident's entire medication regimen was managed and monitored to achieve the following goals;
a. The medication regimen would help promote or maintain the resident's highest practicable mental, physical and psychosocial well-being as identified by the resident and/or representative in collaboration with the attending physician and facility staff;
b. Each resident would received only those medications in doses and for the duration clinically indicated to treat the resident's assessed condition;
c. Non-pharmacological interventions were considered and used when indicated instead of, or in addition to medication;
d. Clinically significant adverse consequences were minimized;
-The charge nurse would monitor all use of antipsychotic medications on the unit;
-The care plan team would assess each resident's use of antipsychotic medications with scheduled resident assessments and any significant change of condition;
-An antipsychotic medication was used only for the following conditions/diagnoses as documented in the record and as meets the definitions in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders;
-Schizophrenia;
-Schizo-afffective disorder;
-Delusional disorder;
-Mood disorders;
-Schizophreniform disorder;
-Psychosis;
-Atypical psychosis;
-Brief psychotic disorder;
-Dementing illnesses with associated behavioral symptoms;
-Medical illnesses or delirium with manic or psychotic symptoms and/or treatment related psychosis or mania;
-Within the first year in which a resident was admitted on an antipsychotic medication or had been started on an antipsychotic medication, the charge nurse must request that the resident's physician evaluate the resident for a Gradual Dose Reduction (GDR);
a. The request for GDR evaluation must be made in two separate quarters of the year (with at least one month between the attempts), unless clinically contraindicated;
b. After the first year, a GDR evaluation must be requested annually, unless clinically contraindicated;
c. The charge nurse must document every request and the physician's response in the resident's chart;
-The GDR may be clinically contraindicated if:
a. The resident's target symptoms returned or worsened after the most recent attempt at a GDR within the facility, and;
. The physician had documented why any additional attempted dose reduction at that time would be likely to impair the resident's function or increase distressed behavior;
-As needed (PRN) orders for psychotropic medications were limited to 14 days. A PRN order for an antipsychotic could not be renewed unless the attending physician/prescribe evaluated the resident to determine if it was appropriate to write a new PRN order for the medication. The evaluation entails direct evaluation of the resident and assessment of the resident's current condition and progress to determine if the PRN antipsychotic medication was still needed;
-the attending physician/prescribing practitioner's documentation should include:
a. Whether the antipsychotic medication was still needed on a PRN basis;
b. What benefit the medication was to the resident;
-
c. The resident's expression or indication of distress had improved as a result of the PRN antipsychotic medication;
-PRN orders for psychotropic medications which were not antipsychotic were limited to 14 days. The attending physician/prescriber may extend the order beyond the 14 days if he/she believed it was appropriate. If the attending physician extended the PRN for psychotropic medication, he/she must document the rationale and determine the duration;
-In many situations, antipsychotic medications were not indicated. They should not be used if the only indication was one or more of the following:
a. Wandering;
b. Poor self-care;
c. Restlessness;
d. Impaired memory;
e. Impaired memory;
f. Insomnia;
g. Unsocialability;
h. Inattention for indifference to surroundings;
i. Fidgeting;
j. Nervousness;
k. Uncooperativeness;
l. Verbal expressions or behavior that were not due to the conditions listed above and did not represent a danger to the resident or others.
Review of the facility's undated policy for anxiolytic medication (medication used to treat anxiety) use showed the following:
-The facility would ensure that each resident's entire medication regimen was managed and monitored to achieve the following goals:
a. The medication regimen helped promote or maintain the resident's highest practicable mental, physical, and psychosocial well-being as identified by the resident and/or representatives in collaboration with the attending
physician and facility staff;
b. Each resident received only those medications in doses and for duration clinically indicated to treat the resident's assessed condition;
c. Non-pharmacological interventions were considered and used when indicated instead of, or in addition to medication;
d. Clinically significant adverse consequences were minimized;
e. The potential contribution of the medication regiment to unanticipated decline or newly emerging or worsening symptoms was assessed and prevented;
-The policy failed to address PRN use for 14 days.
2. Review of Drugs.com showed the following:
-Zyprexa was an antipsychotic medication used to treat psychotic conditions such as schizophrenia and bipolar disorder;
-Buspirone was an anti-anxiety medication used to treat symptoms of anxiety;
-Trazodone was an antidepressant medication used to treat major depressive disorder. It may help to treat insomnia (difficulty sleeping) related to depression.
3. Review of Resident #26's face sheet showed the following:
-admission date 4/2/19;
-Diagnosis of dementia with behavioral disturbances;
-No diagnosis of anxiety, depression or insomnia.
Review of the resident's Physician Order Sheet (POS) showed the following:
-On 7/12/19 Zyprexa 2.5 milligrams (mg) two times daily (BID) as needed (PRN) for extreme anxiety/agitation. No end date;
-On 7/12/19 Buspirone 5 mg BID PRN for anxiety/agitation. No end date;
-On 7/13/19 Trazodone 50 mg one-half tablet PRN for insomnia. No end date.
Review of the resident's care plan showed no update regarding resident centered anti-psychotic, antianxiety or antidepressant medication related goals and parameters for monitoring the resident's conditions, including the likely medication effects and potential for adverse consequences.
Review of the resident's Medication Administration Record (MAR) dated July 2019, showed the following;
-From 7/12/19 through 7/31/19 Zyprexa 2.5 mg BID PRN for extreme anxiety/agitation not administered;
-From 7/12/19 through 7/31/19 Buspirone 5 mg BID PRN for anxiety/agitation not administered;
-On 7/20/19 staff documented Trazodone 50 mg one-half tablet PRN for insomnia administered.
Review of the resident's pharmacy medication regimen review notes to the attending physician dated 7/16/19 showed the following:
-Phase 2 of the CMS final rule stated that PRN antipsychotic drugs were limited to a 14 day supply. The order may not be extended unless the physician evaluated the resident. A new order was required every 14 days;
-The resident had a PRN order for Zyprexa 2.5 mg BID PRN. Recommend physician discontinue the order and re-enter a new order with a 14 day duration/stop date. No physician/prescriber response;
-The resident had a PRN order for buspirone 5 mg BID PRN. Recommend physician discontinue the order and document rationale along with specified stop date and/or indicate duration of use. No physician/prescriber response;
-The resident had a PRN order for Trazodone 50 mg one-half tablet at bedtime PRN. Recommend physician discontinue the order and re-enter a new order with a 14 day duration/stop date. No physician/prescriber response.
Review of the resident's quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) a federally mandated assessment instrument, completed by facility staff, dated 7/16/19 showed the following:
-No psychiatric/mood disorder, anxiety or depression diagnosis;
-Severely impaired cognition;
-No evidence of acute change in mental status from the resident's baseline;
-No hallucinations or delusions;
-No physical, verbal or other behavioral symptoms directed towards others and no behavioral symptoms not directed toward others;
-Required extensive assistance of one staff member with bed mobility, transfers, dressing and toileting;
-Received antipsychotic and antidepressant medications seven of the previous seven days;
-Received antipsychotic medications since facility admission/entry or reentry on a routine basis with no physician documented a gradual dose reduction attempted.
Review of the resident's MAR dated August 2019 showed the following:
-On 8/28/19 staff documented Zyprexa 2.5 mg BID PRN (ordered on 7/12/19) for extreme anxiety/agitation administered;
-From 8/1/19 through 8/31/19 Buspirone 5 mg BID PRN (ordered on 7/12/19) for anxiety/agitation not administered;
-From 8/1/19 through 8/31/19 Trazodone 50 mg one-half tablet PRN (ordered on 7/13/19) for insomnia not administered.
Review of the resident's MAR dated September 2019 showed the following:
-On 9/29/19 staff documented Zyprexa 2.5 mg BID PRN (ordered on 7/12/19) for extreme anxiety/agitation administered;
-From 9/1/19 through 9/30/19 Buspirone 5 mg BID PRN(ordered on 7/12/19) for anxiety/agitation not administered;
-From 9/1/19 through 9/30/19 Trazodone 50 mg one-half tablet PRN (ordered on 7/13/19) for insomnia not administered.
Review of the resident's pharmacy medication regimen review note to the attending physician dated 9/12/19 showed the following:
-Phase 2 of the CMS final rule stated that PRN antipsychotic drugs were limited to a 14 day supply. The order may not be extended unless the physician evaluated the resident. A new order was required every 14 days;
-The resident had a PRN order for Zyprexa 2.5 mg BID PRN. Recommend physician discontinue the order and re-enter a new order with a 14 day duration/stop date. No physician/prescriber response;
-The resident had a PRN order for buspirone 5 mg BID PRN. Recommend physician discontinue the order and document rationale along with specified stop date and/or indicate duration of use. No physician/prescriber response;
-The resident had a PRN order for Trazodone 50 mg one-half tablet at bedtime PRN. Recommend physician discontinue the order and re-enter a new order with a 14 day duration/stop date. No physician/prescriber response.
Review of the resident's MAR dated October 2019 showed the following:
-On 10/15/19 staff documented Zyprexa 2.5 mg BID PRN (ordered on 7/12/19) for extreme anxiety/agitation administered;
- On 10/14/19 and 10/30/19 Buspirone 5 mg BID PRN (ordered on 7/12/19) for anxiety/agitation administered;
-On 10/12/19 and 10/13/19 staff documented Trazodone 50 mg one-half tablet PRN(ordered on 7/13/19) for insomnia administered.
Review of the resident's quarterly MDS dated [DATE] showed the following:
-No evidence of acute change in mental status from the resident's baseline;
-No hallucinations or delusions;
-No physical, verbal or other behavioral symptoms directed towards others and no behavioral symptoms not directed toward others;
-Required limited assistance of one staff member with bed mobility, transfers, dressing and toileting;
-Received antipsychotic and antidepressant medications seven of the previous seven days;
-Did not receive antipsychotic medications since facility admission/entry or reentry.
Review of the resident's MAR dated November 2019 showed the following:
-From 11/1/19 through 11/22/19 Zyprexa 2.5 mg BID PRN (ordered on 7/12/19) for extreme anxiety/agitation not administered;
- On 11/2/19 and 11/6/19 staff documented Buspirone 5 mg BID PRN (ordered on 7/12/19) for anxiety/agitation administered;
-On 11/11/19 staff documented Trazodone 50 mg one-half tablet PRN (ordered on 7/13/19) for insomnia administered.
4. Review of Resident #41's entry MDS, dated [DATE], showed the resident admitted to the facility on [DATE].
Review of the resident's physician's orders, dated July 2019-November 2019, showed the physician ordered alprazolam (medication for anxiety) 0.25 mg tablet three times a day PRN, on 7/29/19, and the order did not contain a stop date.
Review of the resident's admission MDS, dated [DATE], showed staff assessed the resident as:
-Moderate cognitive impairment;
-No psychotropic medications.
Review of the resident's monthly pharmacist medication review, dated 9/12/19, showed the following:
-PRN (as needed) psychotropic drugs are limited to a 14 day supply;
-In order to extend the PRN order beyond 14 days the prescriber must:
1. Document the rationale for extending the duration in the medication record;
2. Document the rationale for extending the duration for the PRN order;
-Reviewed order for alprazolam 0.25 mg three times a day PRN;
-Recommend physician review medication order and document rationale along with specified stop date and/or indicated duration.
The pharmacist recommendation did not include a physician response.
Review of the resident's physician's orders, dated 10/31/19-11/22/19, showed the physician ordered Zyprexa (antipsychotic medication for hallucinations and delusions) 2.5 mg twice a day PRN for agitation, and the order did not contain a stop date.
Review of the resident's MAR dated 7/29/19-11/22/19, showed staff administered alprazolam on 8/20/19, 8/21/19, 8/31/19, and 9/21/19.
During an interview on 11/21/19, at 3:23 P.M., registered nurse (RN)H said PRN psychotropic medications must have a stop date of 14 days or less. She did not know why the orders did not contain a stop date.
6. Review of Resident #253's medical record showed the following:
-He/She was admitted on [DATE] with a diagnoses of Alzheimer's disease with late onset;
-There were no other psychiatric diagnoses documented;
-His/Her physician's orders included Seroquel (antipsychotic medication) 25 mg for the treatment of Alzheimer's disease with late onset.
7. During interview on 11/26/19 at 12:00 P.M. the Director of Nursing said the following:
-Every resident on antipsychotic, antianxiety or antidepressant medications medical record should include a corresponding diagnosis or supporting physician documentation for use of the medication;
-PRN antipsychotic, antianxiety medication should be reviewed every 14 days by the physician with appropriate documentation in the medical record regarding continuation of the PRN medication. PRN antipsychotic, antianxiety medications should have a stop date of no longer than 14 days;
-Currently there was no monitoring of the pharmacy monthly medication recommendations and no follow-up with the physicians regarding the recommendations.
8. During an interview on 12/5/19, at 1:30 P.M., the resident's physician said:
-The pharmacist is supposed to do a monthly review of all resident's medications;
-Facility staff communicate the recommendations to the physician;
-He has not been getting the pharmacist recommendations;
-The facility does not have a process to ensure the pharmacist recommendations are delivered to the physician, and then orders received are carried through;
-He was getting the recommendations in the Spring and they stopped coming.
CONCERN
(E)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0761
(Tag F0761)
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 appropriately label insulin pens for three residents (...
Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to appropriately label insulin pens for three residents (Resident #13, #22, and #33) who were diagnosed with insulin dependent diabetes and required the use of insulin to treat, and one stock bottle of insulin (for resident use), with the date they were opened to ensure staff did not administer expired insulin. The facility census was 53.
1. Review of the manufacturer's guideline for use for Tresiba insulin showed that it was good for eight weeks after it was opened.
2. Review of the manufacturer's guideline for use for Novolog insulin Flex Pen showed the cartridges should be discarded 28 days after opening.
3. Review of the manufacturer's guideline for use for Humalog insulin Flex Pen showed the cartridges should be discarded 28 days after opening.
4. Review of the manufacturer's guidelines for use of Lantus insulin showed it should be discarded 28 days after opening.
5. Review of the facility's policy dated November of 2018 showed the following:
-Purpose was to provide appropriate and safe administration of insulin that would aid in the management of diabetes mellitus by the control of blood sugar levels;
-Once insulin seals were removed, all new pens were to be labeled with the date;
-All pens would be disposed of after 30 days.
6. Review of Resident #13's Physician's Orders on [DATE] showed the following:
-His/Her diagnosis included insulin dependent diabetes;
-On [DATE] an order for Humalog KwikPen insulin pen 100 unit/milliliter (ml) to be administered per sliding scale (scale ordered by the physician used to determine how much insulin the resident was to receive based on blood glucose level) SQ three times a day (TID).
Review of the resident's Medication Administration Record (MAR) dated [DATE] showed he/she received Humalog KwikPen insulin 100 unit/ml per sliding scale subcutaneously (SQ) three times a day (TID) from [DATE] to [DATE].
7. Review of Resident # 22's Physician's Orders on [DATE] showed the following:
-His/Her diagnoses included insulin dependent diabetes;
-On [DATE] orders for Humalog KwikPen insulin 100 unit/ml; administer SQ per sliding scale TID.
Review of the resident's MAR dated [DATE], showed he/she received Humalog KwikPen insulin 100 unit/ml as per sliding scale SQ TID from [DATE] to [DATE].
8. Review of Resident #33's Physician's Orders on [DATE] showed the following:
-His/Her diagnoses included insulin dependent diabetes;
-On [DATE] an order for Novolog Flex Pen insulin 100 unit/ml; inject 8 units SQ at lunch daily;
-On [DATE] an order for Tresiba Flex touch insulin 100 unit/ml 8 units SQ every day.
Review of the resident's MAR dated [DATE] showed the following:
-He/She received eight units of Novolog FlexPen 100 units/ml SQ daily from [DATE] to [DATE] at lunch;
-He/She received eight units of Tresiba Flex Touch 100 units/ml SQ daily from [DATE] to [DATE].
9. Observation of the rehab unit's medication storage room on [DATE] at 6:10 A.M. showed there was one opened stock vial of Lantus insulin that was not labeled for any particular resident and had no date to indicate when staff opened the vial.
During an interview on [DATE] at 6:20 A.M. Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) B said insulin bottles should be dated the day the bottle was opened. He/She did not know why it was not labeled.
10. Observation of upper level med cart on [DATE] at 12:49 P.M. showed the following:
-One Tresiba Flex touch insulin pen labeled for Resident #33, opened with 250 units remaining in the pen and no date documented on the device when it was opened;
-One Novolog insulin Flex pen labeled for Resident #33, opened with 200 units remaining in the pen and no date documented on the device when it was opened;
-One Humalog insulin Flex pen labeled for Resident #13, opened with 200 units remaining in the pen with no date documented on device as to when it was opened.
During an interview [DATE] at 12:49 P.M., Certified Medication Technician (CMT) A said the following:
-Insulins were supposed to be dated when they were opened;
-Insulin was only good for 30 days from the date it was opened;
-He/She did not know why the insulin was not labeled.
Observation of rehab unit's medication cart on [DATE] at 1:10 P.M. showed there were two Humalog insulin KwikPens labeled for Resident #22 that were opened with no date to show when staff opened the pens or when they were removed from refrigeration.
During an interview on [DATE] at 1:10 P.M., CMT C said the following:
-Insulins were to be labeled when they were opened and/or removed from the refrigerator;
-Insulins that were not labeled would needed to be removed because they were only good for 30-45 days, depending on what type of insulin it was;
-He/She did not know why insulin was not labeled.
During an interview on [DATE] 1:30 P.M. the Director of Nurses (DON) said the following:
-She expected staff to label insulins when they were removed from the refrigerator and opened for resident use;
-If there was not a date on the insulin then staff should not administer the insulin because they would not know when it was opened and if it was within the time frame for that particular insulin;
-It was the nursing staff's responsibility to monitor and ensure insulins were labeled appropriately;
-The pharmacist was at the facility and inspected medication carts on the previous Friday. She did not know why the opened insulins without open dates were not found.
CONCERN
(E)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Menu Adequacy
(Tag F0803)
Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents
Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to follow spreadsheet menus for serving sizes for all residents, failed to serve bread and butter to all residents, and failed t...
Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to follow spreadsheet menus for serving sizes for all residents, failed to serve bread and butter to all residents, and failed to served the pureed desserts to residents as directed on the spreadsheet menu. The facility census was 53.
1. Review of physician diet orders showed four residents had physician orders for a mechanical soft diet and four residents had orders for a pureed diet.
2. Review of the facility spreadsheet menu for lunch on 11/19/19, showed staff were to serve the following to residents on a mechanical soft diet:
-A 4 ounce (oz) serving of ground meatloaf;
-A slice of bread with butter;
-A 2 inch by 2.5 inch piece of cheesecake.
Review of the facility spreadsheet menu for lunch on 11/19/19, showed staff were to serve the following to residents on a pureed diet:
-A 4 oz serving of pureed meatloaf;
-A #20 (1.75 oz) scoop of pureed bread and butter;
-A #12 (3.25 oz) scoop of pureed cheesecake.
Observation on 11/19/19 between 11:35 A.M. and 11:55 A.M. showed the following:
-Staff used a 2-ounce scoop to serve mechanical soft meatloaf to residents on a mechanical soft diet. (Residents were to receive a 4 oz serving);
-Staff used a soup spoon to serve the dessert to residents on a regular and mechanical soft diet;
-Staff served residents on a pureed diet a pudding cup. (Residents were to receive a #12 scoop of pureed cheesecake);
-Staff did not prepare or serve bread and butter to any resident, including residents on a pureed diet;
-Staff sliced the meatloaf into slices and did not measure to ensure a 4 oz portion. Some of the slices were less than 0.25 inch thick while others were nearly 0.5 inch thick. Staff served the sliced meatloaf to residents on a regular consistency diet.
During interview on 11/19/19 at 11:40 A.M., Dietary Aide Q said he/she knows what to serve each resident because it is listed on their meal card. He/She said he/she sliced the meatloaf and just tried to cut them consistently.
2. Review of the physician order list, updated on 11/19/19, showed Resident #299 was to receive double portions at every meal (original order dated 9/13/19).
Review of the resident's dietary card showed he/she was to receive double portions at every meal.
Review of the facility spreadsheet for lunch on 11/19/19 showed staff were to serve the following to residents on a regular diet:
-A 4 ounce serving of meatloaf;
-A 4 ounce serving of mashed potatoes;
-A 2 ounce serving of beef gravy;
-A 4 ounce serving of vegetables;
-A slice of bread with butter;
-A 2 inch by 2.5 inch piece of cheesecake.
Observation on 11/19/19 between 11:35 A.M. and 11:55 A.M. showed staff did not serve Resident #299 double portions as ordered.
Observation on 11/20/19 at 12:30 P.M. showed staff served Resident #299 a regular potion meal.
Observation on 11/21/19 during the noontime meal service showed staff served Resident #299 a thin slice of meatloaf. Staff did not serve the resident double portions.
3. Review the facility spreadsheet for 11/21/19 showed staff were to serve the following to residents on a mechanical soft diet and a pureed diets:
-A 3 oz portion of sweet onion cranberry chicken;
-A 4 oz portion of twisted macaroni pasta salad;
-A 4 oz cheesy corn;
-A slice of bread and butter.
Observation on 11/21/19 at 11:22 A.M. showed staff served residents on mechanical soft and pureed diets the following:
-A 2 oz portion of chicken;
-A 2 oz portion of pasta salad;
-A 2 oz portion of cheesy corn.
4. During interview on 11/21/19 at 1:53 P.M., the registered dietician (responsible of menus) said spreadsheets show staff exactly what to serve. Bread is part of the carbohydrate portion of daily nutrition and should be served if on the spreadsheet. Staff is to offer bread to residents who are on a pureed diet as well. The facility needs to follow serving sizes and guidelines in the recipes and spreadsheets.
During interview on 11/21/19 at 4:07 P.M., the facility registered dietician said if the spreadsheet shows a slice of bread and butter should be served, then staff should serve bread and butter with the meal. Staff should serve pureed bread. The scoop listed on the spreadsheet is the required scoop staff are to use when serving the meal. She would not expect staff to use a soup spoon to portion out the dessert. Staff should serve the dessert on the menu to residents on pureed diets. An order for double portions at every meal means staff should serve double of everything on the menu.
During interview on 11/21/19 at 3:11 P.M., the dietary supervisor said the following:
-Staff were to serve Resident #299 double portions at every meal;
-He/She expected staff to follow the spreadsheet menu and use the correct portion sizes, but the facility does not have enough of each scoop size. With three diet types and two serving areas, it was impossible to have all the correct scoops during meal service;
-Staff did not serve bread and butter because he/she was new and was trained by current kitchen staff to not serve bread and butter even though the spreadsheet said to serve it;
-Staff never prepared desserts for residents on a pureed diet, they always got pudding cups. The facility has recipes for preparing desserts for residents on a pureed diet. He/She was not sure why the desserts were not prepared for those residents.
MO 00162919
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, facility staff failed to follow acceptable infection control practices and p...
Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview, and record review, facility staff failed to follow acceptable infection control practices and prevent cross-contamination during the provision of cares. Staff failed to wash hands and change gloves when indicated by professional standards of practice during personal care for two sampled residents (Resident #151 and #253), and failed to properly sanitize the glucometer (a device used to evaluate blood glucose levels) in between use and after becoming soiled for one sampled resident (Resident #34) and for two additional residents (Resident #33 and #13), in a review of 16 sampled residents. The facility staff also failed to screen and administer and/or record tuberculin skin testing (TST) for ten sampled residents (Resident # 151, #12, #26, #150, #45, #250, #251, #41, #23 and #30) and for two additional residents (Resident #38 and #22) upon admission. The facility census was 53.
1. Review of the Tuberculosis (TB) Screening for Long Term Care Residents flowchart, revised 3/11/14, provided by the Department of Health and Senior Services, showed the following:
-When a resident is admitted to a long term care facility and has no documentation of a two-step tuberculin skin test (TST), the facility must administer the first step TST within one month prior to or one week after admission;
-Staff is to read the results of the first step TST within 48 to 72 hours after administration;
-If the results were negative, staff must administer the second step TST within one to three weeks;
-Staff is to read the results of the second step TST within 48 to 72 hours.
-Results must be read and documented in millimeters (mm);
-The facility must complete an annual evaluation of residents to rule out signs and symptoms of TB.
2. Review of the facility's undated policy for Tuberculosis Testing/Screening for residents showed the following:
-The facility should screen for tuberculosis infection and disease;
-Any newly admitted resident would have a baseline two step TST. If the initial test was negative (zero to nine millimeters), a second test should be administered within one to three weeks after admission;
-Upon readmission, a resident would receive a one step TST if prior negative results within the past year.
Review of the facility undated policy Standard Precautions showed the following:
-Standard precautions would be used in the care of all residents unless otherwise indicated and were designed to reduce the risk of transmission of microorganisms from both recognized and unrecognized sources of infection;
-Hand hygiene was necessary to reduce the risk of transmission of microorganisms from both recognized and unrecognized sources of infection;
-Wash your hands before and after direct contact with residents, before putting on gloves, after removing gloves, after contact with blood, body fluids or articles/surfaces visibly contaminated with body substances or after contact with objects in the resident's environment, and after contact with resident's skin. It may be necessary to wash hands between tasks or procedures on the same resident to prevent cross contamination;
-Wear gloves when touching blood, body fluids, secretions, excretions or contaminated items, and before touching mucous membranes or non-intact skin. It may be necessary to change gloves between tasks or procedures on the same resident after contact with material that may contain microorganisms. Gloves should not be reused;
-Remove gloves promptly after contact with blood or body fluids, before touching non-contaminated items or surfaces such as resident's clean clothing, hair brush, side rail/position devices, or before going to another resident. Hands should be washed as soon as possible after glove removal.
Review of the facility undated policy Blood Glucose-Assisted Monitoring, Insulin Administration and Glucometer Cleaning showed the following:
-Gloves would be worn during blood glucose finger stick monitoring;
-If glucometers were shared, the device must be cleaned and disinfected between each resident;
-An EPA-Registered disinfectant would be used per product instructions. Examples of approved disinfectants included Cavi-Wipes1 and Sani-Cloth germicidal wipes;
-Manufacturer recommendations should be followed for contact time. A second device should be available for resident use to ensure the proper contact time was allowed.
3. Review of the manufacturer guidelines for use of the Super Sani-cloth Germicidal (disinfectant wipe) showed:
-Remove all heavily soiled particles from the surface, prior to disinfecting;
-Unfold a clean wipe and thoroughly clean the surface;
-Allow the treated surface to remain wet for 2 minutes;
-Let air dry;
-Dispose of the used towelette in the trash.
4. Review of Resident #253's medical record on 11/20/19 showed the following:
-He/She was admitted on [DATE];
-He/She was incontinent of bowel and bladder;
-He/She was dependent on staff for mobility, transfers, personal hygiene.
Observation on 11/20/19 at 4:06 P.M. showed the following:
-Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA) D entered the resident's room to provide post incontinence care;
-After washing his/her hands, CNA D exited the room to obtain more supplies, re-entered the room, and without washing hands applied his/her gloves;
-Certified Medication Technician (CMT) C entered the resident's room to assist CNA D and applied gloves without washing his/her hands;
-CMT C placed a gait belt around the resident's waist, lowered the resident's legs from the Broda chair (specialized wheelchair), to the floor, and both CNA D and CMT C transferred the resident to the bed;
-With gloved hands CNA D and CMT C unfastened the resident's brief and noted that he/she was incontinent of bowel and bladder;
-With gloved hands, CNA D used peri wipes to remove the feces from the resident's buttocks, thighs, and anal area;
-Without removing his/her contaminated gloves, CNA A obtained a soapy wash cloth from the bathroom and cleansed the resident's anal area to ensure all feces were removed;
-Without removing contaminated gloves and washing his/her hands, CNA D assisted the resident to his/her back and used wipes to cleanse the resident's front perineal area;
-When completed, CNA D grabbed the packages of wipes with contaminated gloves, picked up an adult brief, and assisted the resident onto his/her right side. CNA D placed barrier cream on the resident's buttocks/coccyx areas, removed contaminated gloves, and reapplied gloves without washing and/or sanitizing his/her hands;
-With contaminated hands, CNA D fastened the resident's adult brief and pulled up his/her pants.
-CNA D and CMT C exited the resident's room without washing and/or sanitizing their hands and assisted the resident to the dining room for dinner.
During an interview on 12/11/19 at 11:15 A.M., CNA D said the following:
-He/She was supposed to wash his/her hands upon entering a resident's room, after performing cares such as post-incontinence care, between processes and glove changes, and when exit the room;
-He/She should change his/her gloves between processes and prior to touching any clean items;
-The resident had a large amount of feces and was difficult to get clean. He/She should have washed his/her hands between gloves changes, but did not;
-He/She should not touch any clean items with contaminated gloves and hands.
During an interview on 12/11/19 at 12:00 P.M., CMT C said the following:
-He/She was supposed to wash his/her hands when entering a resident's room, between cares such as from going from front to back when providing post-incontinence care, between gloves changes, and before exiting a resident's room;
-Clean items should never be touched with contaminated hands and/or gloves.
5. Review of Resident #151's quarterly MDS dated [DATE] showed the following;
-Moderately impaired cognition;
-Required limited assistance of one staff member with bed mobility, dressing, toileting and personal hygiene;
-Required an indwelling urinary catheter;
-Occasionally incontinent of bowel.
Review of the resident's care plan dated 8/20/19 showed the following:
-The resident had an indwelling urinary catheter. Staff should monitor for signs and symptoms of infection every shift;
-The resident required staff assistance with toileting. Staff should assist the resident to the toilet.
Observation on 11/21/19 at 7:15 A.M. showed the following:
-CNA J washed hands and applied gloves, obtained disposable wipes and washed the resident's front perineal area and urinary catheter tubing from the distal end (furthest away from the resident's body) toward the catheter insertion site. CNA J did not wash the resident's skin folds around the catheter insertion site;
-CNA J without changing gloves or washing hands, turned the resident to his/her side and washed the resident's buttocks;
-CNA J without changing gloves or washing hands, turned the resident to his/her back and placed the urinary catheter drainage bag on the bed;
-CNA J without changing gloves or washing hands, threaded the urinary catheter drainage bag through the resident's clean incontinence brief and without washing hands, changed gloves and pulled up the resident's incontinence brief;
-CNA J with the same gloves and without washing hands, threaded the urinary catheter tubing through the resident's pants, and laid the urinary catheter bag on the bed;
-CNA J without washing hands, removed gloves and left the room.
During interview on 11/21/19 at 2:00 P.M. CNA J said he/she should wash hands every time his/her hands were soiled and before touching clean items. He/She should wash hands before applying gloves and every time gloves were changed. He/She should wash hands and apply clean gloves before providing the resident care. He/she did not wash his/her hands and change gloves correctly while providing the resident's care.
6. Observation on 11/21/19 at 7:35 A.M., showed the following:
-CMT P removed the glucometer from the top of the medication cart;
-Obtained Resident #34's blood glucose with the glucometer;
-Set the glucometer on top of the medication cart;
-Placed the glucometer in the top drawer of the medication cart on top of lancets.
-CMT P did not clean the glucometer to prevent the spread of contaminates from the device.
Observation on 11/22/19 at 11:33 A.M. showed the following:
-CMT A removed the same glucometer from the top of the medication cart;
-obtained Resident #33's blood glucose with the glucometer;
-Set the glucometer on top of the medication cart;
-Wiped the glucometer with a Sani-Cloth for approximately 5 seconds and placed it on top of the medication cart (did not leave wet for two minutes),
-On 11/22/19 at 11:42 A.M., CMT A picked up the same glucometer and obtained Resident #13's blood glucose with the glucometer;
-CMT A wiped the glucometer for approximately 5 seconds with a Sani-Cloth and placed it the top drawer of the medication cart (did not leave wet for two minutes);
Staff did not clean the glucometer according to the manufacturers directions to prevent the spread of contaminates that cause infection.
During an interview on 11/22/19, at 11:57 A.M., CMT P said:
-Staff use one glucometer on all residents that get their blood glucose checked;
-Staff are expected to clean the glucometer with an alcohol wipe;
-Staff are not supposed to use the Sani-cloth on the glucometers.
During an interview on 11/22/19, at 12:05 P.M., CMT A said:
-Staff use one glucometer on all the residents that get their blood glucose checked;
-Staff are expected to wipe of the glucometer with a Sani-Cloth after each use to prevent spreading infection;
-He/She did not know how long the glucometer surface needed to stay wet, or if it should air dry.
7. Review of Resident #38's medical record showed the following:
-admission date 1/30/19;
-Staff documented first step TST administered 7/17/19 and results read 7/19/19;
-Staff documented second step TST administered 7/29/19 and results read 7/31/19;
-TST completed six months after admission.
8. Review of Resident #12's medial record showed the following:
-admission date 2/26/19;
-Staff documented first step TST administered 7/17/19 and results read 7/19/19;
-Staff documented second step TST administered 8/5/19 and results read 8/7/19;
-TST completed five months after admission.
9. Review of Resident #26's medical record showed the following;
-admission date 4/2/19;
-Staff documented first step TST administered 7/17/19 and results read 7/19/19;
-Staff documented second step TST administered 7/29/19 and results read 7/31/19;
-TST completed three months after admission.
10. Review of Resident #150's medical record showed the following;
-admission date 11/15/19;
-On 11/22/19 no documentation staff administered the first step TST within one week following admission.
11. Review of Resident #151's medical record showed the following:
-admission date 1/31/19;
-Staff documented first step TST administered 7/17/19 and results read 7/19/19;
-No documentation staff administered a second step TST.
12. Review of Resident #250's medical record on 11/20/19 showed the following:
-He/She was admitted [DATE];
-Physician ordered for staff to initiate a two-step TST upon admission [DATE]);
-There was no documentation to show staff administered the first step TST within one week following admission.
13. Review of Resident #22's medical record on 11/20/19 showed the following:
-He/She was admitted on [DATE];
-Physician ordered for staff to initiate a two-step TST upon admission [DATE]);
-There was no documentation to show staff administered the first step TST within one week following admission.
14. Review of Resident #45's medical record on 11/20/19 showed the following:
-He/She was admitted on [DATE];
-Physician ordered for staff to initiate a two-step TST upon admission;
-There was no documentation to show staff administered the first step TST within one week following admission.
15. Review of Resident #251's medical record on 11/20/19 showed the following:
-He/She was admitted on [DATE];
-Physician ordered for staff to initiate a two-step TST upon admission [DATE]);
-There was no documentation to show staff administered the first step TST within one week following admission.
16. Review of Resident #23's Face Sheet showed an admission date of 2/12/19.
Review of the resident's medical record showed:
-First step TST administered on 7/17/19, and read on 7/19/19 with a result of 0 mm (millimeter) induration;
-Second step TST administered on 7/29/19, and read on 7/31/19 with a a result of 0 mm (millimeter) induration.
17. Review of Resident #30's Face Sheet showed an admission date of 7/4/19.
Review of the resident's medical record showed:
-First step TST administered on 7/4/19;
-No documentation staff administered a second TST.
18. Review of Resident #41's Face Sheet showed an admission date of 7/24/19.
Review of the resident's medical record showed it did show any documentation of provision of a TST after the resident admitted to the facility.
During an interview on 11/20/19 at 3:10 P.M., Registered Nurse (RN) E said the following:
-He/She tried to get TST tests started within the first 24 hours after admission;
-If they are not documented in the resident's immunization record, they were not completed;
-He/She was not sure why TST tests were not started;
-Nurses were responsible for completing TST tests upon admission.
During an interview on 11/26/19 at 12:04 P.M., the Director of Nursing (DON) said the following:
-She expected first step TST tests be completed within the first 24 hours of admission and the second step completed per regulatory guidelines;
-She completed an audit and noted several TSTs were not completed.
CONCERN
(F)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Food Safety
(Tag F0812)
Could have caused harm · This affected most or all residents
Based on observation and interview, the facility failed to follow proper sanitation and food handling practices in the kitchen. The facility census was 53.
Observations on 11/19/19 at 11:28 A.M. showe...
Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation and interview, the facility failed to follow proper sanitation and food handling practices in the kitchen. The facility census was 53.
Observations on 11/19/19 at 11:28 A.M. showed the following:
-There was no area for racking dishes,
-There was no area for dish rack storage;
-A buildup of a black and mold-like substance as well as a buildup of a sticky substance on the gasket on the condiment refrigerator;
-A heavy buildup of charred debris and whole pieces of old food on the stove;
-A brown buildup of debris on the outside of the stacked ovens and a buildup of debris on the handles;
-A heavy buildup of black debris inside the stacked ovens;
-Dishes stacked in drawers and in the cabinets were put away wet;
-Scoops, spoons, and knives stacked inside the drawers were put away with debris on them;
-The bowl for the stand mixer had debris on the sides and bottom;
-The paddle for the stand mixer had a buildup of debris;
-A scoop was stored in the flour container and the handle was in direct contact with the flour.
Observation on 11/19/19 at 11:59 A.M. showed the drinking glasses, located in the kitchen cabinets, had debris and a hazy film on them.
During interview on 11/21/19 at 3:11 P.M., the dietary supervisor said she was new to the facility and she inherited the kitchen in the condition it was in. She knew it was dirty and was working on it. There was no area for letting dishes dry and with such a small dish area staff could not scrape dishes since there wasn't enough room.
CONCERN
(F)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0883
(Tag F0883)
Could have caused harm · This affected most or all residents
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** 15. Review of Resident #15's Face Sheet showed admission date 8/30/19 and the resident was over age [AGE].
Review of the reside...
Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** 15. Review of Resident #15's Face Sheet showed admission date 8/30/19 and the resident was over age [AGE].
Review of the resident's admission MDS dated [DATE], showed the following:
-Severe cognitive impairment;
-Pneumococcal vaccination up to date.
Record review showed no pneumococcal vaccine history, no pneumococcal vaccine administered or offered by staff and no pneumococcal consent/refusal form.
During interview on 11/22/19 at 9:00 A.M., the DON said she screened the resident's pneumococcal vaccine history and found the resident had not received any pneumococcal vaccines. Staff had not offered or administered any pneumococcal vaccines.
16. Review of Resident #23's Face Sheet showed admission date 2/12/19 and the resident was over age [AGE].
Review of the resident's significant change in status MDS dated [DATE], showed the following:
-Severe cognitive impairment;
-Pneumococcal vaccination up to date.
Record review showed no pneumococcal vaccine history, no pneumococcal vaccine administered or offered by staff and no pneumococcal consent/refusal form.
During interview on 11/22/19 at 9:00 A.M., the DON said she screened the resident's pneumococcal vaccine history and found the resident had not received any pneumococcal vaccines. Staff had not offered or administered any pneumococcal vaccines.
17. Review of Resident #30's Face Sheet showed admission date 7/4/19 and the resident was over age [AGE].
Review of the resident's quarterly MDS dated [DATE], showed the following:
-Cognitively intact;
-Pneumococcal vaccination up to date.
Record review showed no pneumococcal vaccine history, no pneumococcal vaccine administered or offered by staff and no pneumococcal consent/refusal form.
During interview on 11/22/19 at 9:00 A.M., the DON said she screened the resident's pneumococcal vaccine history and found the resident had not received any pneumococcal vaccines. Staff had not offered or administered any pneumococcal vaccines.
18. Review of Resident #34's Face Sheet showed admission date 4/13/19 and the resident was over age [AGE].
Review of the resident's admission MDS dated [DATE], showed the following:
-Severe cognitive impairment;
-Pneumococcal vaccination up to date.
Record review showed no pneumococcal vaccine history, no pneumococcal vaccine administered or offered by staff and no pneumococcal consent/refusal form.
During interview on 11/22/19 at 9:00 A.M., the DON said she screened the resident's pneumococcal vaccine history and found the resident had not received any pneumococcal vaccines. Staff had not offered or administered any pneumococcal vaccines.
19. Review of Resident #41's Face Sheet showed admission date 7/24/19 and the resident was over age [AGE].
Review of the resident's admission MDS, dated [DATE], showed the following:
-Severe cognitive impairment;
-Pneumococcal vaccination is up to date.
Record review showed no pneumococcal vaccine history, no pneumococcal vaccine administered or offered by staff and no pneumococcal consent/refusal form.
During interview on 11/22/19 at 9:00 A.M., the DON said she screened the resident's pneumococcal vaccine history and found the resident had not received any pneumococcal vaccines. Staff had not offered or administered any pneumococcal vaccines.
20. Review of Resident #250's medical record showed the following:
-admitted [DATE];
-Was over the age of 65;
-Diagnoses included: anxiety, dementia, and hypertension (high blood pressure);
-No documentation to show the facility verified the resident's pneumonia vaccination history or offered to administer the vaccination;
-His/Her physician's orders included a Pneumovax (pneumonia) vaccination every six years.
21. Review of Resident #45's medical record showed the following:
-admitted [DATE];
-Diagnoses included: dementia, pelvic fracture, and rib fractures;
-No documentation to show the facility verified the resident's pneumonia vaccination history or offered to administer the vaccination.
-His/Her physician orders included a Pneumovax (pneumonia) vaccination every six years.
22. Review of Resident #251's medical record showed the following:
-admitted [DATE];
-Was over the age of 65;
-admitted with diagnoses of acute respiratory failure, coronary obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), and tension pneumothorax (an accumulation of air under in the pleural space which is life threatening and could cause the lung to collapse);
-No documentation to show the facility verified the resident's pneumonia vaccination history or offered to administer the vaccination;
-His/Her physician orders included a Pneumovax (pneumonia) vaccination every six years.
23. Review of Resident #253's medical record showed the following:
-admitted [DATE];
-Was over the age of 65;
-Diagnoses included: dementia, Alzheimer's disease, and uterine cancer;
-No documentation to show the facility verified the resident's pneumonia vaccination history and/or offered to administer the vaccination;
-His/Her physician's orders included a Pneumovax (pneumonia) vaccination every six years.
During an interview on 11/20/19 at 3:10 P.M., Registered Nurse (RN) E said the following:
-If pneumonia vaccinations were not documented in the resident's immunization record, they were not completed;
-He/She had never heard of offering pneumonia vaccinations upon admission;
-Immunization history was reviewed upon admission including pneumonia, but there was no follow up or offering of the vaccination that he/she was aware of.
During an interview on 11/21/19 at 6:30 P.M., the DON said the following:
-Staff should offer all residents pneumonia vaccines on admission and screen all new residents for pneumonia vaccine history. No pneumonia vaccine consent/refusal forms were completed for any residents;
-The MDS coordinator did not obtain residents' pneumococcal vaccine dates at the time of residents' admission. She did not know what pneumonia vaccines any of the residents received previously or track any of the vaccines for subsequent vaccinations. She did not have any residents complete consent/refusal forms on admission. No residents were offered the pneumonia vaccine in the past year;
-She screened all facility residents on 11/21/19 for pneumococcal vaccine status.
During an interview on 11/21/19 at 11:50 A.M. Physician R said she was aware the facility had not provided resident pneumonia vaccines and were not following the CDC guidelines. The facility should set up a pneumonia vaccine tracking system to ensure the vaccines were given appropriately. She worked with the medical director and spoke with him regarding the facility pneumonia vaccine administration. They agreed the facility needed a plan for tracking and administering the pneumonia vaccines per the CDC guidelines.
During an interview on 12/5/19 at 1:30 P.M., the facility medical director said the facility did not have a process in place to track or administer pneumococcal vaccinations following the CDC guidelines. He recently took over as the medical director and plans to assist the facility to set up systems that ensure vaccinations are tracked and administered following the CDC guidelines.
During interview on 11/20/19 at 6:30 P.M. the administrator said the facilty should follow the CDC guidelines for pneumococcal vaccine administration and screen residents on admission for current pneumococcal vaccine history.
Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to maintain and follow policies and procedures for immunization of residents against pneumococcal disease as required for 14 of 16 sampled residents (Resident #41, #23, #30, #18, #36, #151, #26, #150, #12, #40, #299, #253, #251, #45 and #250) and three additional residents (Resident #8, #38 and #299) of which three residents (Resident #36, # 37 and #8 ) developed pneumonia. The facility also failed to document if residents received the pneumococcal vaccine or did not receive the vaccine due to medical contraindications, previous vaccination or refusal and failed to assess and vaccinate eligible residents with the pneumococcal vaccine with recommended doses of pneumococcal vaccine as indicated by the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) guidelines. The facility census was 53.
1. Review of the facility undated policy Vaccine Administration showed the following:
-A licensed nurse would perform the resident vaccinations to prevent or limit infectious disease transmission within the facility;
-The nurse would identify the resident's immunization status following the Vaccination of Residents protocol;
-The nurse would follow the guidelines outlined in the Pneumococcal Vaccine protocol for individual vaccine administration;
-Documentation of the vaccine administration would be recorded in the resident's medical record;
-The Director of Nursing (DON) would monitor the logs to ensure completion and that immunization processes meet clinical standards of care.
Review of the facility undated policy Vaccination of Residents showed the following:
-All residents would be offered vaccines that aid in preventing infectious diseases unless the vaccine was medically contraindicated or the resident had already been vaccinated;
-Prior to receiving a vaccine, the resident or his legal representative would be provided information and education regarding the benefits and potential side effects of the individual vaccine. (see current vaccine information statements at www.cdc.gov/vaccines/hcp/vis/index.html for educational materials);
-Provision of such education would be documented in the resident's medical record;
-Upon admission, each new resident's current vaccination status would be assessed;
-The resident or his/her legal representative may refuse vaccines for any reason. Any or all refusals would be documented in the resident's medical record;
-If a resident received a vaccine, at a minimum the following information would be documented in the resident's medical record;
-site of administration
-date of administration
-lot number of the vaccine
-name of person administering the vaccine;
-Certain vaccines (i.e. pneumococcal vaccines) may be administered per the physician-approved facility protocol after each resident had been assessed by the physician for medical contraindications for each vaccine. The resident's Attending Physician must provide a separate order for any other vaccinations, with the order being recorded in the resident's medical record.
2. Review of the facility resident admission packet showed education provided regarding pneumococcal vaccine produced by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention dated 4/24/15.
3. Review of the US Department of Health and Human Services CDC Pneumococcal Vaccine Timing for Adults dated 11/30/15 showed the following:
-Two pneumococcal vaccines were recommended for adults: 13-valent pneumococcal conjugate vaccine (PCV13, PREVNAR13) and 23-valent pneumococcal polysaccharide vaccine (PPSV23, Pneumovax 23);
-One dose of PCV 13 was recommended for adults 65 years or older who had not previously received PCV13;
-One dose of PPSV23 was recommended for adults 65 years or older, regardless of previous history of vaccination with pneumococcal vaccines. Once a dose of PPSV23 was given at age [AGE] years or older, no additional doses of PPSV23 should be administered;
-For those age [AGE] years or older who had not received any pneumococcal vaccines, or those with unknown vaccination history administer one dose of PCV13. Administer one dose of PPSV23 at least one year later for most adults or at least eight weeks later for adults with immunocompromising conditions;
-For those age [AGE] years or older who previously received one dose of PPSV 23 and no doses of PCV13 administer one dose of PCV13 at least one year after the dose of PPSV23 for all adults regardless of medical conditions.
4. Review of Resident #36's Face Sheet showed admission date of 6/22/19 and the resident was over age [AGE].
Review of the resident's immunization record showed staff documented the resident's pneumococcal vaccine was up to date. There was no date or type of pneumococcal vaccine documented and no pneumococcal vaccine offered or administered by staff.
Record review showed no pneumococcal vaccine type history and no pneumococcal consent/refusal form.
Review of the resident's quarterly MDS dated [DATE], showed the following:
-Moderately impaired cognition;
-Pneumococcal vaccine up to date.
Review of the resident's Physician Order Sheet (POS) dated 7/11/19, showed Pneumovax per facility protocol.
Review of the resident's Electronic Medical Record (EMR) showed the following:
-On 11/15/19 the nurse's note showed the resident had a cough and abnormal lung sounds to the left chest. Oxygen saturation level (level of oxygen in blood measured with a device attached to the finger) without supplemental oxygen was 78 percent (normal above 98 percent). Staff notified the physician. A chest x-ray, and breathing treatments were ordered;
-On 11/15/19 a chest x- ray was obtained with results of slight right upper lobe infiltrate (indicates pneumonia);
-On 11/15/19 the physician ordered Rocephin (injectable antibiotic medication)1 gram intramuscular (an injection in the muscle) every 24 hours for 7 days;
-On 11/15/19 the physician's progress note documented diagnosis of facility acquired pneumonia.
During an interview on 11/22/19 at 9:00 A.M., the DON said on 11/21/19 she screened the residents' current pneumococcal vaccine status and found the resident received PCV13 pneumococcal vaccine on 10/16/18. Staff had not administered or offered the resident a subsequent PPSV 23 pneumococcal vaccine.
5. Review of Resident #8's Face Sheet showed admission date 2/6/19 and the resident was less than [AGE] years old.
Review of the resident's admission MDS, dated [DATE], showed the following:
-Severe cognitive impairment;
-Diagnosis of seizure disorder, intellectual disability, nutritional deficiency;
-Mechanically altered diet;
-Pneumococcal vaccination up to date.
Record review showed no pneumococcal vaccine history, no pneumococcal vaccine administered or offered by staff and no pneumococcal consent/refusal form.
Record review showed the resident developed pneumonia on 10/9/19.
During interview on 11/22/19 at 9:00 A.M., the DON said she screened the resident's pneumococcal vaccine history and found the resident had not received any pneumococcal vaccines. Staff had not offered or administered any pneumococcal vaccines.
6. Review of Resident #37's Face Sheet showed admission date 4/13/19 and the resident was over age [AGE].
Review of the resident's 5 day MDS, dated [DATE], showed the following:
-Moderate cognitive impairment;
-Does not have a diagnosis of pneumonia;
-Pneumococcal vaccination up to date.
Review of the resident's admission MDS dated [DATE], showed the following;
-Moderate cognitive impairment;
-New diagnosis of pneumonia;
-Pneumococcal vaccination up to date.
-The resident acquired pneumonia between 4/22/19 and 4/29/19.
Record review showed no pneumococcal vaccine history, no pneumococcal vaccine administered or offered by staff and no pneumococcal consent/refusal form.
Record review showed the resident developed pneumonia on 10/9/19.
During interview on 11/22/19 at 9:00 A.M., the DON said she screened the resident's pneumococcal vaccine history and found the resident had not received any pneumococcal vaccines. Staff had not offered or administered any pneumococcal vaccines.
7. Review of Resident #18's Face Sheet showed admission date 12/18/18 and the resident was over age [AGE].
Review of the resident's quarterly MDS dated [DATE], showed the following:
-Short and long term memory problems;
-Pneumococcal vaccine up to date.
Record review showed no pneumococcal vaccine history, no pneumococcal vaccine administered or offered by staff and no pneumococcal consent/refusal form.
During interview on 11/22/19 at 9:00 A.M., the DON said on 11/21/19 she screened the resident's pneumococcal vaccine history and found the resident had not received any pneumococcal vaccines. Staff had not offered or administered pneumococcal vaccine to the resident.
8. Review of Resident #151's Face Sheet showed admission date 1/31/19 and the resident was over age [AGE].
Review of the resident's quarterly MDS dated [DATE], showed the following:
-Moderately impaired cognition;
-Pneumococcal vaccine up to date.
Record review showed no pneumococcal vaccine history, no pneumococcal vaccine administered or offered by staff and no pneumococcal consent/refusal form.
During interview on 11/22/19 at 9:00 A.M., the DON said on 11/21/19 she screened the resident's pneumococcal vaccine history and found the resident received PCV 13 on 5/14/18. Staff did not offer or administer any subsequent pneumococcal vaccine.
9. Review of Resident #26's Face Sheet showed admission date 4/2/19 and the resident was over age [AGE].
Review of the resident's quarterly MDS dated [DATE] showed the following:
-Severely impaired cognition;
-Pneumococcal vaccine up to date.
Record review showed no pneumococcal vaccine history, no pneumococcal vaccine administered or offered by staff and no pneumococcal consent/refusal form.
During interview on 11/22/19 at 9:00 A.M., the DON said on 11/21/19 she screened the resident's pneumococcal vaccine history and found the resident had not received any pneumococcal vaccines.
10. Review of Resident #150's Face Sheet showed an admission date 11/15/19 and the resident was over age [AGE].
Record review showed no pneumococcal vaccine history, no pneumococcal vaccine administered or offered by staff and no pneumococcal consent/refusal form.
During interview on 11/22/19 at 9:00 A.M., the DON said on 11/21/19 she screened the resident's pneumococcal vaccine history and found the resident had not received any pneumococcal vaccines.
11. Review of Resident #12's Face Sheet showed admission date 2/26/19 and the resident was over age [AGE].
Review of the resident's quarterly MDS dated [DATE], showed the following:
-Severely impaired cognition;
-Pneumococcal vaccine up to date.
Record review showed no pneumococcal vaccine history, no pneumococcal vaccine administered or offered by staff and no pneumococcal consent/refusal form.
During interview on 11/22/19 at 9:00 A.M., the DON said on 11/21/19 she screened the resident's pneumococcal vaccine history and found the resident received PCV 13 on 8/10/18. Staff had offered or administered no subsequent pneumococcal vaccine.
12. Review of Resident #40's Face Sheet showed admission date 7/17/19 and the resident was over age [AGE].
Review of the resident's significant change MDS dated [DATE], showed the following:
-Severely impaired cognition;
-Pneumococcal vaccine up to date.
Record review showed staff documented the resident received PCV 13 on 10/23/06. Review showed no documentation staff offered or administered subsequent pneumococcal vaccine and no pneumococcal consent/refusal form.
During interview on 11/22/19 at 9:00 A.M., the DON said on 11/21/19 she screened the resident's pneumococcal vaccine history and found the resident received PCV 13 on 10/23/06. Staff had not offered or administered subsequent pneumococcal vaccine.
13. Review of Resident #38's Face Sheet showed admission date 1/30/19 and the resident was over age [AGE].
Review of the resident's quarterly MDS dated [DATE], showed the following:
-Moderately impaired cognition;
-Pneumococcal vaccine up to date.
Record review showed no documentation of the resident's pneumococcal vaccine history, no pneumococcal vaccine administered or offered by staff and no pneumococcal consent/refusal form.
During interview on 11/22/19 at 9:00 A.M., the DON said on 11/21/19 she screened the resident's pneumococcal vaccine history and found the resident received PCV 13 on 9/12/18. Staff had not offered or administered subsequent pneumococcal vaccine.
14. Review of Resident #299's Face Sheet showed admission date 5/819 and the resident was age [AGE].
Review of the resident's quarterly MDS dated [DATE], showed the following:
-Severely impaired cognition;
-Pneumococcal vaccine up to date.
Record review showed no pneumococcal vaccine history, no pneumococcal vaccine administered or offered by staff and no pneumococcal consent/refusal form.
During interview on 11/22/19 at 9:00 A.M., the DON said on 11/21/19 she screened the resident's pneumococcal vaccine history and found the resident received PCV 13 on 10/21/15. Staff had not offered or administered subsequent pneumococcal vaccine.
MINOR
(B)
Minor Issue - procedural, no safety impact
Deficiency F0582
(Tag F0582)
Minor procedural issue · This affected multiple residents
Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to provide a Skilled Nursing Facility Advanced Beneficiary Notice (SNFABN) (form CMS-10055) or a denial letter at the initiation, reduction, o...
Read full inspector narrative →
Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to provide a Skilled Nursing Facility Advanced Beneficiary Notice (SNFABN) (form CMS-10055) or a denial letter at the initiation, reduction, or termination of Medicare Part A benefits for three residents (Residents #5, #14, and #36) who remained in the facility upon discharge from Medicare A services. The facility census was 53.
1. Review of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services Survey and Certification memo (S&C-09-20), dated 1/9/09, showed the following:
-The Notice of Medicare Provider Non-Coverage (NOMNC, form CMS-10123) is issued when all covered Medicare services end for coverage reasons;
-If the skilled nursing facility (SNF) believes on admission or during a resident's stay that Medicare will not pay for skilled nursing or specialized rehabilitative services and the provider believes that an otherwise covered item or service may be denied as not reasonable or necessary, the facility must inform the resident or his/her legal representative in writing why these specific services may not be covered and the beneficiary's potential liability for payment for the non-covered services. The SNF's responsibility to provide notice to the resident can be fulfilled by the use of either the SNFABN (form CMS-10055) or one of the five uniform denial letters;
-The SNFABN provides an estimated cost of items or services in case the beneficiary had to pay for them him/herself or through other insurance they may have;
-If the SNF provides the beneficiary with either the SNFABN or a denial letter at the initiation, reduction, or termination of Medicare Part A benefits, the provider has met is obligation to inform the beneficiary of his/her potential liability for payment and related standard claim appeal rights. Issuing the NOMNC to a beneficiary only conveys notice to the beneficiary of his/her right to an expedited review of a service termination.
2. Review of Resident #5's NOMNC, dated 3/8/19, showed the resident's skilled physical therapy (PT), skilled occupational therapy (OT), and skilled speech therapy (ST) ended on 3/12/19.
During an interview on 11/20/19 at 4:30 P.M., the social services director said the resident had reached his/her maximum potential, was discharged from therapy and remained in the facility. The resident had Medicare days remaining.
Review showed no evidence staff completed a SNFABN for the resident when the resident was discharged from therapy and remained in the facility.
3. Review of Resident #15's NOMNC, dated 3/8/19, showed the resident's skilled physical therapy and skilled occupational therapy ended on 3/11/19.
During an interview on 11/20/19 at 4:30 P.M., the social services director said the resident was discharged from therapy and remained in the facility. The resident had Medicare days remaining.
Review showed no evidence staff completed a SNFABN for the resident when the resident was discharged from therapy and remained in the facility.
4. Review of Resident #36's NOMNC, dated 8/16/19, showed the resident's skilled physical therapy and skilled speech therapy ended on 8/20/19.
During an interview on 11/20/19 at 4:30 P.M., the social services director said the resident was discharged from therapy and remained in the facility. The resident had Medicare days remaining.
Review showed no evidence staff completed a SNFABN for the resident when the resident was discharged from therapy and remained in the facility.
5. During an interview on 11/20/19 at 4:30 P.M., the social service worker said the facility provides a NOMNC when a resident is discharged from Medicare A therapy services. The social worker said they only provide a SNFABN to residents who want to continue therapy and do not have Medicare days remaining. He/She did not provide Residents #5, #14 and #36 with a SNFABN when they were discharged from skilled therapy and remained in the facility.
MINOR
(C)
Minor Issue - procedural, no safety impact
Deficiency F0838
(Tag F0838)
Minor procedural issue · This affected most or all residents
Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to develop a detailed facility assessment to include the overall number of facility staff, training and competencies needed to ensure sufficie...
Read full inspector narrative →
Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to develop a detailed facility assessment to include the overall number of facility staff, training and competencies needed to ensure sufficient number of qualified staff were available to meet each resident's needs during day-to-day operations and emergencies, and failed to update the assessment annually and with any significant change in the resident population. The facility census was 53.
Review of the facility assessment showed the assessment was conducted before the facility opened and did not address the needs of current residents' conditions.
During interview on 11/22/19 at 4:55 P.M. the administrator said the facility assessment was not updated since opening the facility in January 2019. The current assessment reflected a few residents only. The entire assessment needed updated on an ongoing basis.