The Meadows at Ashland

1700 Furnas Street, Ashland, NE 68003 (402) 944-7031
For profit - Limited Liability company 97 Beds AVID HEALTHCARE GROUP Data: November 2025
Trust Grade
25/100
#170 of 177 in NE
Last Inspection: July 2025

Inspected within the last 6 months. Data reflects current conditions.

Overview

The Meadows at Ashland has received a Trust Grade of F, indicating significant concerns and overall poor performance. Ranked #170 out of 177 facilities in Nebraska, this places it in the bottom half of all nursing homes in the state, and it is the lowest-ranked facility in Saunders County. Unfortunately, the facility is experiencing a worsening trend, with the number of issues increasing from 7 in 2024 to 9 in 2025. Staffing is a concern, with a rating of only 2 out of 5 stars and a high turnover rate of 69%, which is significantly above the Nebraska average. While it is positive that there are no fines on record, the facility has been cited for serious issues, such as failing to implement fall prevention measures for multiple residents and not properly protecting residents from potential burns, which raises serious safety concerns.

Trust Score
F
25/100
In Nebraska
#170/177
Bottom 4%
Safety Record
High Risk
Review needed
Inspections
Getting Worse
7 → 9 violations
Staff Stability
⚠ Watch
69% turnover. Above average. Higher turnover means staff may not know residents' routines.
Penalties
✓ Good
No fines on record. Clean compliance history, better than most Nebraska facilities.
Skilled Nurses
⚠ Watch
Each resident gets only 17 minutes of Registered Nurse (RN) attention daily — below average for Nebraska. Fewer RN minutes means fewer trained eyes watching for problems.
Violations
⚠ Watch
19 deficiencies on record. Higher than average. Multiple issues found across inspections.
★☆☆☆☆
1.0
Overall Rating
★★☆☆☆
2.0
Staff Levels
★☆☆☆☆
1.0
Care Quality
★★☆☆☆
2.0
Inspection Score
Stable
2024: 7 issues
2025: 9 issues

The Good

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

Facility shows strength in fire safety.

The Bad

1-Star Overall Rating

Below Nebraska average (2.9)

Significant quality concerns identified by CMS

Staff Turnover: 69%

23pts above Nebraska avg (46%)

Frequent staff changes - ask about care continuity

Chain: AVID HEALTHCARE GROUP

Part of a multi-facility chain

Ask about local staffing decisions and management

Staff turnover is elevated (69%)

21 points above Nebraska average of 48%

The Ugly 19 deficiencies on record

3 actual harm
Jul 2025 5 deficiencies
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0552 (Tag F0552)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Licensure Reference Number 175 NAC 12-006.05(E) Based on record review and interview the facility failed to provide the resident/resident representative education and receive informed consent for use ...

Read full inspector narrative →
Licensure Reference Number 175 NAC 12-006.05(E) Based on record review and interview the facility failed to provide the resident/resident representative education and receive informed consent for use of psychotropic medications (any medication that affects behavior, mood, thoughts, or perception) as required for 1 (Resident 10) of 1 sampled resident. The facility census was 77.Findings are:Record review of undated facility policy titled Use of Psychotropic Medication(s) revealed that Prior to initiating or increasing a psychotropic medication (drugs that affect brain activities associated with mental processes and behavior), the resident, family, and/or resident representative must be informed of the benefits, risks, and alternatives for the medication, including any black box warnings for antipsychotic medications, in advance of such initiation or increase.Record review of the Order Summary (a listing of all current physician orders for the resident) dated 7/16/2025 for Resident 10 revealed an order for Alprazolam (an antianxiety medication) 0.5 milligrams (mg) one tablet by mouth every 8 hours for anxiety with an order start date of 4/14/2025, buspirone HCI 10mg (an anti-anxiety medication) three times a day for anxiety with an order start date of 2/27/20252, Sertraline HCI 50mg (an antidepressant medication) by mouth one time a day for depression, and Trazadone HCI 150mg (an antidepressant) one tablet by mouth at bedtime for sleep with an order start date of 12/3/2024.Record review of Resident 10's admission Record dated July 16, 2025, reveals original admission date of 7/5/2024.Record review of the Minimum Data Set (MDS, a mandatory comprehensive assessment tool used for care planning) dated Aril 28, 2025 for Resident 10 revealed that resident receives antidepressants and antianxiety medications. A Brief Interview of Mental Status (BIMS, a brief screening tool that aids in detecting cognitive impairment) score of 14 indicating resident is cognitively intact.Record review of Resident 10's Care Plan Psychotropic Drug Use initiated 6/13/2025 revealed Resident 10 used antidepressants related to depression; anxiolytics related to generalized anxiety disorder.Record review of Resident 10's medical records revealed no evidence of consents for use of psychotropic medications.Record review of Resident 10's Medical Administration Record (MAR, a legal record of the medications administered to a patient at a facility by a health care professional) for July 1, 2025 to July 20, 2025 revealed administration of psychotropic medications while at facility.Interview with Director of Nursing (DON) on 7/21/2025 at 10:25 AM confirmed that the facility did not have a psychotropic consent form for Resident 10 as required.
CONCERN (D)

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

Quality of Care (Tag F0684)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Licensure Reference Number 175 NAC 12-006.10(C)Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to prime a insulin pen ...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Licensure Reference Number 175 NAC 12-006.10(C)Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to prime a insulin pen prior to administer insulin for 1 (Resident 15) of 3 sampled residents and failed to ensure 1 (Residents 15) of 5 sampled resident's who received Jardiance (an oral diabetes medication) was provided per the provider's order. The facility census was 77.Findings are:A. A record review of the undated Medication Administration policy revealed medications administered by the facility's staff would be as ordered by the provider and in accordance with professional standards. A record review of Resident 15's Clinical Census dated 07/21/2025 revealed the resident was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. A record review of Resident 15's Medical Diagnosis dated 07/21/2025 revealed the resident had diagnosis of type 2 diabetes mellitus (uncontrolled blood sugar) with other circulatory (blood flow) complications. A record review of Resident 15's Minimum Data Set (MDS)(a comprehensive assessment used to develop a resident's care plan) dated 05/16/2025 revealed the resident had a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS)(a score of a residents cognitive abilities) of 7 of 15 which indicated the resident was moderately cognitively impaired. The resident needed set up assistance with eating, supervision or touching assistance with oral hygiene (cleaning) and upper body dressing, partial/moderate assistance with toileting and personal hygiene, and was dependent on staff for bathing. The MDS revealed the resident was receiving hypoglycemics (diabetes medication) and had diabetes mellitus. A record review of Resident 15's Care Plan with an admission date of 12/24/2022 revealed Resident 15 was at risk for alteration (changes) in my blood sugar levels, hypoglycemia (low blood sugar) and/or hyperglycemia (high blood sugar) due to my diabetes. The interventions included provide medication, blood sugar checks, and labs as ordered. A record review of Resident 15's Order Summary Report dated 07/21/2025 revealed the resident had an order for Jardiance Oral Tablet 10 milligrams (mg). Give 1 tablet by mouth in the morning related to type 2 diabetes mellitus with other circulatory complications dated 06/26/2025 and had a start date of 06/27/2025. A record review of the facility's Pharmacist's Recommendation to Prescriber dated 06/25/2025 revealed the provider agreed to start Jardiance 10 mg once daily for Resident 15. A record review of Resident 15's Urgent-Response Required communication form from the pharmacy dated 06/27/2025 revealed the Jardiance required a prior authorization (pre-approval for payment), please contact the prescriber for potential change or order. The form had Faxed 7/17/25 written on it. A record review of Resident 15's Medication Administration Record (MAR) dated June 2025 revealed the staff documented 06/27/2025, 06/29/2025, and 06/30/2025 was not administered and a code of 9 that indicated Other/See Nurse Notes. The staff documented the 06/28/2025 dose of Jardiance was administered. A record review of Resident 15's MAR dated July 2025 revealed the staff documented the Jardiance was not administered 07/11/2025, and 07/14/2025 - 07/20/2025. A record review of Resident 15's Progress Notes dated 07/21/2024 - 07/01/2025 did not reveal the facility attempted to reach the provider to notify the provider the pharmacy had not provided the resident with Jardiance because it required prior authorization from the provider. On the dates above that were marked not administered on the June 2025 and July 2025 MAR, there were notes from the staff that there was an issue with insurance, Director of Nursing (DON) was aware, Assistant Director of Nursing (ADON) was aware, on order, and/or reordered. In an interview on 07/21/2025 at 1:39 PM, Medication Aide (MA)-D confirmed Resident 15's Jardiance was not administered 07/21/2025 due to the facility did not have it. MA-D confirmed they have not had the Jardiance for over a week. In an interview on 07/21/2025 at 2:42 PM, Pharmacy Technician (PHT)-E confirmed Resident 15 had an order for Jardiance, but it could not be provided due to a lack of response from the provider. PHT-E confirmed the original order for the Jardiance was 06/26/2025 and a communication form had been sent to the facility to notify the provider that the Jardiance was not covered by the insurance. PHT-E confirmed the order has never been filled or delivered to the facility. In an interview on 07/22/2025 at 8:43 AM, the DON confirmed the facility had not received any doses of Jardiance and Resident 15 had not received a dose. The DON confirmed the staff had marked it as being administered, but it had not been. B.A record review of Resident 15's Care Plan with an admission date of 12/24/2022 revealed a focus area of I am at risk for alteration (changes) in my blood sugar levels, hypoglycemia (low blood sugar) and/or hyperglycemia (high blood sugar) due to my diabetes. The interventions included provide medication, blood sugar checks, and labs as ordered. A record review of Resident 15's Order Summary Report dated 07/21/2025 revealed the resident had an order for Lantus Solostar Subcutaneous (under the skin) Solution Pen injector 100 unit/ml (milliliter) (Insulin Glargine), Inject 15 units subcutaneously two times a day for elevated A1C (a lab test of average blood sugar levels). An observation on 07/21/2025 at 7:13 AM revealed Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN)-B administered Lantus Solostar Subcutaneous Solution Pen injector 100 unit/ml to resident. LPN-B took Resident 15's blood sugar reading, opened the insulin pen, dialed in 15 units, wiped Resident 15's abdomen (stomach area) with an alcohol wipe, applied the needle, and slowly injected the 15 units into the resident abdomen. The observation did not reveal LPN-B primed the insulin pen with 2 units and pressed the plunger prior to administering the ordered 15 units. In an interview on 07/21/2025 at 7:19 AM, LPN-B confirmed LPN-B did not prime the insulin pen prior to injecting the 15 units of insulin. Interview on 07/22/2025 at 7:11 AM, the Director of Nursing (DON) confirmed that it was standard protocol to prime an insulin pen with 2 units prior to the insulin administration. A record review of the Highlights of Prescribing Information for Lantus Solostar insulin pen (a pen used to administer diabetes medication) instructions for use with a revised date of 05/2025 revealed always do a safety test before each injection. To check the pen and the needle to make sure they are working properly and make sure the resident gets the correct insulin dose. Select 2 units by turning the dose selector until the dose pointer is at the 2 mark. Press the injection button all the way in. When insulin comes out of the needle tip, the pen is working correctly. https://products.sanofi.us/Lantus/Lantus.pdf A record review of the Insulin Pen policy dated 8/2023 revealed insulin pens will be primed prior to each use to avoid collection of air in the insulin reservoir.
CONCERN (D)

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

Respiratory Care (Tag F0695)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Licensure Reference Number 175 NAC 12-006.09(H)(vi)(3)(g) Based on record reviews, observations, and interviews the facility fai...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Licensure Reference Number 175 NAC 12-006.09(H)(vi)(3)(g) Based on record reviews, observations, and interviews the facility failed to provide staff training/competency testing for use of a Trilogy machine (a noninvasive machine that provides ventilation/breathing support) for 2 (Resident 10 and Resident 21) of 2 sampled residents. The facility census was 77. Findings are: Record review of facility assessment (is a comprehensive evaluation of the facility’s resident population and the resources needed to provide appropriate care and services), reviewed with the facility’s QAA Committee (Quality Assurance Committee) on 3/13/2025 revealed the facility did not identify it had the capability and/or capacity to provide specialized respiratory care or services. A Record review of an undated facility policy titled “Noninvasive Ventilation (CPAP, BiPAP, AVAP, Trilogy)” revealed the facility’s policy is to provide noninvasive ventilation as per physician’s order and current standards of practice. Further record review includes definitions of ventilator types. Definitions include: “AVAPS” or average volume-assured pressure support, is a modality of non-invasive ventilation that integrates the characteristics of both volume and pressure controlled non-invasive ventilation and delivers a fixed tidal volume. “Noninvasive Ventilation” (NIV) refers to the administration of ventilator support without using an invasive artificial airway. This type of device may be used for individuals with pneumonia, COPD, emphysema, or other lung disease. A. A record review of resident 10s’ admission record reveals original date of admission of 7-5-2024. A record review of Resident 10’s Order Summary dated 5-5-2025 reveals setting for Trilogy machine: Vaps (volume assured pressure support) TV (tidal volume) : 500 EPAP 10-20 PS 4-12 rate:12 at bedtime for C-pap. A record review of a visit to Nebraska Pulmonary Specialties dated 5-5-2025 for Resident 10 revealed a diagnosis of chronic hypercapnia respiratory failure: a condition where there is too much carbon dioxide in the blood, Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD): a pulmonary disease that is characterized by chronic, typically irreversible airway obstruction resulting in a slowed rate of exhalation, obstructive sleep apnea syndrome: a disorder where your breathing stops and starts repeatedly during sleep, aspergillosis: a lung infection caused by aspergillosis, histoplasmosis: a lung infection caused by breathing in spores of the fungus Histoplasma, history of nicotine dependence, and lung field abnormalities. Included with the details of the visit are new orders for noninvasive ventilator as stated in the facility Order Summary. Record review of the Minimum Data Set (MDS, a mandatory comprehensive assessment tool used for care planning) for Resident 10 dated Aril 28, 2025 revealed non-invasive mechanical ventilator use. A Brief Interview of Mental Status (BIMS, a brief screening tool that aids in detecting cognitive impairment) revealed a score of 14 indicating resident is cognitively intact. Record review of Resident 10’s care plan revealed no mention of non-invasive mechanical ventilation (Trilogy). Record review of Resident 10’s Medical Administration Record (MAR, a legal record of the medications administered to a patient at a facility by a health care professional) for July 1, 2025, to July 20, 2025, revealed administration of orders for NIV on days resident was at facility. Observation of Resident 10’s room during the survey dates July 16,17,21and 22 revealed a Trilogy machine on bedside table with silicone face mask attached to the flexible tubing, placed in plastic bag. Interview with Director of Nursing (DON) on 7-21-2025 at 10:25 AM confirmed that the facility did not have training on Trilogy machine. B.Record review of Resident 21’s admission Record revealed Resident 21 admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses of Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD) (a group of lung diseases that cause long-term breathing problems), Idiopathic Sleep related nonobstructive alveolar hypoventilation and Sleep Apnea (a sleep disorder where a person doesn’t breathe adequately during sleep). Record review of Resident 21’s Order Summary revealed a prescriber written order for CPAP/BILevel/Trilogy with goal of tidal volume of 400-500, pressure support range 2-40 cmH20 EPAP range 4-25 cm H20 (these are setting on the Trilogy machine) at bedtime related to Idiopathic Sleep related to Nonobstructive Aveolar Hypoventilation. Record review of Resident 21’s Quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS, a mandatory comprehensive assessment tool used for care planning) dated 05/14/2025 revealed a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS), (a brief assessment for mental status, revealed a score of 15, which indicated Resident 21 is cognitively intact and was receiving respiratory treatment of a non-invasive mechanical ventilator. Record review of Resident 21’s care plan dated 7/16/2025 revealed a focus area of impaired respiratory status, goal that the resident will have no reports of unrelieved shortness of breath and intervention to apply CPAP/BiPap per order. Further review of Resident 21’s care plan did not identify any interventions for the use of a Trilogy machine. Observations throughout the on-site facility survey on July 16,17,21,22, 2025 revealed that a Trilogy machine ([NAME] Respironics Trilogy ventilator) was by Resident 21’s bedside. An interview with Resident 21 on July 21, 2025 at 10:20 AM confirmed that Resident 21 needs help applying the Trilogy mask and names two nurses by name who are “angels” when it comes to helping with the Trilogy and further reported other staff don’t know what they are doing. Interview with Director of Nursing (DON) on 07/21/25 at 2:28 PM confirmed that the facility did not provide staff training on the use of a Trilogy machine.
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0699 (Tag F0699)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Licensure Reference Number 175 NAC 12-006.09 and 12-006.09(E)Based on record review and interviews; the facility failed to evalu...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Licensure Reference Number 175 NAC 12-006.09 and 12-006.09(E)Based on record review and interviews; the facility failed to evaluate and implement interventions to manage triggers (any stimuli that cause a person to re-experience the trauma or its associated emotions) for 1 (Resident 21) of 1 sampled resident with a self-reported diagnosis of Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) through evaluation and care planning of potential triggers or situations that could lead to re-traumatization. The facility census was 77. Findings are:Record Review of Resident 21's Minimum Data Set (MDS- Federally mandated comprehensive assessment used to develop resident care plan) dated 3/28/28 revealed Resident 21 with a Brief Interview of Mental Status (BIMS) of a 13, which indicated a person is cognitively intact. Further review of Resident 21's MDS dated [DATE] revealed Resident 21 had active diagnoses of Stroke, Hypertension (high blood pressure), Diabetes Mellitus, Anxiety Disorder, and Bipolar Disorder (a mental illness that causes unusual shifts in mood from extreme highs (mania) to lows (depression).Record review of Resident 21's admission Record revealed Resident 21 admitted to the facility on [DATE].Record review of After Visit Summary of Resident 21 from hospitalization dated 3/15/28 revealed diagnoses of History of intravenous drug use - in remission, Bipolar disorder, Anxiety with depression, Methamphetamine abuse, Mood disorder, and Homelessness.Record review of facility's Comprehensive Behavioral assessment dated [DATE] revealed Resident 21's social history screen was in jail more than once, Anxiety part of the screen revealed Resident 21 expressed the following:-Feeling nervous anxious or on edge- nearly every day -Not being able to stop or control worrying- more than half the days-Worrying too much about different things- more that half the days-Trouble relaxing- nearly every day-Being so restless that it is hard to sit still-nearly every day-Becoming easily annoyed or irritated-several days Record review of PHQ2-9 Staff Assessment (questionnaires used screen for and assess depression) of Resident Mood dated 5/12/25 revealed the following about Resident 21's:Mood: Little interest/pleasure doing things: yesMood: Little interest doing things: 2-6 days (several days)Mood: Feeling down, depressed or hopeless: yesMood: Feeling down, depressed of hopeless: 2-6 days (several days)Record review of Resident 21's Care Plan Report dated 7/16/2025 revealed no focus area related to anxiety, depression, mood, or past traumatic event triggers.Interview with Resident 21 on 7/16/25 at 1:32 PM revealed Resident 21 had PTSD (Post Traumatic Stress Disorder) from previous domestic abuse and that (gender) did not like water being poured over the face, specifically mouth and nose because of past abuse when water was forcefully poured over their mouth and nose. Resident 21 further revealed that (gender) had a history of recreational drug use, including methamphetamines and cocaine use which resulted in being homeless, legal issues, going to jail and domestic abuse.During an interview on 7/21/25 at 2:42 PM with Registered Nurse Regional Nurse Consultant (RNC-C) confirmed the facility had not completed a trauma based assessment or initiated a trauma informed care plan when Resident 21 admitted to the facility and should have. Record review of the facility's undated policy of Trauma Informed Care revealed the following:Policy: It is the policy of this facility to provide care and services which, in addition to meeting professional standards, are delivered using approached which are culturally-competent, account for experiences and preference, and address the needs of trauma survivors by minimizing triggers and/or re-traumatization. Definitions: Trauma results from an event, series or events, or set of circumstances that is experiences by an individual as physically or emotionally harmful or life threatening and that has lasting adverse effects on the individual's functional and mental, physical, social, emotional, or spiritual well-being. Common sources of trauma may include: Violent crime, Physica, sexual, mental and/or emotional abuse (past or present), history of imprisonment, history of homelessness.
CONCERN (E)

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

Unnecessary Medications (Tag F0759)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

Licensure Reference Number 175 NAC 12-006.10(D) Based on record review, observations and interviews, the facility failed to administer medications according to practitioner's orders or manufacturer's ...

Read full inspector narrative →
Licensure Reference Number 175 NAC 12-006.10(D) Based on record review, observations and interviews, the facility failed to administer medications according to practitioner's orders or manufacturer's recommendations by administering medications after a meal consumption for medication to be given 60 minutes prior to meals. This included observation of 25 medication administration opportunities with 3 errors resulting in an error rate of 12%. This failure affected 2 (Residents 21 and 65 ) of 3 sampled residents. The facility census was 77. Findings are: A. An observation on 7/21/25 at 7:50 AM with Medication aide (MA-A) administering medication to Resident 21 revealed the following: Omeprazole 40 mg with instructions written on medication card to be given 60 minutes prior to meals. An interview on 7/21/25 at 7:50 AM with Resident 21 confirmed that Resident 21 had eaten (genders) breakfast that consisted of oatmeal, eggs, and bacon when the Omeprazole was given. An interview on 7/21/25 at 8:00 AM with MA-A confirmed that Resident 21 had already eaten breakfast and the Omeprazole should of been given prior to Resident 21 eating breakfast. An interview on 7/21/25 at 8:30 AM with the Director of Nursing (DON) confirmed that the omeprazole should of been given to Resident 21 prior to breakfast and was not given prior to breakfast. B. An observation on 7/21/25 at 8:10 AM with MA-A of administering medication to Resident 65 revealed the following: -Trelegy Ellipta (medication to assist with breathing) 1 puff inhale and to rinse mouth after use. Instruction to administer the mediation was to rinse the mouth after. -Omeprazole 20 mg with instructions written on medication card to be given 60 minutes prior to meals. An interview on 7/21/25 at 8:15 AM AM with Resident 65 confirmed that Resident 65 had eaten (genders) breakfast that consisted of oatmeal, eggs, and bacon. An interview on 7/21/25 at 8:15 AM with MA-A confirmed that Resident 65 had already eaten breakfast and the Omeprazole should of been given prior to Resident 65 eating breakfast. The MA-A confirmed that (gender) did not have Resident 65 rinse out Resident 65 mouth after the use of the Trelegy Ellipta and should of and the omeprazole should of been given prior to breakfast. An interview on 7/21/25 at 8:30 AM with the Director on Nursing (DON) confirmed that the omeprazole should of been given to Residents 65 prior to meals as the medication card stated and the omeprazole was not given prior to meals and Resident 65 mouth should of been rinse out after the Trelogy Ellipta and it wasn't. A record review of the Medication Administration policy with no date revealed: Administer within 60 minutes prior to or after scheduled time unless otherwise ordered by physician. Rinse mouth with water after use of inhalers.
May 2025 1 deficiency 1 Harm
SERIOUS (G) 📢 Someone Reported This

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

Actual Harm - a resident was hurt due to facility failures

Accident Prevention (Tag F0689)

A resident was harmed · This affected 1 resident

Deficiency Text Not Available

Read full inspector narrative →
Deficiency Text Not Available
Apr 2025 1 deficiency
CONCERN (D) 📢 Someone Reported This

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

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

Deficiency F0657 (Tag F0657)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Licensure Reference Number 175 NAC 12-006.09(F)(iii) Based on record review and interview, the facility failed to update the Com...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Licensure Reference Number 175 NAC 12-006.09(F)(iii) Based on record review and interview, the facility failed to update the Comprehensive Care Plan - (CCP- written instructions needed to provide effective and person centered care of the resident that meet professional standards of quality care) to accurately reflect interventions to minimize behaviors for 2 (Residents 1 and 2) of 3 sampled residents. The facility census was 81. Findings are: Record review of the facility provided incident report dated 1/10/2025 revealed Resident 1 and Resident 2 got into an altercation. Resident 1 stuck (gender) tongue out and then Resident 2 grabbed Resident 1. The residents were immediately separated by the staff. A. Record review of Resident 1's Quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS - a comprehensive assessment of each resident's functional capabilities used to develop a resident's plan of care) dated 2/14/2025 revealed the resident admitted to the facility on [DATE], had a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS - a test used to get a quick snapshot of a resident's cognitive function, scored from 0-15, the higher the score, the higher the cognitive function) score of 6, which indicated severe cognitive impairment, and had a diagnosis of Non-Alzheimer's Dementia. Record review of Resident 1's Progress Notes dated revealed no behaviors documentation from 1/1/2025-1/12/2025. Record review of Resident 1's CCP date initiated 11/7/2022 revealed no new behavior interventions dated around the time of the 1/10/2025 incident regarding Resident 1 and Resident 2. B. Record review of Resident 2's Quarterly MDS dated [DATE] revealed the resident admitted to the facility on [DATE], had a BIMS of 9 which indicated moderate cognitive impairment, and had a diagnosis of Non-Alzheimer's Dementia. Record review of Resident 2's Progress Notes revealed no behaviors documentation from 1/1/2025-1/12/2025. Record review of Resident 2's CCP revealed a focus date initiated 10/17/2024 revealed Resident 2 has a history of verbal aggression towards others and no new behavior interventions dated around the time of the 1/10/2025 incident regarding Resident 1 and Resident 2. During an interview on 4/16/2025 at 1:21 PM the Director of Nursing (DON) confirmed there wasn't any behavior documentation, or careplan update, physician notification or family notification documentation regarding the incident between Resident 1 and Resident 2 and there should have been. Review of the undated facility provided Care Plan Revisions Policy revealed: - the comprehensive careplan will be reviewed and revised as necessary, -the care plan will be updated with new or modified interventions, -careplans will be modified as needed. Review of the facility policy dated 8/2023 and titled Behavioral Health Services revealed the facility utilizes the comprehensive assessment process for identifying and assessing a resident's mental and psychosocial status and providing person centered care. The assessment and careplan will include foals that are person centered and individualized. The facility will also ensure approaches and interventions are meeting the needs of the residents.
Mar 2025 2 deficiencies 1 Harm
SERIOUS (G) 📢 Someone Reported This

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

Actual Harm - a resident was hurt due to facility failures

Accident Prevention (Tag F0689)

A resident was harmed · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Licensure Reference Number 175 NAC 12.006.09(I) Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to imple...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Licensure Reference Number 175 NAC 12.006.09(I) Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to implement interventions to prevent falls for 3 (Residents 1, 2, and 3) of 4 sampled residents. The facility census was 82. Findings are: A record review of the facility's Fall Risk Assessment dated 8/2023 revealed it was the policy of the facility to provide an environment that was free from accident hazards over which the facility had control and provide supervision and assistive devices to prevent avoidable accidents. The falls care plan would include interventions, to include supervision, in order to reduce the risk of an accident. A. A record review of Resident 1's Clinical Census dated 03/03/2025 revealed the resident was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. A record review of Resident 1's Medical Diagnosis dated 03/03/2025 revealed the resident had diagnoses of Unspecified Fracture Of Left Femur (left hip), Muscle Weakness, Other Abnormalities Of Gait and Mobility (walking and moving disorders), History of Falling, Muscle Wasting And Atrophy (loss of muscle tissue), Unspecified Dementia (confusion), Cerebral Infarction (stroke), Bipolar Disorder (mental condition), Unspecified Dementia (confusion), and Schizophrenia (mental condition). A record review of Resident 1's Minimum Data Set (MDS, a federally mandated assessment tool used for care planning) dated 12/20/2024 revealed the resident had a BIMS of 00 which indicated the resident was unable to complete the interview. The resident required supervision or touching assistance with eating, substantial/maximal assistance for upper body dressing and personal and oral hygiene (cleaning), a was dependent on staff for toileting, bathing, lower body dressing, and footwear. Functional abilities of sit to stand and chair/bed-to-chair transfer was not attempted due to medical or safety concerns. The resident had not fallen since admission, re-entry, or the prior assessment. A record review of Resident 1's Progress Notes (PN) dated 03/03/2025 revealed: -12/13/2024 - the resident fell in the resident's restroom, the resident was transferred to the hospital and had surgery for a left hip fracture. -01/27/2025 - a late entry was put in that the resident had a fall in the dining room, but did not have injuries. Monitoring was to be continued per the care plan. -01/30/2025 - Interdisciplinary Team (IDT) fall meeting. Resident fell 01/27/2025 with no injury. The care plan was reviewed, and an intervention was added to not leave the resident alone in the small dining room. -01/31/2025 - the resident was seen laying in the dining room on the resident's right side. When the staff rolled the resident, the resident grabbed the right hip/leg and moaned, and it was noted to be internally rotated (rotated inward). The resident was sent to the hospital -02/04/2025 - the resident was discharged to another type of facility on 041/31/2025 A record review of the facility's unwitnessed Fall without Injury report dated 01/27/2025 revealed the resident fell but did not have injuries. The resident was oriented (knew) person, situation, and the time. There was nothing marked under Mental Status, no Predisposing Environmental Factors (causes from furniture, lighting, wet floor, or other), no Predisposing Physiological Factors (confusion, weakness, gait imbalance, impaired memory, or other), no Predisposing Situation Factors (ambulating with or without assist, during transfer, not using walker), and no Other Information (Info) was completed. A record review of Resident 1's Care Plan with an admission date of 08/09/2024 revealed the resident had the potential for falls related to muscle wasting, deconditioning (decline in physical function), psychotropic (medications for mental diagnoses) drug use, and cognitive deficit (impairment in thinking). The Care Plan interventions included: -Transfers: sit to stand lift as needed. 1-2 staff assist for stand pivot transfer using grab bar in bathroom, Date Initiated 01/28/2025, Revision on: 02/10/2025 -Video monitoring to help prevent falls, Date Initiated 12/31/2024, Revision on: 02/10/2025 -Do not leave resident alone in the dining room, Date Initiated 01/28/2025, Revision on: 02/10/2025 A record review of Resident 1's AS- Post Fall Assessment dated 02/05/2025 for the 01/31/2025 fall revealed an immediate intervention to prevent further falls was to lay down between meals. The cause of the fall was the resident was left alone in the dining room. An intervention or system change was don't leave alone in the dining room. A record review of the facility's Accidents investigation report form dated 02/06/2025 completed by the Administrator revealed Resident 1 fell on [DATE] while attempting use the restroom. The resident complained that the right hip was painful and that the resident hit their head. The resident had a Comminuted, Intertrochanteric Right Hip Fracture with Impaction (break in the right hip's thighbone and the bone is shattered into multiple pieces). The resident was transferred to the hospital where it (right hip) was surgically repaired. In an interview on 03/03/2025 at 4:01 PM, Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN)-D confirmed LPN-D was the nurse on duty when Resident 1 fell, and the Activities Director (AD) was the staff member that found the resident after the fall in the small dining room. LPN-D confirmed the small dining room is a highly visible area were to put the resident so the staff could watch the resident. LPN-D reported following the fall LPN-D could tell right away the resident had a broken right hip. LPN-D confirmed the only interventions LPN-D was aware of prior to the fall was to make sure to offer the restroom after meals and offer snacks. LPN-D confirmed the resident was in the small dining room, LPN-D went to the restroom, and there were no other staff members in the small dining room at the time when Resident 1 fell. In an interview on 03/04/2025 at 11:57 AM, the facility's AD confirmed the AD was in the small dining room putting items away from an earlier activity in the main dining room. The AD confirmed when the AD entered the small dining room Resident 1 was sitting in the wheelchair unattended and had just finished eating. The AD had the AD's back to the resident and happened to turn around and see Resident 1 slide out of the wheelchair. The wheelchair brakes were not locked and the wheelchair slid out from behind the resident and the resident hit the floor. The AD stayed with the resident until the nursing staff arrived and the resident was transferred to the hospital. The AD confirmed the that when the AD entered the small dining room, the resident was in there and there were no staff in the area. In an interview on 03/04/2025 at 10:00 AM, Physical Therapist Assistant (PTA)-C confirmed Therapy had been working with Resident 1 and that the resident was struggling with rehab. PTA-C confirmed that the resident had been released for staff to do a 1-2 staff assist with grab bar transfer or sit to stand transfer. PTA-C confirmed Resident 1 was very impulsive and was not safe to be in the dining room alone. In an interview on 03/04/2025 at 2:25 PM, the Director of Nursing (DON) confirm Resident 1 should not have been left in the dining room alone. In an interview on 03/05/2025 at 2:58 PM, the AD confirmed Resident 1 was in the dining room without other staff in the area when the AD entered. The AD confirmed that the AD was not asked to monitor or keep an eye on Resident 1. B. A record review of Resident 2's Clinical Census dated 03/03/2025 revealed the resident was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. A record review of Resident 2's Medical Diagnosis dated 03/03/2025 revealed the resident had diagnoses of Bimalleolar Fracture of the Left Lower Leg (both lower leg bones in the ankle), History of Falling, Unspecified Dementia (confusion), Cerebral Infarction (stroke), Muscle Weakness, Need For Assistance With Personal Care, Unilateral Osteoarthritis Diffuse (worsening joint condition on one side), and Morbid Obesity (severely overweight). A record review of Resident 2's MDS dated [DATE] revealed the resident had a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS)(a score of a residents cognitive abilities) of 11 which indicated the resident was moderately cognitively impaired. The resident required supervision or touching assistance with eating and oral hygiene (cleaning), substantial/maximal assistance for upper body dressing, and was dependent on staff for toileting, bathing, lower body dressing, and footwear. Functional abilities of sit to stand and chair/bed-to-chair transfer was not attempted due to medical or safety concerns. The resident had not fallen since the prior assessment. A record review of Resident 2's Care Plan with an admission date of 02/13/2025 revealed the resident was at risk of falls related to impaired mobility and other disease processes with a revision date of 9/19/2024. The resident had increased risk for actual/potential limitations in the ability to perform Activities of Daily Living (ADLs) related to the resident diagnoses. The Care Plan interventions identified the following information: -For toilet use Resident 2 was dependent, with an initiation date 10/29/2024 and revised on 10/29/2024 -Resident 2 was dependent for transfers and used a Hoyer lift with a initiation date of 10/29/2024 and revised on 02/14/2025. -Resident 2 was dependent for transfers and used a sit stand lift. The initiation date was 10/29/2024 and revised on 10/29/2024. A record review of Resident 2's Progress Notes(PN) dated 02/07/2025 at 10:26 AM revealed the resident was a 2 person staff assist with transfers and 1 person assist with ADLs. A record review of the facility's AS-Admission/readmission Assessment - V 3 dated 01/27/2025 revealed the fall risk assessment section indicated Resident 2 had not fallen in the last 6 months, the resident was incontinent of urine (lack of bladder control), had intact safety awareness, and required assistance or supervision for mobility or transfers. A record review of the facility's AS- Post Fall Assessment dated 02/09/2025 completed by the Charge Nurse, Registered Nurse (RN)-A revealed Resident 2 was alert, standing upright, was transferring, had limited range of motion, and had not fallen in the last 6 months. The identified root cause of the fall was the resident needed to toilet and the Nursing Assistants (NA) were busy, so the resident tried to self-transfer. The intervention was to remind the resident to wait for help. A record review of Resident 2's PN dated 02/09/2025 at 1:46 PM revealed Resident 2 was attempting to self-transfer from the wheelchair to the toilet. According to Resident 2's PN dated 2/09/2025, NA-B went in to assist Resident 2, however, Resident 2, could not pivot and was lowered to the bathroom floor. Further review of Resident 2's PN dated 2/09/2025 revealed RN-A responded to a call for help from the roommate, and Resident 2 was found sitting on the floor. NA-B was bent over Resident 2, supporting the resident from falling. Resident 2's PN dated 2/09/2025 revealed 3 more NAs came to help and lowered the resident completely to the floor. Further review of Resident 2's PN dated 2/09/2025 revealed a Hoyer lift was used to lift the resident off the floor and in the process, the resident's left foot appeared to twist against the wall and with Resident 2 reporting pain. RN-A assessed the situation and had the staff proceed with caution of the ankle and transferred Resident 2 into bed. The doctor was notified with an order for an X-ray to the left foot. A record review of the facility's Fall sheet dated 2/9/2025 prepared by RN-A revealed Resident 2 was attempting to pivot transfer (move someone from one surface to another by spinning while bearing weight on one or both legs) onto the toilet when a NA went in to assist Resident 2. According to the Fall sheet dated 2/09/2025 Resident 2 reported to the NA that Resident 2 was a pivot transfer. Further review of the Fall sheet dated 2/09/2025, while trying to get the resident onto the toilet, the resident's legs gave out and the resident was lowered to the floor resting on the resident's buttocks with feet outstretched in front. When 3 NAs tried to assist Resident 2 off the floor with the Hoyer lift (a full body lift), the resident's ankle was against the wall and looked like it was twisted. A record review of Resident 2's PN dated 02/09/2025 at 8:06 PM revealed the left ankle was swollen, had a black bruise, and was painful and were waiting on X-ray to arrive. A record review of Resident 2's PN dated 02/09/2025 at 11:45 PM revealed the resident's left ankle was swollen and bruised, and the resident was informed the X-ray would not be until 02/10/2025. According to Resident 2's PN dated 2/09/2025, Resident 2 refused to go to the Emergency Department (ED). A record review of Resident 2's PN dated 02/10/2025 at 10:28 PM revealed the X-ray had been completed and sent to the provider who ordered the resident to be sent to the ED. Further review of Resident 2's PN dated 2/10/2025 revealed Resident 2 was sent to the hospital. A record review of Resident 2's PN dated 2/11/2025 revealed the resident had a fall with fracture, an X-ray was ordered, and the resident was sent to the hospital on [DATE]. A record review of Resident 2's PN dated 02/16/2025 at 4:11 PM revealed Resident 2 was re-admitted from the hospital with a left ankle fracture that was surgically repaired. An observation on 03/04/2025 at 7:50 AM revealed Resident 2 was lying in bed with a large cast on the left lower leg wrapped with a brown elastic wrap. An observation on 03/04/2025 at 9:51 AM revealed Resident 2 was lying in bed with a large cast on the left lower leg wrapped with a brown elastic wrap. In an interview on 03/04/2025 at 7:50 AM, Resident 2 confirmed that on 02/09/25, the resident had to use the restroom, so the resident used the call light to get staff. A NA entered the room and followed the resident to the restroom. The resident confirmed that the resident thought the resident could get up and use the toilet, the wheelchair moved, and down the resident went. The resident confirmed the NA was in the room, followed the resident to the restroom to help with a pivot transfer, but it didn't work, and the resident fell. During the interview Resident 2 reported the NA did not attempt to stop the resident from transferring. The resident did not recall having a gait belt (a belt used to steady a resident when transferring). In an interview on 03/04/2025 at 9:51 AM, Resident 2 confirmed that on 02/09/25, there was a NA in the room to assist with a pivot transfer to the toilet, the resident fell, and the wheelchair went sliding with the brakes on. The resident confirmed that it was not a normal transfer, usually the staff used a sit to stand lift, but the resident had been practicing pivot disk transfers. The resident confirmed there was not a pivot disk in the room at the time of the fall and the NA did not try and stop the resident and get a pivot disk. Therapy was teaching the staff for to transfer the resident with the pivot disk, and everyone had lessons on it. The resident confirmed that before Therapy started working with the resident on the pivot disk, the resident rarely went to the restroom. The resident confirmed the NA was with the resident the whole time and knew what the resident was going to do, and did not try to stop the resident. The resident did not remember if the NA had a gait belt on the resident or if the NA was touching the resident because it happened so fast. In a telephone interview on 03/04/2025 at 10:25 AM, RN-A confirmed RN-A was the charge nurse that was on at the time of the fall. RN-A confirmed that RN-A was not in the room at the time of the fall, but NA-B was in the room at the time of the transfer to help the Resident 2. RN-A reported Resident 2 fell because the resident was trying to pivot transfer. RN-A confirmed 3 other staff entered the room to assist with the Hoyer lift transfer following the fall and that was when Resident 2's ankle got caught against the wall and broke. RN-A confirmed the resident complained of pain when the ankle was touched or moved and progressively swelled and bruised before an X-ray was performed and the resident transferred to the hospital. In a follow up interview on 03/04/2025 at 11:02 AM, Resident 2 confirmed the resident thought the fractures happened when the resident fell due to the extreme pain when the resident hit the floor. In an interview on 03/04/2025 at 2:25 PM, the DON confirmed that Resident 2 was a sit to stand transfer at the time of the fall. The DON confirmed the staff should not have transferred or allowed Resident 2 to self-transfer and the staff should have stopped the resident from attempting to stand from the wheelchair. C. A record review of Resident 3's Clinical Census dated 03/03/2025 revealed the resident was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. A record review of Resident 3's Medical Diagnosis dated 03/03/2025 revealed the resident had diagnoses of Muscle Weakness, Other Abnormalities Of Gait and Mobility, History of Falling, Muscle Wasting And Atrophy, Generalized Anxiety Disorder, and Adjustment Disorder (strong emotional and behavioral reaction to a stressful event) With Depressed Mood. A record review of Resident 3's MDS dated [DATE] revealed the resident had a BIMS of 15 which indicated the resident was cognitively aware. The resident required supervision or touching assistance with eating, partial/moderate assistance with oral and personal hygiene, substantial/maximal assistance for upper body dressing, a was dependent on staff for toileting, bathing, and footwear. Functional abilities of sit to stand and chair/bed-to-chair transfer was not attempted due to medical or safety concerns. The resident had 1 fall with injury since admission, re-entry, or the prior assessment. A record review of the facility's un-named, incident log report dated 09/06/2024 - 02/17/2025 revealed that Resident 3 had a fallen on: -09/28/2024,11/04/2024,12/16/2024,01/24/2025 and 02/14/2025. A record review of Resident 3's PN dated 03/03/2025 revealed the following: -09/28/2024 - The resident fell in the resident's room without injury. -10/03/2024 - IDT (interdisciplinary team) meeting for 9/28/2024 fall and intervention of visual cues to use call light and ask for assistance. -11/04/2024 - the resident was found on the floor, resident sent to the hospital, no IDT meeting note. -12/16/2024 - Resident was found on floor wrapped with bedding and call light on. Resident said the resident was trying to reach the urinal, no injury. Resident was repositioned with call light in reach and surrounding was clutter free with adequate lighting. -12/19/2024 - IDT fall meeting. Resident fell 12/15/2024 with no injury. Intervention was offering assistance with urinal at rounds. -01/24/2025 - the resident was found lying on the floor in the room. The resident was picking the remote up off the floor. The resident had a laceration (cut) to the left eye and facial bruising. Resident was sent to the hospital. -01/25/2025 - The hospital called the facility, and the hospital placed sutures above the left eye. -01/30/2025 - IDT fall meeting for 1/24/2024 fall with minor injury. Care plan was reviewed and an intervention added to get a basket for resident to store the television (TV) remote in. -02/14/2025 - the resident was found on the floor and stated the resident was getting out of bed to use the phone at the nurse's station. -02/20/2025 - IDT meeting to discuss fall, and intervention added to have phone charged and near the resident. A record review of Resident 3's Care Plan with an admission date of 04/04/2024 revealed the resident had the potential for falls related to generalized weakness, muscle wasting and atrophy, history of falls, pain to left knee, use of psychotropic (medications for mental diagnoses) medications, and hypertension (high blood pressure). The Care Plan interventions included: -Adhere basket to bedside table for TV remote -Anticipate and meet the resident's needs. Place items frequently used by the resident within easy reach when in the room -Pancake call light (flat, easy to push call light) attached to bed -Place the resident's call light within reach and encourage the resident to use it for assistance as needed. An observation on 03/04/2025 at 8:10 AM revealed Resident 3 was sleeping in bed with the bed in the lowest position. The call light was on the floor at the foot of the bed on the resident's left side and was not a pancake call light. The overbed table had a basket mounted without TV remote in the basket. The overbed table was positioned where the basket was on the opposite side and out of reach of the resident. The urinal was hanging on a basket that had been mounted on the vertical post of the bedside table and out of reach of the resident. An observation on 03/04/2025 at 8:21 AM with the DON revealed the resident was sleeping in bed, the bed was in the lowest position. The call light was on the floor at the foot of the bed on the resident's left side. The call light was not a pancake call light. The overbed table had a basket mounted on it but the TV remote was not in it and the resident would not have been able to reach the basket because it was on the opposite side of the overbed table. The urinal was hanging on a basket that had been mounted on the vertical post of the bedside table and the resident would not have been able to reach it because it was on the opposite side of the table from the resident. In an interview on 03/04/2025 at 8:21 AM, the DON confirmed the call light was on the floor at the foot of the bed on the resident's left side and the resident would not have been able to reach it. The call light was not a pancake call light. The basket on the overbed table, did not have the TV remote in it, and the resident would not have been able to reach the basket because it was on the opposite side of the overbed table. The urinal was hanging on a basket that had been mounted on the vertical post of the bedside table and the resident would not have been able to reach it because it was on the opposite side of the table from the resident.
CONCERN (D) 📢 Someone Reported This

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

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

Infection Control (Tag F0880)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Licensure Reference Number 175 NAC 12-006.18(B) Based on observation, interviews and record reviews, the facility failed to prevent cross contamination related to: 1. staff not wearing masks, 2. staff...

Read full inspector narrative →
Licensure Reference Number 175 NAC 12-006.18(B) Based on observation, interviews and record reviews, the facility failed to prevent cross contamination related to: 1. staff not wearing masks, 2. staff not wearing masks correctly, 3. staff carrying dirty linens next to their uniforms, and 4. reusable items potentially contaminated were not handled in a way to prevent the spread of COVID. The sample size was 5 and the facility census was 80. Findings are: A record review of facility policy titled Infection Prevention and Control dated 4/1/25 revealed: - reusable items potentially contaminated with infectious materials shall be placed in a plastic bag -soiled linen shall be collected at the bedside and placed in a linen bag. A record review of facility policy titled Personal Protective Equipment (PPE) dated 4/1/24 revealed that PPE refers to a variety of barriers used alone or in combination to protect skin and/or clothing from contact with infectious agents. It includes gloves, gowns, and face protection. A record review of Centers for Disease Control (CDC) sequence for putting on PPE revealed that a mask is to be fit snug to face and above the nose and below the chin. A. An observation on 5/14/2025 at 7:05 AM revealed Nursing Assistant (NA) - F not wearing a mask while serving breakfast to residents in the main dining room. During an interview on 5/14/2025 at 7:10 AM Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) - E confirmed that everyone has to be wearing a mask due to a COVID outbreak in the facility. During an observation on 5/14/2025 at 8:05 AM of resident cares in a resident's room Medication Aide (MA) - B took down (gender) mask when speaking. During an interview on 5/14/25 at 8:10 AM MA - B confirmed that (gender) should not have taken down (gender) mask when speaking during cares. An observation on 5/14/2025 at 12:24 PM revealed MA - D with mask under (gender) chin. Interview on 5/14/2025 at 12:25 PM MA - D confirmed that the mask should be above (gender) nose and below (gender) chin covering mouth and nose. During an interview on 5/14/2025 at 12:29 PM the Director of Nursing (DON) confirmed that all staff need to be wearing a mask during a COVID outbreak and that masks should be worn over the nose and below the chin. During an interview on 5/14/2025 at 2:47 PM the Infection Preventionist confirmed that masks were supposed to be worn above the nose and below the chin. B. An observation on 5/14/2025 at 8:05 AM revealed MA - B removed the bed linens off the residents bed and carried them against (gender) uniform down the hall to the laundry room. During an interview on 5/14/25 at 8:10 AM MA - B confirmed that (gender) should have used a plastic bag to put the dirty laundry in to take to the laundry room and should not of been held against the uniform. During an interview on 5/14/2025 at 12:29 PM the DON confirmed that dirty linens should not be touching any uniforms and should be in a plastic bag when transporting them in the hallway. C. During an observation on 5/14/2025 at 9:14 AM MA - B brought breakfast dishes out of a COVID positive resident room and placed them in the dining room on the table/counter. During an interview on 5/14/2025 at 12:29 PM the DON confirmed that reusable dishes coming out of a COVID room should not be placed in the resident dining room near other food and drink.
Jun 2024 6 deficiencies
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0561 (Tag F0561)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview and record review; the facility failed to ensure baths were provided at least once weekly for 3 (Residents 7...

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 baths were provided at least once weekly for 3 (Residents 7, 36 and 87) of 5 sampled residents. The facility identified a census of 83. Findings Are: A record review of the undated facility policy titled Resident Showers read as follows: Residents will be provided showers as per request or as per facility schedule protocols and based upon resident safety. A. A record review of the document titled admission Record dated 6/11/24 revealed Resident 87 had been accepted into the facility on 5/28/24 with a primary diagnoses of Muscle Wasting (when muscles waste away) and Atrophy (decrease in size of a body part, cell, organ, or other tissue, wasting) of multiple sites. A record review of the MDS (Minimum Data Set, a comprehensive assessment of each resident's physical and mental functional capabilities) dated 6/3/24, revealed Resident 87 had a BIMS (Brief Interview for Mental Status, a test used to get a quick snapshot of a resident's cognitive function, scored from 0-15, the higher the score, the higher the cognitive function, while scores of 00 or 99 indicate total confusion) score of 14 indicating Resident 87 is cognitively intact. A record review of the document titled Follow Up Question Report 5/1/24 through 6/7/24 Task: Bathing dated 6/11/24 revealed documentation that Resident 87 had received a bath on 5/29/24 and 6/7/24, which was a total of 9 days without a bath. During an interview on 6/10/24 at 3:58 PM with Resident 87 revealed [gender] received a bath shortly after admission which was 5/28/24. Resident 87 further revealed that [gender] has not received one since admission. B. A record review of the document titled admission Record dated 6/11/24 revealed Resident 7 had been accepted into the facility on [DATE] with a primary diagnosis of Cerebral Palsy (A congenital disorder of movement, muscle tone, or posture). A record review of the MDS dated [DATE], Section C, revealed Resident 7 had a BIMS score of 15, which indicated Resident 7 is cognitively intact. A record review of the document Task: Bathing dated 6/11/24 revealed that Resident 7 had received a bath on 5/9/24 and there was no further documentation baths for the month of May. A record review of the document titled Follow Up Question Report dated 5/1/24 through 6/6//24 revealed Resident 7 had received a bath on 5/26/24 and then not again until 6/6/24 which was a total of 11 days between baths provided. During an interview on 6/11/24 at 11:10 AM with Resident 7 revealed that bathing was inconsistent. C. A record review of the document titled admission Record dated 6/11/24 revealed Resident 36 had been accepted into the facility on 6/18/23 with a primary diagnoses of Hemiplegia (paralysis of one side of the body) and Hemiparesis (weakness or the inability to move on one side of the body following a Cerebral Infarction (result of disrupted blood flow to the brain) affecting the left, non-dominant side. A record review of the MDS dated [DATE], Section C, revealed Resident 36 had a BIMS score of 15, which indicated Resident 36 is cognitively intact. A record review of the document titled Follow Up Question Report 5/1/24 through 6/6/24 Task: Bathing dated 6/11/24 revealed that Resident 36 had received a bath on 5/22/24 and 6/6/24, which was a total of 15 days without a bath being provided. During an interview on 6/10/24 at 3:05 PM with Resident 36 revealed [gender] baths are hardly once a week. An interview on 6/11/24 at 3:20 PM with the facility Administrator confirmed that the facility expectation was all residents would receive a bath a minimum of one time weekly. An interview on 6/12/24 at 9:28 AM, after review of the bathing logs for Residents 7, Resident 36 and Resident 87, the DON (Director of Nursing) confirmed that baths were not being provided a minimum of once weekly and should have been.
CONCERN (D)

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

Assessment Accuracy (Tag F0641)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Licensure Reference Number 175 NAC 12-006.09B Based on record review and interview; the facility failed to ensure the Minimum Da...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Licensure Reference Number 175 NAC 12-006.09B Based on record review and interview; the facility failed to ensure the Minimum Data Set (MDS, a comprehensive assessment of each resident's functional capabilities used to develop a resident's plan of care) was coded correctly for 2 residents (Residents 53 and 75) of 4 samples residents The facility census was 83 at the time of survey. Findings are: A record review of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services Long Term Care Resident Assessment Instrument User's Manual dated October 2023 revealed that the assessments must accurately reflect the resident's status. A. A record review of Resident 53's undated admission Record revealed the resident was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. A record review of Resident 53's undated Medical Diagnosis revealed a primary diagnosis of Alzheimer's Disease dated 3/3/23. A review of Resident 53's Quarterly MDS dated [DATE] revealed a BIMS (Brief Interview for Mental Status - a test used to get a quick snapshot of a resident's cognitive function, scored from 0-15, the higher the score, the higher the cognitive function) of 3, which indicates severe cognitive impairment. It was also revealed that in Section E for question E100 A. hallucinations and B. delusions were both marked yes. A record review of Resident 53's Care Plan in the interventions section revealed that the resident had hallucinations dated 4/12/23. A record review of Resident 53's Behavior and Progress Notes dated 5/1/24 through 6/13/24 revealed there was no documentation of hallucinations or delusions. In an interview on 06/12/24 at 2:13 PM with Regional Nurse Consultant (RNC) confirmed that there was no hallucinations or delusions documented in the Behavior or Progress Notes from 5/18/24 through 5/25/24 and it was marked on the Quarterly MDS dated [DATE] incorrectly. In an interview with the Director of Nursing (DON) on 6/13/24 at 9:59 AM confirmed that the facility used the RAI (Resident Assessment Instrument) manual for guidance and to ensure MDS accuracy. B. A review of Resident 75's Quarterly MDS dated [DATE] revealed a BIMS of 3, which indicates severe cognitive impairment. It also revealed that in Section for question E100 A. hallucinations and B. delusions were both marked yes. A record review of Resident 75's undated Care Plan revealed no hallucinations or delusions. A record review of Resident 75's Behavior and Progress Notes dated 4/1/24 through 5/1/24 revealed there was no documentation of hallucinations or delusions. In an interview on 06/12/24 at 2:13 PM with RNC confirmed that there was no hallucinations or delusions documented in the behavior or progress notes from 4/11/24 through 4/18/24 and it was marked on the Quarterly MDS dated [DATE] incorrectly. In an interview with the DON on 6/13/24 at 9:59 AM confirmed that the facility used the RAI (Resident Assessment Instrument) manual for guidance and to ensure MDS accuracy.
CONCERN (D)

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

Quality of Care (Tag F0684)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Licensure Reference Number 175 NAC 12-006.09H(iv) Based on interview and record review; the facility failed to ensure routine bo...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Licensure Reference Number 175 NAC 12-006.09H(iv) Based on interview and record review; the facility failed to ensure routine bowel movements for 2 (Residents 53 and 75) of 4 sampled residents. The facility census was 83 at the time of survey. Findings are: A review of facility policy titled Constipation Prevention dated 8/1/23, revealed laxatives will be offered if no bowel movement (BM) in 3 days. If the resident does not have a BM after a laxative has been given an assessment of the abdomen, bowel sounds, pain and appetite will be completed, and the primary physician will be notified. A. A review of Resident 53's Quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS, a comprehensive assessment of each resident's functional capabilities used to develop a resident's plan of care) dated 5/25/24 revealed a BIMS (Brief Interview for Mental Status - a test used to get a quick snapshot of a resident's cognitive function, scored from 0-15, the higher the score, the higher the cognitive function) of 3, which indicates severe cognitive impairment, it also revealed that the resident is occasionally incontinent of bowels. A review of Resident 53's list of diagnosis revealed a primary diagnosis of Alzheimer's Disease dated 3/3/23. A record review of Resident 53's Physician Progress Note dated 11/17/2022 revealed the resident had a previous hospital admission for a small bowel obstruction. A record review of a facility document labeled Bowel Movements dated 6/12/24 for Resident 53 revealed no BMs were documented from 5/28/24-6/4/24 and from 6/5/24 - 6/12/24 for a total of 7 days between BMs. A review of Resident 53's Progress Notes dated from 5/1/24 through 6/13/24 revealed no bowel assessments noted. In an interview on 06/12/24 at 1:37 PM with the Director of Nursing (DON) confirmed that no bowel medications were given to Resident 53 during May and June of 2024. In an interview on 6/13/24 at 8:42 AM with Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN)-U confirmed that Resident 53, does not have any bowel medications ordered and there is no bowel list printed so there was no way of knowing which residents have not had a BM in 2 or more days. In an interview on 06/13/24 at 9:51 AM with the DON confirmed that BM's have not been recorded and that Resident 53 does not have any PRN (as needed) bowel medications ordered and it was further confirmed that there are no bowel assessments documented and there should have been. B. A review of Resident 75's Quarterly MDS dated [DATE] revealed a BIMS of 3, which indicates severe cognitive impairment, it was also revealed that the resident is occasionally incontinent of bowels. A review of Resident 75's list of diagnosis revealed a primary diagnosis of Alzheimer's dated 4/18/24. A review of a facility document labeled Bowel Movements dated 6/12/24 for Resident 75 revealed no BMs documented from 5/17/24 -5/22/24 for a total of 6 days and 6/7/24 - 6/11/24 for a total of 5 days. In an interview at 6/13/24 at 8:43 AM with LPN-U confirmed that Resident 75 did not have any PRN bowel medications given for the month of June, and there is no bowel list so there was no way of knowing which residents have not had a BM in 2 or more days. In an interview on 06/13/24 at 9:51 AM with the DON confirmed that BM's have not recorded, and that Resident 75 does not have any PRN bowel medications that were given. There are no bowel assessments documented and there should have been. In an interview on 06/17/24 at 1:37 PM with the DON confirmed that no PRN bowel medications were given and that if a resident is unable to recall when thy last had a BM, there is no way to know. In an interview on 6/17/24 at 3:33 PM the DON confirmed there were no BM audits currently being conducted in the facility.
CONCERN (E) 📢 Someone Reported This

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

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

Safe Environment (Tag F0921)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Licensure Reference Number 175 NAC 1-009.04(i) Based on observation, interviews, and record reviews; the facility failed to ensu...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Licensure Reference Number 175 NAC 1-009.04(i) Based on observation, interviews, and record reviews; the facility failed to ensure a safe water temperatures on the Memory Care Unit (MCU). This had the potential to affect 9 of 9 sampled resident rooms on the MCU. The facility census was 83 at the time of survey. Findings are: A. In an observation performed on 6/10/24 at 10:21 AM of the facility's MCU in resident room [ROOM NUMBER] it was revealed the water temperature from the bathroom sink was 122 degrees fahrenheit (F). Further observation revealed the following water temperatures from resident's bathroom sinks: -room [ROOM NUMBER] at 10:29 AM water temperature of 127 degrees F. -room [ROOM NUMBER] at 10:34 AM water temperature of 136 degrees F. -room [ROOM NUMBER] at 10:39 AM water temperature of 131 degrees F. -room [ROOM NUMBER] at 10:42 AM water temperature of 122 degrees F. -room [ROOM NUMBER] at 10:45 AM water temperature of 122 degrees F. -room [ROOM NUMBER] at 10:48 AM water temperature of 130 degrees F. -room [ROOM NUMBER] at 11:02 AM water temperature of 125 degrees F. An observation on 6/10/24 at 12:24 PM with the DOM revealed steam coming from the water faucet in the bathroom of room [ROOM NUMBER]. DOM placed hand in the water and confirmed that the water was hot to touch. Further observation with DOM confirmed room [ROOM NUMBER] was 118 degrees on the maintenance thermometer and 130 degrees on the surveyors thermometer. room [ROOM NUMBER] was 118 on maintenance thermometer and 128 on surveyors thermomter. An observation on 6/10/24 at 1:43 PM with the DOM revealed, the DOM working on the mixing valve under the sink in the bathroom of room [ROOM NUMBER] and the temperature remained at 126 degrees F. An observation on 6/10/24 at 1:45 PM with the DOM revealed the facility's new water heater temperature was set at 130 degrees F. DOM turned the temperature down to 120 degrees F. A record review of the invoice dated 2/14/24 revealed a new 100 gallon water heater was purchased and installed on 2/14/24. In an interview on 6/10/24 at 11:40 AM with Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN)-F confirmed that there are 17 residents on the Alzheimer's unit and that 7 of those residents are ambulatory, wander, and are able to turn on the sinks in the bathrooms. In an interview on 6/10/24 at 12:25 PM with the DOM revealed that [gender] thermometer had not been calibrated and does not know how to calibrate the thermomter. DOM also revealed that maintenance staff check random bathroom water temperatures monthly. DOM also confirmed that the water temperatures had not [NAME] checked on MCU since the replacement of the water heater on 2/14/24. In an interview on 6/10/24 at 1:44 PM with DOM confirmed that temperatures over 120 degrees F is too high and should be lower than 120 degrees F. The DOM further confirmed [gender] did not know how to calibrate a thermometer. In an interview on 6/10/24 at 1:46 PM with the DOM confirmed that nothing different had been done after getting the new water heater. The DOM further confirmed that the water temperatures in the bath houses were not checked by maintenance. In an interview on 6/10/24 at 3:02 PM with DOM confirmed the bathroom water temps were all under 117 degrees for the MCU. In an interview on 6/11/24 at 8:02 AM with the Administrator (Admin) confirmed that all the water coming from the bathroom faucet should be under 120 degrees F. Admin further revealed that there have been no residents with burns from the water.
CONCERN (E) 📢 Someone Reported This

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

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

Deficiency F0923 (Tag F0923)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Licensure Reference Number 175 NAC 12-006.19B Based on observation, interview, and record review; the facility failed to ensure ...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Licensure Reference Number 175 NAC 12-006.19B Based on observation, interview, and record review; the facility failed to ensure the facility's mechanical ventilation was functioning in resident's bathroom for rooms on the Memory Care Unit (MCU). This had to affected all 9 of 9 resident rooms on MCU. The facility census was 83 at the time of survey. Findings are: In an observation on 6/10/24 at 9:44 AM of the facility's Memory Care Unit a strong and stale urine odor was noted upon entering the unit. In an observation on 6/10/24 from 10:21 AM through11:02 AM revealed the following bathroom vents were unable to pull up one square of single ply toilet paper: -10:21 AM resident room [ROOM NUMBER], -10:24 AM resident room [ROOM NUMBER], -10:29 AM resident room [ROOM NUMBER], -10:33 AM resident room [ROOM NUMBER], -10:35 AM resident room [ROOM NUMBER], -10:39 AM resident room [ROOM NUMBER], -10:42 AM resident room [ROOM NUMBER], -10:45 AM resident room [ROOM NUMBER], -10:48 AM resident room [ROOM NUMBER], -11:02 AM resident room [ROOM NUMBER]. Interview on 6/10/24 at 11:40 AM with Licensed Practical Nuse (LPN) - F confirmed that there are 11 resident rooms on the Memory Care Unit (MCU). Interview on 6/12/24 at 10:39 AM with the facility's Director of Maintenance (DOM) confirmed that there are no maintenance rounds performed in the building but the facility's managers perform Guardian Angel rounds that are done twice weekly where the managers are to go to each resident room and observe areas for problems. In an observation on 6/13/24 at 11:51 AM during an Environment tour with DOM and the Administrator (Admin) it was revealed there was a strong, stale urine odor on the unit, and that the vents in the bathrooms for all 9 rooms of MCU were not functioning. In an interview on 6/13/24 at 11:54 AM with Director of Housekeeping (DOH) confirmed the bathroom vents are not cleaned or checked for functioning in resident rooms. In an interview on 6/13/24 at 12:02 PM with DOM maintenance confirmed the vents in the bathrooms on the MCU do not work, and there was a urine odor on the unit. DOM further confirmed that maintenance does not check them. In an interview on 6/17/24 at 8:32 AM with the Admin confirmed there was no Guardian Angel Rounds performed on the unit in the month of May. It was also confirmed that the bathroom vents are not checked during the Guardian Angel Rounds. A record review of facility provided Guardian Angel Rounds for the Memory Care Unit dated 4/26/24 and 6/11/24 revealed no maintenance concerns identified. In an interview on 6/17/24 at 10:34 AM with DOM revealed that the ventilation in the bathrooms of resident rooms 223, 225, 226, 227, 228, 229, 230, 231, 232, and 234 were not working. A record review of the undated facility supplied document labeled Direct Supply Tels revealed instructions to inspect exhaust fans for proper operation on a monthly basis. Instructions on the form stated to check all exhaust fans in bathrooms to ensure that air flow is sufficient to hold a piece a toilet paper to the vent when operating. In an interview on 6/17/24 at 12:55 PM the Admin confirmed that the ventilation system had not been checked and should have been.
CONCERN (F)

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

Deficiency F0947 (Tag F0947)

Could have caused harm · This affected most or all residents

Licensure Reference Number 175 NAC 12-006.04B(ii)(1) Based on interview and record review that facility failed to ensure 2 staff members (Nurse Aide (NA)-O and NA-P) that had been employed longer than...

Read full inspector narrative →
Licensure Reference Number 175 NAC 12-006.04B(ii)(1) Based on interview and record review that facility failed to ensure 2 staff members (Nurse Aide (NA)-O and NA-P) that had been employed longer than one year had completed the 12 hours of continuing education required to maintain a Nurse Aide (NA) license. The sample size was 5. The facility identified a census of 83. Findings Are: A record review of education hours for 5 staff members that had been employed at the facility for more than one year revealed that 2 staff members (NA-O and NA-P) had not received 12 hours of continuing education in the last one year as required to maintain their Nurse Aide (NA) certification. A record review of the untitled document provided by the facility educator, listing the in-services provided and the education hours covering July 2023 through June 2024 revealed NA-O, who had a hire date of 2/2/2020, had received 5.5 hours of continuing education for the year. The record review of the untitled document provided by the facility educator, listing the education hours covering July 2023 through June 2024 revealed NA-P who had a hire date of 4/23/1995, had received 2.5 hours of continuing education for the year. An interview on 6/12/24 at 2:32 PM with the facility educator who was also the ADON (Assistant Director of Nursing), after review of the continuing education hours for NA-O and NA-P, confirmed that the requirement for 12 hours of continuing education had not been met and should have been. A record review of the facility policy titled Nurse Aide Training Program dated 8/1/23 read as follows: 1. The Staff Development Coordination, with oversight from the Director of Nursing, shall be responsible for the coordination and/or provision of nurse aide education. 2. Each nurse aide shall be provided at least 12 hours of in-service training annually, based on his/her employment date, not calendar year.
Mar 2024 1 deficiency
CONCERN (D) 📢 Someone Reported This

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

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

Deficiency F0849 (Tag F0849)

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 notify a hospice provider regarding the death for 1 (Resident 2) ou...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to notify a hospice provider regarding the death for 1 (Resident 2) out of 3 sampled residents for hospice care. The facility census was 83. Findings are: Record review of Resident 2's facility's undated document titled admission Record revealed the resident was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. Record review of Resident 2's Minimum Data Set (MDS - a comprehensive assessment of each resident's functional capabilities used to develop a resident's plan of care) revealed a readmission to the facility on 1/27/24 and a death in the facility on 3/4/24. Record review of Resident 2's Initial Plan of Care from hospice revealed an admission date to hospice of 2/22/24. Record review of Resident 2's Comprehensive Care Plan Comprehensive Care Plan (CCP- written instructions needed to provide effective and person centered care of the resident that meet professional standards of quality care) dated initiated 2/22/2024 revealed: - The focus was for Hospice Services due to Congestive heart failure - The goal was for the SNF/Hospice work together to coordinate services to resident/family - The interventions included notify hospice and family of changes. Record review of Resident 2's Progress Note dated 3/4/24 at 9:50 PM revealed Resident 2 passed away in their room with the family present. The resident representative called the hospice company per the resident representative's request. Interview on 3/12/24 at 1:47 PM with the Administrator confirmed when Resident 2 passed away the resident representative called the hospice nurse and the facility did not. Review of the facility's undated policy, titled Post Mortem Care, it was revealed to document in the resident's medical record the date and time the resident was pronounced and by whom, notification to the physician, other authorities, family, funeral home, and coroner. During an interview on 3/13/24 at 1:16 PM with the Director of Nursing (DON) revealed the hospice nurse had been in the facility around noon on 3/4/24 and made staff aware that Resident 2 was declining. The DON further revealed that Resident 2's representative was aware of the decline. The DON confirmed that Resident 2 passed away at 9:50 PM, that the resident representative was aware of the death and notified hospice and that the facility did not notify the hospice nurse.
Sept 2023 1 deficiency 1 Harm
SERIOUS (G) 📢 Someone Reported This

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

Actual Harm - a resident was hurt due to facility failures

Accident Prevention (Tag F0689)

A resident was harmed · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Licensure Reference: 175 NAC 12-006.09D7 Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to implement in...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Licensure Reference: 175 NAC 12-006.09D7 Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to implement interventions to protect 2 [Residents 1 and 2] of 3 sampled residents from potential burns. The facility had a total census of 88 residents. Findings are: A. A review of Resident 1's admission information in electronic medical record revealed Resident 1 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses of Quadriplegia, C5-C7 incomplete [a form of paralysis that affects all four limbs, plus the torso]. A review of Resident 1's quarterly MDS [Minimum Data Set, a comprehensive assessment used for care planning] with assessment reference date of 6/14/2023 revealed a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of 15. According to the MDS [NAME] a score of 13 to 15 indicates a person is cognitively intact. Resident 1 was identified as requiring extensive assist of 2 plus persons for bed mobility and dressing, having total dependence with assist of 1 for toilet use and personal hygiene, and requiring extensive assist of 1 for eating. Resident 1 was identified as having almost constant pain and receiving scheduled and as needed pain medications with no non-medication intervention for pain. A review of Resident 1's care plan revealed a focus area initiated on 3/26/2018 and revised on 3/22/2021 of alteration in comfort related to pain in bilateral upper extremities, contractures, and decreased mobility with a goal of reduction in my pain or be pain free within 1 hour of receiving pain medication or a lower acceptable pain rating or show less sign/symptoms of pain. Interventions were listed as follows: -Administer pain medications per orders -Anticipate the resident's need for pain relief and respond timely to any complaint of pain -If as needed pain medication is used, monitor and document effectiveness after administration -New order for routine hydromorphone for better pain control -Resident has been ordered Fentanyl patch for pain control -Staff will encourage me to participate in activities that I enjoy and help me with pain management prior to the activity -Staff will encourage me to participate in therapy as ordered and help me with pain management prior to therapy to increase my participation -Non pharmaceutical techniques that work for me to decrease my pain are repositioning and rest. -Medications ordered -A licensed nurse or medication aide will assess and document response to each as needed dose of analgesic -A licensed nurse will document and monitor the effects of my analgesics -Pain assessment on admission to achieve baseline then as needed per protocol -Notify my medical doctor promptly if my analgesic is ineffective or pain rating increases -Pain medication is an effective way to provide me pain relief -Repositioning improves my pain -Notify physician if interventions are unsuccessful or if current complaint is a significant change from residents past experience of pain -Observe and report any changes in my usual routine, sleep patterns, decrease in functional abilities, decrease range of motion, withdrawal or resistance to care, limitation in day-to-day activities possible due to pain -Provide me my pain medication as ordered, document and evaluate the effectiveness of my pain medication. Coordinate with my medical doctor, physician assistant, or nurse practitioner to manage pain medication for optimum pain control A review of facility investigation dated 9/6/23 revealed the following information: 9/2/23 at 2 AM, charge nurse smelled smoke and noted smoke down at the end of the hallway. Charge Nurse entered Resident 1's room and observed flames on the top right side of Resident 1's bed. Charge Nurse removed the top linen, placed on floor, and stomped out the fire. Another sheet on the bed was smoking and it was also removed. Right handrail was noted to be hot and charred. A pillow and the hot pack with burn marks was removed. Resident 1 reported falling asleep with hot pack under right posterior shoulder and arm. The police and the fire department arrived as the fire alarm system activated and 911 was called. Resident 1 had burns on right posterior arm and shoulder. Resident 1 was transferred to the hospital burn center. The Fire Marshall investigated the fire and determined the cause of the fire was the hot pack. The causal factors were determined to be re-warming a hot pack consisting of towels in bag in the microwave. The towels were not re-wet prior to being heated. Staff education was provided to include nurse aides are not authorized to place warm compresses or warm packs on residents, linen items should never be placed in a microwave for any reason, and heat sources should never be placed in bed with a resident. A review of Resident 1's hospital medical record dated 9/2/23 revealed Resident 1 right upper extremity has a full thickness burn on the lateral aspect. The Assessment section of hospital record identified a 6% total body surface area burn most of which is full thickness. According to John Hopkins Medicine found at hopkinsmedicine.org revealed the following information: -A third-degree (full thickness) burns destroy the epidermis (top layer of skin) and dermis (middle layer of skin). Third-degree burns may also damage the underlying bones, muscles, and tendons. In an interview on 9/12/23 between 9:40-9:42 AM, Resident 1 reported using a hot pack on right shoulder that has been a long term treatment. Resident 1 report a wet towel was placed in a trash bag with a pillowcase over it and then placed over Resident 1's covers. Resident 1 reported the aides would get it for Resident 1 and Resident 1 would ask them to reheat it. Resident 1 reported that the towel had gotten too dry which resulted in the spontaneous combustion. A review of Order Listing Report dated 9/12/23 that included all discontinued orders for Resident 1 revealed the following discontinued orders for hot packs: -Hot pack as need to right shoulder to help with pain order dated 11/16/18 and discontinued 1/8/19 -Ok for ice pack or heat pack to right shoulder for 20 minutes every 1 hour as needed for pain order dated 6/9/19 and discontinued 12/19/19 A review of Resident 1's Medication Administration Record for 9/2023 revealed no orders for a hot pack. In an interview on 9/12/23 at 12:13 PM, Nurse Aide (NA) A reported reheating Resident 1's hot pack. Nurse Aide A reported never making a hot pack for Resident 1 only reheating. Nurse Aide A reported never being trained on how to make the pack and was not aware that towel had to be wet. In an interview on 9/12/23 at 2:13 PM, NA C reported that Resident 1 used the hot pack frequently and would request when Resident 1 wanted it. NA C reported a wet towel was heated in the microwave for 1 minute placed in a trash bag and then in a pillowcase. Hot pack would be reheated at Resident 1's request. In an interview on 9/12/23 at 2:20 PM, NA D reported making hot packs for Resident 1 for years and was not aware that order had been discontinued. NA D reported heating a wet towel in the microwave for 1 minute putting it in bag and then in a pillowcase. In an interview on 9/12/23 on 2:59 PM, NA E reported reheating Resident 1's hot pack but never making one for Resident 1. In an interview on 9/12/23 at 2:35 PM, Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN)/Charge Nurse B reported entering Resident 1's room and discovering the fire. LPN B reported pulling covers off of Resident 1's bed and stomping on the bed covers to put out the fire. LPN B reported being unaware that staff were providing hot packs to Resident 1. In an interview on 9/12/23 at 10:07 AM, LPN/Charge Nurse G reported that LPN/Charge Nurse G had never made a hot pack for Resident 1 and that there was no order for hot packs. In an interview of on 9/12/23 at 3:08 PM, LPN Manager F reported having no knowledge that hot packs were being used on Resident 1. In an interview on 9/12/23 between 11-11:18 AM, the facility Administrator reported the facility does not have a policy on use of hot packs for residents as this is not a facility practice. The Administrator acknowledged the facility investigation had revealed that staff were providing hot packs to Resident 1 based on a discontinued order. B. A review of Resident 2's admission information in electronic medical record revealed Resident 2 admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses unspecified lack of coordination, cognitive communication deficit, unspecified macular degeneration, and Alzheimer's disease. A review of Resident 2's quarterly MDS with assessment reference date of 8/9/2023 revealed a BIMS score of 12. According to the MDS [NAME] a score of 8 to 12 indicates a person has moderately impaired cognition. In addition, Resident 2 was identified as requiring supervision and set up help with eating. A review of Resident 2's care plan revealed a focus area dated 9/21/20 of having potential risk for sustaining injury while consuming foods/fluids due to my functional limitation to balance or grip steadily cups, utensils and/or plates with a goal of decreased risk for injury associated with spilling and/or dropping my flood fluids on me. Interventions are listed as follows: -If I do spill a hot fluid and/or food items on me, please clean immediately and provide appropriate treatment to minimize complications initiated 9/21/20 -Occupational Therapy to evaluate for adaptive feeding equipment dated 8/23/23. Resident 2 has agreed to add ice to coffee and allow staff to prepare it for him,initiated 8/23/23 and revised 9/12/23. -Provide clothing protector when consuming hot liquids initiated on 3/5/21 and revised on 8/23/23. A review of facility investigation dated 8/25/23 identified that on 8/23/23 Resident 2 poured a fresh cup of coffee and then hit arm against the table and the coffee poured on Resident 2's stomach from coffee cup. Resident was noted to have a 6 cm [centimeter] x 2.5 cm burn. According to investigation, the following interventions were to be implemented for Resident 2 to prevent a reoccurrence: -Educate nurse to apply a cool cloth to area until area is no longer reddened instead of applying ice -Staff to add ice to Resident 2's coffee -Staff will pour Resident 2's coffee for Resident 2 -Occupational Therapy to evaluate for adaptive feeding equipment A review of email dated 9/12/23 regarding Occupational Therapy evaluation revealed Resident 2 was aware that that staff are to pour Resident 2's coffee and bring it to Resident 2's table. Resident 2 indicated that Resident 2 would not use lid on coffee cup but was accepting of cooling down coffee with ice. In an interview on 9/12/23 at 1:40 PM, Resident 2 reported spilling coffee on abdomen resulting in a row of blisters. Resident 2 reported staff do not allow Resident 2 to pour own coffee. Resident 2 reported not using a lid on coffee or wanting any ice in Resident 2's coffee. Observations on 9/12/23 at 11:34 AM revealed Resident 2 wheeling (gender) wheelchair to table with coffee carafe and cups. Activities Assistant (AA) H poured coffee from the carafe into a cup and took the cup to the table that Resident 2 would be eating at. No ice was observed being put in coffee before Resident 2 drank the coffee. In an interview on 9/12/23 at 12:46 PM, AA H reported that AA H only filled the cup halfway to decrease risk of spills. AA H reported being unaware of direction to put ice in coffee. Observation on 9-12-2023 at 11:40 AM revealed the Dietary Director (DD) I utilizing the facility thermometer measured the temperature of the coffee poured from the carafe with a resulting coffee temperature of 140.1 F (Fahrenheit). In an interview on 9/12/23 at 11:40 AM, DD I reported that all coffee is brewed in the kitchen and placed in a carafe. The carafe is filled and not brought out to the dining room until the temperature has dropped to 150 F or below. DD I reported that ice is only added to resident coffee at their request. DD I reported coffee temperatures are to be documented on food temperature logs completed by dietary staff. A review of food temperature logs for 9/1/23 to 9/12/23 revealed coffee temperatures were documented for 9 of 34 meals served during that time. The food temperature log dated 9/1-2023 to 9/12/2023 identified coffee temperatures had dropped below 150 F for 8 of 9 meals recorded. In an interview on 9/12/23 at 4:00 PM, the Administrator reported expected the ice in coffee intervention to be in place directed by the care plan. C. A review of undated Hot Beverage Safety policy revealed the following: -All residents should be evaluated for Hot Beverage Safety on admission, with any change of condition and annual assessment using the Hot Liquid Safety Evaluation. If an OT evaluation is required the therapist will determine if special strategies/equipment are needed due to vision, physical status and cognitive status. The rehab therapist however, should not make a formal recommendation as to the safety for hot liquids in isolation. This must be an interdisciplinary team decision, documented in the resident's medical record and care planned. -If a resident is at risk for spills consider the following: -Allow the hot beverage to cool -Add milk or ice if resident allows -Provide a cup with a secure lid -If resident does not accept a cup with a lid consider a china mug (wit cooled beverage) since they absorb the heat and allow for more rapid cooling -Supervise resident at all times when drinking a hot beverage -Offer cold beverage as an alternative
Jun 2023 2 deficiencies
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0583 (Tag F0583)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on observation, interviews, and record review, the facility failed to respect a resident's right to personal privacy during medication administration for 1 (Resident #60) of 4 residents observed...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, interviews, and record review, the facility failed to respect a resident's right to personal privacy during medication administration for 1 (Resident #60) of 4 residents observed for medication administration. Findings are: Record review of the facility policy titled, [Facility name] Administering Medications, revised April 2019, indicated 5. Medication administration times are determined by resident need and benefit, not staff convenience. Factors that are considered include: a. enhancing optimal therapeutic effect of the medication; b. preventing potential medication or food interactions; and c. honoring resident choices and preferences, consistent with his or her care plan. Record review of Resident #60's significant change in status Minimum Data Set (MDS) with an Assessment Reference Date (ARD) of 06/02/2023, indicated the facility admitted the resident on 07/17/2021. Per the MDS, the resident had a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of 3, which indicated the resident had severe cognitive impairment. According to the MDS, during this assessment period, the resident had active diagnoses to include cataracts, glaucoma, or macular degeneration. Observation on 06/21/2023 at 9:08 AM, Certified Medication Aide (CMA) #1 prepared medications for Resident #60. Resident #60 was observed in the chapel with seven other residents and two clergymen for worship service. While preparing the medications, CMA #1 stated medications could be given to residents while the resident was in the chapel, but Resident #60 preferred privacy when they received their eye drops. At 9:16 AM, CMA #1 administered Resident #60's eye drops in the chapel without providing the resident privacy and informed the resident that she would return in five minutes to provide the other eye drop medication. Interview on 06/21/2023 at 9:20 AM, CMA #1 stated [gender] would usually wait to administer residents their medications and eye drops after they had left the chapel. Observation on 6/21/2023 at 9:22 AM, CMA #1 was observed to administer additional eye drops to Resident #60 while the resident was in the chapel. Interview on 06/22/2023 at 10:24 AM, the Director of Nursing revealed facility staff should not administer residents eye drops in a public area.
CONCERN (D)

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

Infection Control (Tag F0880)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on observation, interviews, and record review, the facility failed to follow safe medication administration infection control practices during medication administration for 1 (Resident #60) of 4...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, interviews, and record review, the facility failed to follow safe medication administration infection control practices during medication administration for 1 (Resident #60) of 4 residents observed for medication administration. Findings included: Record review of a facility policy titled, [Facility name] Administering Medications, revised in April 2019, revealed, Medications are administered in a safe and timely manner, and as prescribed. The policy specified, 24. Staff follows established facility infection control procedures (e.g. [exempli gratia, for example], handwashing, antiseptic technique, gloves, isolation precautions, etc. [et cetera, and other similar things]) for the administration of medications, as applicable. Record review of Resident #60's significant change in status Minimum Data Set (MDS) with an Assessment Reference Date (ARD) of 06/02/2023, indicated the facility admitted the resident on 07/17/2021. Per the MDS, the resident had a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of 3, which indicated the resident had severe cognitive impairment. According to the MDS, during this assessment period, the resident had an active diagnosis to include anxiety disorder and received antianxiety medication. Observation on 06/21/2023 at 9:11 AM, the surveyor observed Certified Medication Aide (CMA) #1 drop a buspirone (a medication primarily used to treat anxiety) pill on top of the medication cart. CMA #1 picked the pill up with her bare fingers, placed the pill into the medication cup with two other pills, and administered the medications to Resident #60. Interview on 06/21/2023 at 9:20 AM, CMA #1 confirmed the pill was dropped on top of the medication cart, [gender] picked the pill up with bare hands, placed the pill in the medication cup, and administered the pills to Resident #60. CMA #1 revealed being educated that if a pill did not fall on the floor, it could still be used. CMA #1 revealed the top of the medication cart had not been disinfected since earlier that morning and not throwing the pill away could cause cross contamination. Interview on 06/22/2023 at 10:24 AM, the Director of Nursing revealed if a pill was dropped it should be destroyed and not administered to the resident.
Understanding Severity Codes (click to expand)
Life-Threatening (Immediate Jeopardy)
J - Isolated K - Pattern L - Widespread
Actual Harm
G - Isolated H - Pattern I - Widespread
Potential for Harm
D - Isolated E - Pattern F - Widespread
No Harm (Minor)
A - Isolated B - Pattern C - Widespread

Questions to Ask on Your Visit

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

Our Honest Assessment

Strengths
  • • No fines on record. Clean compliance history, better than most Nebraska facilities.
Concerns
  • • Multiple safety concerns identified: 3 harm violation(s), Payment denial on record. Review inspection reports carefully.
  • • 19 deficiencies on record, including 3 serious (caused harm) violations. Ask about corrective actions taken.
  • • Grade F (25/100). Below average facility with significant concerns.
  • • 69% turnover. Above average. Higher turnover means staff may not know residents' routines.
Bottom line: Trust Score of 25/100 indicates significant concerns. Thoroughly evaluate alternatives.

About This Facility

What is The Meadows At Ashland's CMS Rating?

CMS assigns The Meadows at Ashland an overall rating of 1 out of 5 stars, which is considered much below average nationally. Within Nebraska, this rating places the facility higher than 0% of the state's 100 nursing homes. A rating at this level reflects concerns identified through health inspections, staffing assessments, or quality measures that families should carefully consider.

How is The Meadows At Ashland Staffed?

CMS rates The Meadows at Ashland's staffing level at 2 out of 5 stars, which is below average compared to other nursing homes. Staff turnover is 69%, which is 23 percentage points above the Nebraska average of 46%. High turnover can affect care consistency as new staff learn residents' individual needs. RN turnover specifically is 57%, which is notably high. RNs provide skilled clinical oversight, so turnover in this role can affect medical care quality.

What Have Inspectors Found at The Meadows At Ashland?

State health inspectors documented 19 deficiencies at The Meadows at Ashland during 2023 to 2025. These included: 3 that caused actual resident harm and 16 with potential for harm. Deficiencies causing actual harm indicate documented cases where residents experienced negative health consequences.

Who Owns and Operates The Meadows At Ashland?

The Meadows at Ashland is owned by a for-profit company. For-profit facilities operate as businesses with obligations to shareholders or private owners. The facility is operated by AVID HEALTHCARE GROUP, a chain that manages multiple nursing homes. With 97 certified beds and approximately 81 residents (about 84% occupancy), it is a smaller facility located in Ashland, Nebraska.

How Does The Meadows At Ashland Compare to Other Nebraska Nursing Homes?

Compared to the 100 nursing homes in Nebraska, The Meadows at Ashland's overall rating (1 stars) is below the state average of 2.9, staff turnover (69%) is significantly higher than the state average of 46%, and health inspection rating (2 stars) is below the national benchmark.

What Should Families Ask When Visiting The Meadows At Ashland?

Based on this facility's data, families visiting should ask: "How do you ensure continuity of care given staff turnover, and what is your staff retention strategy?" "Can you walk me through typical staffing levels on day, evening, and night shifts?" "Can I visit during a mealtime to observe dining assistance and food quality?" "How do you handle medical emergencies, and what is your hospital transfer rate?" These questions are particularly relevant given the facility's high staff turnover rate and the below-average staffing rating.

Is The Meadows At Ashland Safe?

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

Do Nurses at The Meadows At Ashland Stick Around?

Staff turnover at The Meadows at Ashland is high. At 69%, the facility is 23 percentage points above the Nebraska average of 46%. Registered Nurse turnover is particularly concerning at 57%. RNs handle complex medical decisions and coordinate care — frequent RN changes can directly impact care quality. High turnover means new staff may not know residents' individual needs, medications, or preferences. It can also be disorienting for residents, especially those with dementia who rely on familiar faces. Families should ask: What is causing the turnover? What retention programs are in place? How do you ensure care continuity during staff transitions?

Was The Meadows At Ashland Ever Fined?

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

Is The Meadows At Ashland on Any Federal Watch List?

The Meadows at Ashland is not on any federal watch list. The most significant is the Special Focus Facility (SFF) program, which identifies the bottom 1% of nursing homes nationally based on persistent, serious quality problems. Not being on this list means the facility has avoided the pattern of deficiencies that triggers enhanced federal oversight. This is a positive indicator, though families should still review the facility's inspection history directly.