MORRISON NURSING HOME

6 TERRACE STREET, WHITEFIELD, NH 03598 (603) 837-2541
Non profit - Other 57 Beds Independent Data: November 2025 3 Immediate Jeopardy citations
Trust Grade
0/100
#67 of 73 in NH
Last Inspection: December 2024

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

Overview

Morrison Nursing Home in Whitefield, New Hampshire has received a Trust Grade of F, indicating poor performance with significant concerns about care quality. They rank #67 out of 73 facilities in the state, placing them in the bottom half, and #4 out of 5 in Coos County, meaning there are only a few local options that are better. Although the facility's trend is improving, dropping from 15 issues in 2023 to 5 in 2024, there are still serious areas of concern, including a 100% staff turnover rate which is significantly above the state average. They have been fined $73,340, which is higher than 98% of other facilities in New Hampshire, reflecting ongoing compliance problems. Specific incidents include critical failures in following COVID-19 return-to-work guidelines for staff, allegations of rough treatment towards residents that were not promptly investigated, and inadequate procedures for handling allegations of abuse, which raises serious concerns about resident safety and care quality.

Trust Score
F
0/100
In New Hampshire
#67/73
Bottom 9%
Safety Record
High Risk
Review needed
Inspections
Getting Better
15 → 5 violations
Staff Stability
⚠ Watch
100% turnover. Very high, 52 points above average. Constant new faces learning your loved one's needs.
Penalties
⚠ Watch
$73,340 in fines. Higher than 85% of New Hampshire facilities, suggesting repeated compliance issues.
Skilled Nurses
○ Average
Each resident gets 32 minutes of Registered Nurse (RN) attention daily — about average for New Hampshire. RNs are the most trained staff who monitor for health changes.
Violations
⚠ Watch
25 deficiencies on record. Higher than average. Multiple issues found across inspections.
★☆☆☆☆
1.0
Overall Rating
★★☆☆☆
2.0
Staff Levels
★★★☆☆
3.0
Care Quality
★☆☆☆☆
1.0
Inspection Score
Stable
2023: 15 issues
2024: 5 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 New Hampshire average (3.0)

Significant quality concerns identified by CMS

Staff Turnover: 100%

53pts above New Hampshire avg (47%)

Frequent staff changes - ask about care continuity

Federal Fines: $73,340

Well above median ($33,413)

Moderate penalties - review what triggered them

Staff turnover is very high (100%)

52 points above New Hampshire average of 48%

The Ugly 25 deficiencies on record

3 life-threatening
Dec 2024 5 deficiencies
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0761 (Tag F0761)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview, and record review, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure that medications were a...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview, and record review, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure that medications were appropriately stored in 2 out of 3 medication carts observed (Resident Identifiers are #15 and #42). Findings include: Observation on 12/8/24 at approximately 9:20 a.m. of the A Wing medication cart revealed an unlabeled medicine cup with a tablet in it. Interview on 12/8/24 at approximately 9:20 a.m. with Staff G (Registered Nurse (RN)) confirmed the above finding and Staff G stated that it was his/her personal medication in the medicine cup. Observation on 12/8/24 at approximately 9:25 a.m. of the [NAME] Wing medication cart revealed 2 unlabeled medicine cups. One cup had pills in it and one cup had pills and a transdermal patch in it. Interview on 12/8/24 at approximately 9:25 a.m. with Staff H (RN) confirmed the above findings and revealed that the medicine cups were Resident #15's and Resident #42's morning medications. Review on 12/8/24 of Resident #15's Medication Administration Record (MAR) revealed the following medications left unlabeled in the medication cup: Aspirin 81 milligrams (mg), Grape Seed Extract 400 mg, Omeprazole Delayed Release (DR) 20 mg, Vitamin D3 25 micrograms (mcg), 2 Levetiracetam 750 mg. Review on 12/8/24 of Resident #42's December 2024's MAR revealed the following medications left unlabeled in the medication cup: Rosuvastin Calcium 5 mg, Liothyronine 5 mcg, Losartan Potassium 25 mg, Myrbetiq 24 hour 25 mg, Pantoprazole Sodium DR 40 mg, Venlafaxine Extended Release (ER) 75 mg, Famciclovir 250 mg, 2 Carbidopa-Levodopa 25-100 mg, Carbidopa 25 mg, and the Rivastifmine Transdermal patch 4.6 mg. Observation on 12/9/24 from approximately 7:15 a.m. to 7:20 a.m. revealed the A Wing medication cart was left unattended with two cups on top of the medication cart with clear liquid and spoons in them. Interview on 12/9/24 at approximately 7:20 a.m. with Staff I (RN) revealed that the two cups on top of the A Wing medication cart had Miralax mixed with water in them. Staff I confirmed that the medication was left unattended on the medication cart. Observation on 12/9/24 from approximately 7:22 a.m. to 7:25 a.m. revealed Staff I left two cups with the Miralax mixed in water on top of the A Wing medication cart unattended and entered a resident's room down the hall. Observation on 12/9/24 from approximately 7:30 a.m. to 7:35 a.m. revealed Staff I left the 2 cups of Miralax mixed in water on top of the A Wing medication cart unattended to go and administer medications to Resident #2. Review on 12/8/24 of the facility policy titled, Medication Administration, General Guidelines, dated 9/18, revealed: .Medication Administration .4. Medications are to be administered at the time they are prepared . Review on 12/8/24 of the facility policy titled, Storage of Medication, dated 9/18, revealed: .Procedures, 1. The provider pharmacy dispenses medications in containers that meet state and federal labeling requirements .Medications are to remain in these containers .
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0813 (Tag F0813)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on observation and interview, it was determined that the facility failed to follow their policy for labeling and dating resident food items brought in by visitors for 1 of 3 kitchenettes observe...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation and interview, it was determined that the facility failed to follow their policy for labeling and dating resident food items brought in by visitors for 1 of 3 kitchenettes observed. Observation on 12/8/24 at approximately 9:50 a.m. of the B wing kitchenette revealed food that was not labeled with resident names or dates: two prepackaged pepperoni sticks, one unopened can of Low Sodium V-8 juice, one prepackaged pulled pork mac-n-cheese bowl, and two packages of ice cream sandwiches. Interview on 12/8/24 at approximately 9:50 a.m. with Staff B (Dietary Manager) confirmed that the above items were not provided by the facility and were not labeled with resident names or dates. Review on 12/8/24 of facility policy titled, Foods Brought by Family/Visitors, revised November 2017, revealed: .6. Food brought by family/visitors .will be labeled and stored in manner that is clearly distinguishable from facility-prepared food .
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, interview, and record review, it was determined that the facility failed to implement policies for hand hygiene for 1 of 1 resident reviewed for pressure ulcers and the use of ap...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, interview, and record review, it was determined that the facility failed to implement policies for hand hygiene for 1 of 1 resident reviewed for pressure ulcers and the use of appropriate Personal Protective Equipment (PPE) to prevent the potential spread of infection for 1 of 2 residents reviewed for catheter/urinary tract infection (Resident Identifier #1). Findings include: Review on 12/9/24 of Resident #1's medical record revealed that he/she currently had two pressure wounds and an indwelling catheter. Observation on 12/9/2024 of Resident #1's room revealed signage indicating Enhanced Barrier Precautions (EBP) use for Resident #1. Observation on 12/9/24 at 10:15 a.m. of Staff D (Licensed Nursing Assistant) exiting Resident #1's room after providing a shower and dressing Resident #1. Further observation revealed Staff D was not wearing a gown. Interview on 12/9/24 at 10:15 a.m. with Staff D revealed that he/she was unaware that Resident #1 was on EBP and was unaware that he/she needed to wear a gown while providing high-contact care activities. Review on 12/9/24 of facility policy titled, Isolation-Categories of Transmission-Based Precautions, Updated and effective April 1, 2024, revealed: .Enhanced Barrier Precautions 1. In addition to Standard Precautions, implement Enhanced Barrier Precautions (EBP), the use of gown and gloves during high-contact care activities . Observation on 12/9/24 at 10:30 a.m. with Staff E (Licensed Practical Nurse) of Resident #1's dressing change revealed that Staff E removed Resident #1's old dressing, removed his/her gloves and then applied clean gloves without performing hand hygiene. Interview on 12/9/24 at approximately 10:40 a.m. with Staff E confirmed that he/she did not perform hand hygiene when he/she changed his/her gloves. Review on 12/9/24 of facility policy titled, Wound Care, revised December 2023, revealed . 4. Put on exam glove. Loosen tape and remove dressing. 5. Pull glove over dressing and discard into appropriate receptacle. Wash and dry hands thoroughly. 6. Put on gloves . Review on 9/9/24 of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) guideline titled, Implementation of Personal Protective Equipment Use in Nursing Homes to Prevent Spread of Multidrug Resistant Organisms (MDRO's), updated July 12, 2022 revealed: . Effective implementation of EBP requires .the availability of PPE and hand hygiene supplies at the point of care .Enhanced Barrier Precautions expand the use of PPE and refer to the use of gown and gloves during high-contact resident care activities that provide opportunities for transfer of MDRO's to staff hands and clothing .MDRO's may be indirectly transferred from resident-to-resident during these high-contact activities. Nursing home resident with wounds and indwelling medical devices are at especially high risk of both acquisition of and colonization with MDRO's. The use of gown and gloves for high-contact resident care activities is indicated . Review on 9/6/24 of the CDC guideline titled, Core Infection Prevention and Control Practices for Safe Healthcare Delivery in All Settings, dated 4/12/24, retrieved from: https://www.cdc.gov/infection-control/hcp/core-practices/index.html, revealed: .Hand Hygiene .Require healthcare personnel to perform hand hygiene in accordance with Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) recommendations. Use an alcohol-based hand rub or wash with soap and water for the following clinical indications: Immediately before touching a patient .After touching a patient or the patient's immediate environment .Immediately after glove removal . Ensure proper selection and use of personal protective equipment (PPE) based on the nature of the patient interaction and potential for exposure to blood, body fluids and/or infectious material: Wear gloves when it can be reasonably anticipated that contact with blood or other potentially infectious materials, mucous membranes, non-intact skin, potentially contaminated skin or contaminated equipment could occur. Wear a gown that is appropriate to the task to protect skin and prevent soiling of clothing during procedures and activities that could cause contact with blood, body fluids, secretions, or excretions. Use protective eyewear and a mask, or a face shield, to protect the mucous membranes of the eyes, nose and mouth during procedures and activities that could generate splashes or sprays of blood, body fluids, secretions and excretions. Select masks, goggles, face shields, and combinations of each according to the need anticipated by the task performed. Remove and discard PPE, other than respirators, upon completing a task before leaving the patient's room or care area. If a respirator is used, it should be removed and discarded (or reprocessed if reusable) after leaving the patient room or care area and closing the door. Do not use the same gown or pair of gloves for care of more than one patient. Remove and discard disposable gloves upon completion of a task or when soiled during the process of care .
CONCERN (E)

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

Food Safety (Tag F0812)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

Based on observation, interview, and record review, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure that dietary staff used hair restraints when handling food and failed to label and store food i...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, interview, and record review, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure that dietary staff used hair restraints when handling food and failed to label and store food in accordance with professional standards for food safety to prevent foodborne illness for 1 of 1 kitchen observed. Findings include: Observation on 12/8/24 at approximately 9:20 a.m. of Staff C (Dietary Aide) revealed Staff C to be portioning fruit salad into individual cups for meal service with long hair pulled up in a bun with a hair clip. Staff C was not wearing a hair restraint in place. Interview on 12/8/24 at approximately 9:20 a.m. with Staff C revealed that he/she had not been told to use a hair restraint and did not wear a hair net while working with food. Review on 12/10/24 of facility policy titled, Morrison Nursing Home Hair Net Policy, revealed: .All Food Handlers are required to wear effective hair restraints that cover all exposed body hair . Observation on 12/8/24 at approximately 9:10 a.m. of the Main Kitchen Refrigerator revealed the following food with no use by or preparation date: a chicken salad sandwich wrapped in plastic wrap, a bowl of lobster salad covered in plastic wrap, 2 small portioned containers of cottage cheese, and 3 portioned containers of three bean salad Interview on 12/8/24 at approximately 9:10 a.m. with Staff B (Dietary Manager) confirmed the above finding. Review on 12/10/24 of facility policy titled, Labeling and Dating Procedure-Dietary Kitchen revealed: .All product is to be labeled from the date opened and or prepared . All items prepared for service are to be dated the day they are prepared, and a use by date of the day to be used . Review on 12/10/24 of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration Food Code, dated 2017, retrieved from https://www.fda.gov/food/FDA-food-code/food-code-2017 revealed the following: .Annex 3, Public Health Reasons/Administrative Guidelines .Chapter 2 Management and Personnel .2-402 Hair Restraints 2-402.11 Effectiveness. (A) Except as provided in (B) of this section, Food employees shall wear hair restraints such as hats, hair coverings or nets, beard restraints, and clothing that covers body hair, that are designed and worn to effectively keep their hair from contacting exposed food; clean equipment, utensils, and linens .Chapter 3 Food .3-305.11 Food Storage .(D) A date marking system that meets the criteria stated in (A) and (B) of this section may include: (3) Marking the date or day the original container is opened in a food establishment, with a procedure to discard the food on or before the last date or day by which the food must be consumed on the premises, sold, or discarded .
MINOR (B)

Minor Issue - procedural, no safety impact

Staffing Data (Tag F0851)

Minor procedural issue · This affected multiple residents

Based on interview and record review it was determined that the facility failed to submit complete and accurate data for Payroll Based Journal for Fiscal Year Quarter 4 (July 1, 2024 - September 30, 2...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on interview and record review it was determined that the facility failed to submit complete and accurate data for Payroll Based Journal for Fiscal Year Quarter 4 (July 1, 2024 - September 30, 2024). Findings include: Review on 12/10/24 of the Payroll Based Journal (PBJ) Staffing Data [NAME] Report for Fiscal Year Quarter 4 2024 revealed that the facility failed to have Registered Nurse hours on the following dates: 7/1-7/13, 7/18-7/27, 8/9-8/18, 8/24, 8/25, 8/29-8/31, 9/4-9/6, 9/12-9/14, 9/22, 9/24, 9/25, 9/29, and 9/30. Further review revealed that the facility failed to have Licensed Nursing coverage 24 hours a day on the following dates: 7/1-7/31, 8/1-8/26, 8/29-8/31, 9/1-9/30. Interview on 12/10/24 at approximately 9:00 a.m. with Staff A (Administrator) confirmed that the PBJ file was submitted timely but was rejected for invalid format. Review on 12/10/24 of Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) Electronic Staffing Data Submission Payroll-Based Journal Long-Term Care Facility Policy Manual, Version 2.6, effective date June 2022, revealed: .Accuracy: Staffing information is required to be an accurate and complete submission of a facility's staffing records. Facilities should run the staffing reports that are available in CASPER to verify the accuracy and completeness of their final submission prior to the submission deadline .
Nov 2023 14 deficiencies 2 IJ (2 affecting multiple)
CRITICAL (K)

Immediate Jeopardy (IJ) - the most serious Medicare violation

Free from Abuse/Neglect (Tag F0600)

Someone could have died · This affected multiple residents

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Staff I (LNA) Interview on 11/14/23 at approximately 2:30 p.m. during a Resident Council meeting Resident #9 and Resident #10 ha...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Staff I (LNA) Interview on 11/14/23 at approximately 2:30 p.m. during a Resident Council meeting Resident #9 and Resident #10 had reported that Staff I was very rough during care and rude. Review on 11/14/23 of Resident #9's medical record revealed an admission date of 7/14/23 and a primary diagnosis of fusion of the spine. Further review of Resident #9's medical record revealed a quarterly MDS dated [DATE] with a BIMS score of 15 out of 15. Review on 11/14/23 of Resident #10's medical record revealed an admission date of 9/2/20 and a primary diagnosis of unspecified dementia. Further review of Resident #10's medical record revealed a quarterly MDS dated [DATE] with a BIMS score of 15 out of 15. Interview on 11/15/23 at approximately 10:15 a.m. with Staff B (Administrator) revealed that no one had started the investigation regarding Resident #9 and Resident #10's allegation of abuse that was reported on 11/14/23. Review on 11/15/23 of the Grievance Report dated 2/8/23 revealed that Resident #10 and Resident #29 alleged that Staff I was extremely rude and was rough during care. Further review of the Grievance Report revealed no investigation was completed for the allegations. Interview on 11/16/23 at approximately 8:30 a.m. with Staff A confirmed the above information. Staff A stated that no other residents or staff were interviewed regarding treatment and interactions with Staff I for the allegation of abuse on 2/8/23. Review on 11/16/23 of Staff J's written notice to administration dated 2/23/23 regarding Resident #20's allegations of rough handling and being fearful of Staff I revealed that Staff H had received the handwritten notice on 3/3/23. Further review of the written notice revealed no physical assessment of Resident #20 for potential injuries from rough handling. Review on 11/16/23 of the administration notes attached to Staff J's handwritten notice of abuse allegation revealed a typed document that stated there was a meeting with Resident #20 and their family member regarding a complaint about Staff I. Further review revealed a statement that read Staff I would be assigned to a different unit. Further review of the document revealed no physical assessment completed of Resident #20 for potential injuries from rough handling. Interview on 11/16/23 at approximately 9:00 a.m. with Staff B confirmed that the above report of alleged abuse on 2/23/23 was not received by the administration until 3/3/23. Interview on 11/16/23 at approximately 11:50 a.m. with Staff J stated that Staff I was allowed to keep working but was moved to another unit after the allegation from Resident #20 on 2/23/23. Review on 11/17/23 of Staff I's time clock punches for 2/23/23 through 3/3/23 revealed that Staff I worked shifts on 2/23/23, 2/24/23, 2/28/23, 3/1/23, and 3/3/23. Interview on 11/17/23 with Staff B confirmed the above working shifts for Staff I. Staff B stated that Staff I had been allowed to work in the facility but had been moved to another unit. Staff B confirmed that no investigation could be found for an allegation of abuse on 2/23/23. Based on interviews and record reviews, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure that residents remained free from resident to resident sexual abuse or from staff to resident physical and verbal abuse (Resident identifiers are #35 and #36). Finding include: Resident #36 Interview on 11/14/23 at 11:14 a.m. with Staff K (Registered Nurse (RN)) revealed that Resident #36 had incidents involving inappropriate sexual behavior towards other residents. Review on 11/16/23 of Resident #36's medical record revealed that he/she was admitted to the facility on [DATE] and had a primary diagnosis of a traumatic subdural hemorrhage and a secondary diagnosis of unspecified dementia. Resident #36 resides in the Memory Care Unit on the B-Wing. Review on 11/16/23 of Resident #36's quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) with an assessment reference date of 10/16/23 revealed that Resident #36 had a Brief Interview of Mental Status (BIMS) of 2, indicating severe cognitive impairment. Review on 11/16/23 of Resident #36's nurse's notes revealed the following: On 10/29/23 at 6:53 p.m., it was noted that . [pronoun omitted] was also found with his/her hand down a [gender omitted] resident's shirt. [Name omitted] was redirected away from this resident. [Pronoun omitted] went right into another [gender omitted] room . On 11/7/23 at 7:01 p.m., it was noted that .Later in the evening this writer heard a [gender omitted] resident yelling for help. When this writer came around the corner this writer saw [name omitted] trying to put [pronoun omitted] hands down the [gender omitted] resident's shirt .; On 11/13/23 at 9:06 p.m., it was noted that .Resident having had inappropriate/intrusive behavior this evening. In [gender omitted] resident's room attempting to kiss [gender omitted] .; Interview on 11/16/23 at 8:43 a.m. with Staff A (RN) revealed that there were no investigations into the above incidents of the non-consensual sexual contact behaviors of Resident #36. Interview on 11/16/23 at 10:31 a.m. with Staff L (RN) confirmed that Staff L witnessed Resident #36 put his/her hands down Resident #17's shirt on 10/29/23 and 11/7/23. Staff L stated that both incidents were reported in writing to either Staff A or Staff H (Director of Nursing) and that Staff L did not report either incident to a medical provider. Review on 11/16/23 of Resident #17's quarterly MDS with an assessment reference date of 10/10/23 revealed that Resident #17 had a BIMS of 00, meaning severely cognitively impaired. Interview on 11/16/23 at 11:56 a.m. with Staff A revealed that Staff A was not aware of the incidents on 10/29/23 and 11/7/23. Staff A stated that the medical provider was not notified on 10/29/23, 11/7/23, or 11/13/23. Review on 11/16/23 of Resident #36's provider note dated 11/10/23 revealed, Behaviors are manageable and no acute issues per nursing. There was no mention of the incidents with Resident #36 on 10/29/23 or 11/7/23. Review on 11/16/23 of Resident #36's care plan revealed that there were no interventions in place for Resident #36's sexual or intrusive behaviors with other residents. Interview on 11/16/23 at 1:01 p.m. with Staff A confirmed that there was no care plan for Resident #36's sexual or intrusive behaviors. Review on 11/16/23 of Resident #36's nursing behavior notes from 6/1/23 through 10/31/23 revealed that Resident #36 had 15 sexually inappropriate behaviors incidents on 6/5/23, 6/6/23, 6/27/23, 6/29/23, 7/3/23, 7/10/23, 7/11/23, 7/12/23, 7/14/23, 7/16/23, 7/21/23, 7/30/23, 8/6/23, 8/8/23, and 9/21/23. Resident #35 Review on 11/17/23 of Resident #35's nurse's notes revealed the following: On 7/8/23 at 5:36 p.m., it was noted that .the resident was witnessed making a sexual advance, reaches for a [gender omitted] areola (breast) .'. On 7/20/23 at 3:13 p.m., it was noted that .the LNA [Licensed Nursing Assistant] on duty reported seeing resident grope a [gender omitted] resident while he/she was in another resident room .; On 9/24/23 at 8:14 p.m., it was noted that .the resident had inappropriate behaviors towards a [gender omitted] .; Review on 11/17/23 of Resident #35's medical record revealed that he/she was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. Resident #35 resides on the B-Wing. Review on 11/17/23 of Resident #35's quarterly MDS with an assessment reference date of 9/6/23 revealed that Resident #35 had a BIMS of 15, meaning cognitively intact. Interview on 11/17/23 at 12:11 p.m. with Staff J (Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN)) confirmed that Resident #35 had inappropriate sexual behavior towards other residents. Staff J revealed that Resident #35 had touched another resident's breast and made other inappropriate sexual advances towards other residents. Interview on 11/17/23 at 12:48 p.m. with Staff A revealed that there were no interventions in place for Resident #35's known inappropriate sexual behaviors. Staff M (LPN) Review on 11/17/23 of Facility's Notice of Alleged Resident Abuse form dated 11/16/23 revealed that on 11/16/23 between the 10:00 p.m. to 6:30 a.m. shift, Resident #45 alleged that Staff M was not being nice. Resident #45 was crying and shaking when describing the alleged incident. Resident #45 reported feeling unsafe. Interview on 11/17/23 at 10:40 a.m. with Staff A confirmed the above allegation of abuse. Interview further revealed that Staff M worked from 10:00 p.m. to 6:30 a.m. on 11/16/23 during the investigation of the above incident. Staff M was not assigned to Resident #45.
CRITICAL (K)

Immediate Jeopardy (IJ) - the most serious Medicare violation

Administration (Tag F0835)

Someone could have died · This affected multiple residents

Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to adequately administer in a way to ensure that when allegations of abuse were identified, that the facility's policies for reporting and inv...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to adequately administer in a way to ensure that when allegations of abuse were identified, that the facility's policies for reporting and investigating were followed and that appropriate corrective actions were taken to prevent further abuse and ensure the resident's highest practicable physical, mental, and psychosocial wellbeing in a facility. (Census 53 Residents) Findings include: Review on 11/16/23 of the facility's policy titled, Abuse Investigation and Reporting, revised 9/2017, revealed .Role of the Administrator: 1. If an incident or suspected incident of residents abuse, mistreatment, neglect or injury of unknown source is reported, the Administrator will assign the investigation to an appropriate individual. 2. The Administrator will provide any supporting documents relative to the alleged incident to the person in charge of the investigation. 3. The Administrator will keep the resident and his/her representative (sponsor) informed of the progress of the investigation. 4. The Administrator will suspend immediately any employee who has been accused of resident abuse, pending the outcome of the investigation. 5. The Administrator will ensure that any further potential abuse, neglect, exploitation, or mistreatment is prevented. 6. The Administrator will inform the resident and his/her representative of the status of the investigation and measures taken to protect the safety and privacy of the resident . Review on 11/16/23 of the facility's policy titled, Abuse Prevention Program, revised 9/2017, revealed .As part of the resident abuse prevention, the administration will: 1. Protect our residents from abuse by anyone including, but not necessarily limited to: facility staff, other residents, consultants, volunteers, staff from other agencies, family members, legal representatives, friends, visitors, or any other individuals . Identified Abuse/Allegation of Abuse Review on 11/16/23 of Resident #36's nursing behavior notes from 6/1/23 through 11/14/23 revealed that Resident #36 had 18 sexually inappropriate behaviors incidents on 6/5/23, 6/6/23, 6/27/23, 6/29/23, 7/3/23, 7/10/23, 7/11/23, 7/12/23, 7/14/23, 7/16/23, 7/21/23, 7/30/23, 8/6/23, 8/8/23, 9/21/23, 10/29,21, 11/7/23, and 11/13/23. Review on 11/17/23 of Resident #35's nurse's notes from 7/1/23 through 9/30/23 revealed that Resident #35 had 3 sexually inappropriate behaviors incidents on 7/8/23, 7/20/23 and 9/24/23. Review on 11/15/23 of Grievance Report dated 2/8/23 revealed that Resident #10 and Resident #29 alleged that Staff I (Licensed Nursing Assistant (LNA)) was extremely rude and was rough during care. Further review of Grievance Report revealed no investigation was completed for the allegations. Review on 11/16/23 of Staff J's (Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN)) written notice to administration dated 2/23/23 regarding Resident # 20's allegations of rough handling and being fearful of Staff I revealed that Staff H (Director of Nursing) had received the handwritten notice on 3/3/23. Review on 11/17/23 of Facility's Notice of Alleged Resident Abuse form dated 11/16/23 revealed that on 11/15/23 during the 10:00 p.m. to 6:30 a.m. shift, Resident #45 alleged that Staff M (LPN) was not being nice. Resident #45 was crying and shaking when describing the alleged incident. Reporting of Alleged Violations of Abuse Interview on 11/16/23 at 8:43 a.m. with Staff A (Registered Nurse (RN)) revealed that the 18 sexually inappropriate incidents identified for Resident #36 on 6/5/23, 6/6/23, 6/27/23, 6/29/23, 7/3/23, 7/10/23, 7/11/23, 7/12/23, 7/14/23, 7/16/23, 7/21/23, 7/30/23, 8/6/23, 8/8/23, 9/21/23, 10/29/23, 11/7/23 and 11/13/23 were not reported to the State Survey Agency (SSA), physician or resident representatives of the affected residents. Interview on 11/17/23 at 12:48 p.m. with Staff A revealed that the incidents identified for Resident #35 on 9/24/23 and 7/8/23 were not reported to the SSA or resident representatives. Interview on 11/16/23 at 8:30 a.m. with Staff A revealed that the report of alleged abuse on 2/8/23 involving Resident #10 and Resident #29 by Staff I was not reported to the SSA as required. Interview on 11/16/23 at 9:00 a.m. with Staff B (Administrator) revealed that the allegations of abuse by Staff I involving Resident #9 and Resident #10 on 11/14/23 had not been reported to the SSA until after 26 hours of being notified. Review on 11/16/23 of the facility's policy titled, Abuse Investigation and Reporting, revised 9/2017, revealed .Reporting: 1. All alleged violations involving abuse, neglect, exploitation, or mistreatment, including injuries of unknown source and misappropriation of property will be reported by the facility Administrator, or his/her designee, to the following persons or agencies: a. The State licensing/certification agency responsible for surveying/licensing the facility; b. The local/State Ombudsman; c. The Resident's Representative (Sponsor) of Record; d. Adult Protective Services (where state law provides jurisdiction in long-term care; e. Law enforcement officials; f. The resident's Attending Physician; and g. The facility Medical Director. 2. An alleged violation of abuse, neglect, exploitation, or mistreatment (including injuries of unknown source and misappropriation of resident property) will be reported immediately, but not later than a. Two (2) hours if the alleged violation involves abuse OR has resulted in serious bodily harm; or b. Twenty-four (24) hours if the alleged violation does not involve abuse AND has not resulted in serious bodily injury . 5. The Administrator, or his/her designee, will provide the appropriate agencies or individuals listed above with a written report of the findings of the investigation within five (5) working days of the occurrence of the incident . Investigation of Alleged Violations of Abuse Review on 11/16/23 of Resident #36's behavior notes from 6/1/23 through 11/13/23 revealed that Resident #36 had 18 sexually inappropriate behaviors with residents (11/13/23, 11/7/23, 10/29/23, 9/21/23, 8/8/23, 8/6/23, 7/30/23, 7/21/23, 7/16/23, 7/14/23, 7/12/23, 7/11/23, 7/10/23, 7/3/23, 6/29/23, 6/27/23, 6/6/23, and 6/5/23). Interview on 11/16/23 at 8:43 a.m. with Staff A revealed that the above incidents were not investigated by staff at the facility. Review on 11/17/23 of Resident #35's nurse's notes from 7/1/23 through 9/30/23 revealed that Resident #35 had 3 sexually inappropriate behavior incidents on 7/8/23, 7/20/23, and 9/24/23. Interview on 11/17/23 at 12:48 p.m. with Staff A revealed that the incidents on 9/24/23 and 7/8/23 were not investigated by staff at the facility. Review on 11/17/23 of Facility's Notice of Alleged Resident Abuse form dated 11/16/23 revealed that on 11/15/23 during the 10:00 p.m. to 6:30 a.m. shift, Resident #45 alleged that Staff M was not being nice. Review further revealed that Resident #45 was crying and shaking when describing the alleged incident. Interview on 11/17/23 at 10:40 a.m. with Staff A confirmed the above allegation of abuse. Interview further revealed that Staff M worked from 10:00 p.m. to 6:30 a.m. on 11/16/23 and a thorough investigation was not completed. Interview on 11/15/23 at approximately 10:15 a.m. with Staff B revealed that no one had started the investigation regarding Resident #9 and Resident #10's allegation of abuse on 11/14/23. Review on 11/15/23 of Grievance Report dated 2/8/23 revealed that Resident #10 and Resident #29 alleged that Staff I was extremely rude and was rough during care. Further review of Grievance Report indicated no investigation for allegations. Interview on 11/16/23 at approximately 8:30 a.m. with Staff A revealed that no other residents or staff were interviewed regarding the treatment from Staff I for the allegation of abuse on 2/8/23. Review on 11/16/23 of the facility's policy titled, Abuse Prevention Program, revised 9/2017, revealed .7. Investigate and report any allegations of abuse within timeframes as required by federal requirements. 8. Protect residents during investigations. Review on 11/16/23 of the facility's policy titled, Abuse Investigation and Reporting, revised 9/2017, revealed All reports of resident abuse, neglect, exploitation, misappropriation of resident property, mistreatment and/or injuries of unknown source (abuse) shall be .thoroughly investigated by facility management . Review on 11/16/23 of the facility's policy titled, Abuse Policy and Procedures, revised 8/2011, revealed . Identification: Incident reports are reviewed by members of the Interdisciplinary Team to identify events, such as suspicious bruising, occurrences, patterns, and trends that may constitute abuse; and to determine the direction of the investigation . Corrective Actions to Prevent Further Abuse Review on 11/16/23 of Resident #36's nursing behavior notes from 6/1/23 through 11/13/23 revealed that Resident #36 had documented incidents of inappropriate sexual behaviors on 6/5/23, 6/6/23, 6/27/23, 6/29/23, 7/3/23, 7/10/23, 7/11/23, 7/12/23, 7/14/23, 7/16/23, 7/21/23, 7/30/23, 8/6/23, 8/8/23, 9/21/23, 10/29/23, 11/7/23 and 11/13/23. Review on 11/16/23 of Resident #36's comprehensive care plan revealed that there were no interventions in place that addressed Resident #35's inappropriate sexual behaviors towards other residents. Interview on 11/16/23 at 1:01 p.m. with Staff A confirmed the above finding. Review on 11/17/23 of Resident #35's electronic medical record revealed that Resident #35 had inappropriate sexual behaviors with other residents on 7/8/23, 7/20/23, and 9/24/23. Review on 11/17/23 of Resident #35's comprehensive care plan revealed that there were no interventions in place that addressed Resident #35's inappropriate sexual behaviors towards other residents. Interview on 11/17/23 at 12:48 p.m. with Staff A confirmed the above finding. Interview on 11/17/23 at 10:40 a.m. with Staff A revealed that Staff M worked from 10:00 p.m. to 6:30 a.m. on 11/16/23 while an investigation was ongoing. Review on 11/16/23 of the facility's policy titled, Abuse Policy and Procedures, revised 8/2011, revealed . Prevention . The Inter Disciplinary Team (IDT) will analyze incidents/occurrences to determine what changes are needed, if any, to Policies and Procedures to prevent further occurrences .Supervision of staff to identify inappropriate behaviors .The assessment, care planning, and monitoring of residents with needs and behaviors which might lead to conflict or neglect, such as residents with aggressive behaviors, residents who have behaviors such as entering other residents' rooms, residents with self-injurious behaviors, residents with communication disorders, those that require heavy nursing care and/or are totally dependent on staff . Refer to F600: Freedom from Abuse and Neglect, F607 Develop/Implement Abuse/Neglect Policies, F609 Reporting of Alleged Violations, and F610 Investigate/Prevent/Correct Alleged Violations
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 interview and record review, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure confidentiality of medical records was maintained for 1 of 23 residents (Resident identifier is #2). Findings...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on interview and record review, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure confidentiality of medical records was maintained for 1 of 23 residents (Resident identifier is #2). Findings include: Review on 11/14/23 of Resident #2's medical record revealed that he/she was admitted to receive hospice services on 11/4/23 without a physician referral. Interview on 11/17/23 at approximately 9:00 a.m. with Staff C (Administrator in Training) confirmed that there was not a physician referral for Resident #2 for hospice services and no signed consent from the resident or resident's representative for the release of medical records to the hospice. Further interview with Staff C revealed that he/she released a copy of Resident #2's medication list to the hospice facility for review. Review on 11/17/23 of the facility policy titled, Confidentiality of Information, Revision Date 10/2017 revealed: .1. The facility will safeguard all resident records, whether medical, financial, or social in nature, to protect the confidentiality of the information. 2. Access to resident medical records will be limited to authorized staff and business associates 6. Residents may initiate a request to release information contained in their records and charts to themselves or anyone they wish. Such requests will be honored only upon the receipt of a written, signed, and dated request from the resident or representative (sponsor)
CONCERN (D)

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

Comprehensive Care Plan (Tag F0656)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Resident #35 Review on 11/17/23 of Resident #35's electronic medical record revealed that Resident #35 had documented inappropriate sexual behaviors with other residents on 7/8/23, 7/20/23, and 9/24/2...

Read full inspector narrative →
Resident #35 Review on 11/17/23 of Resident #35's electronic medical record revealed that Resident #35 had documented inappropriate sexual behaviors with other residents on 7/8/23, 7/20/23, and 9/24/23. Review on 11/17/23 of Resident #35's comprehensive care plan revealed that there was no focus, goals, or interventions that addressed Resident #35's inappropriate sexual behaviors. Interview on 11/17/23 at 12:48 p.m. with Staff A confirmed that Resident #35's inappropriate sexual behaviors should have been addressed in Resident #36's care plan and were not. Based on interviews and record reviews, it was determined that the facility failed to develop and implement a comprehensive care plan for 2 of 53 residents reviewed for care plans (Resident Identifiers are #35 and #36). Findings include: Resident #36 Interview on 11/14/23 at 11:14 a.m. with Staff K (Registered Nurse (RN)) revealed that Resident #36 had inappropriate sexual behavior towards other residents. Review on 11/16/23 of Resident #36's behavior notes from 5/1/23 through 11/13/23 revealed that Resident #36 had a behavior problem of hypersexuality towards staff and residents and being intrusive with residents on 11/13/23, 11/7/23, 10/29/23, 9/21/23, 8/8/23, 8/6/23, 7/30/23, 7/21/23, 7/16/23, 7/14/23, 7/12/23, 7/11/23, 7/10/23, 7/3/23, 6/29/23, 6/27/23, 6/22/23, 6/6/23 and 6/5/23. Review on 11/16/23 of Resident #36's psych nursing home visit note dated 8/3/23 and 8/17/23 revealed that Resident #36 was seen due to increased hypersexual behaviors. Review on 11/16/23 of Resident #36's comprehensive care plan revealed that there was no focus, goals, or interventions in place for Resident #36's sexual or intrusive behaviors with other residents. Interview on 11/16/23 at 1:01 p.m. with Staff A (RN) confirmed that there was no care plan for Resident #36's sexual or intrusive behaviors.
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0658 (Tag F0658)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview and record review it was determined that the facility failed to follow physician orders for 1 of 5 residents ...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview and record review it was determined that the facility failed to follow physician orders for 1 of 5 residents reviewed for unnecessary medications in a final sample of 23 residents (Resident Identifier is #40). Findings include: Standards: [NAME], [NAME] A., and [NAME]. Fundamentals of Nursing. 7th ed. St. Louis, Missouri: Mosby Elsevier, 2009. Page 336- Physicians' Orders The physician is responsible for directing medical treatment. Nurses follow physician's orders unless they believe the orders are in error or harm clients. Therefore you need to assess all orders, and if you find one to be erroneous or harmful, further clarification from the physician is necessary . Review on 11/14/23 of Resident #40's October 2023 and November 2023 Medication Administration Record (MAR) revealed the following physician's order: Isosorbide Mononitrate ER [extended release] Oral Tablet Extended Release 24 hour 30 mg [milligram] Give 1 tablet by mouth one time a day related to essential [Primary] hypertension, hold for SBP [Systolic Blood Pressure] < [less than] 110, Start Date 10/14/23. Further review of Resident #40's MAR revealed that the medication was administered daily from 10/14/23 through 11/15/23. Review on 11/16/23 of Resident #40's blood pressures revealed the following blood pressures obtained with medication administration: October 2023 10/14, 10/18, 10/19, 10/20, 10/24, and 10/25 Further review of October 2023's blood pressures revealed the following SBP's <110 10/19 SBP 98 10/24 SBP 105 10/25 SBP 98 November 2023 11/2, 11/3, 11/4, 11/6, 11/11 and 11/12 Further review of November 2023's blood pressures revealed the following SBP's <110 11/2 SBP 94 11/11 102/60 Interview on 11/16/23 at approximately 7:45 a.m. with Staff A (Registered Nurse) confirmed the above findings and confirmed that the Isosorbide Monitrate should not have been administered when the SBP was less than 110.
CONCERN (D)

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

Pressure Ulcer Prevention (Tag F0686)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on interview and record review, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure that a resident with pressure ulcers had documentation of weekly assessments that contained measurements and ...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on interview and record review, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure that a resident with pressure ulcers had documentation of weekly assessments that contained measurements and descriptions of the pressure ulcers for 1 out of 1 resident reviewed for pressure ulcers in a final sample of 23 residents (Resident identifier is #12). Findings include: Review on 11/17/23 of Resident #12's Wound Notes revealed the following: Right heel 5/18/23 Resident #12 developed a Deep Tissue Injury (DTI) to right heel. Wound measurements and descriptions were completed on the following dates: 5/18/23, 5/26/23, 6/26/23, 7/4/23, 7/11/23, 7/17/23, 7/31/23, 8/14/23, 8/16/23, 8/24/23, 8/28/23, 9/2/23, 9/10/23, 9/23/23, 10/2/23, 10/8/23, 10/9/23, 10/14/23, 11/2/23, and 11/5/23. Outer aspect of the right foot 9/1/23 Resident #12 developed a reddened pressure area to right outer aspect of right foot. Wound measurements and descriptions were completed on the following dates: 9/2/23, 9/10/23, 9/23/23, 10/8/23, 10/14/23, and 11/5/23. Right buttocks 10/7/23 Resident #12 developed a pressure ulcer on his/her right buttocks. Wound measurements and descriptions were completed on the following dates: 10/7/23, 10/14/23, 11/2/23, 11/5/23 and 11/16/23. Coccyx 11/5/23 Resident #12 developed a pressure ulcer to his/her coccyx. Wound measurements and descriptions were completed on the following dates: 11/5/23 and 11/16/23. Interview on 11/17/23 at approximately 1:15 p.m. with Staff A (Registered Nurse) confirmed the above findings and that wound measurements and descriptions had not been performed weekly. Review on 11/16/23 of the facility policy titled, Pressure Ulcers/Injuries Overview, Revision Date 6/2018 did not indicate how often the facility would monitor pressure ulcers or how pressure ulcers would be described.
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0688 (Tag F0688)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview, and record review it was determined that the facility failed to provide services to a resident ...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview, and record review it was determined that the facility failed to provide services to a resident with a limited range of motion for 1 of 1 resident reviewed for position/mobility in a final sample of 23 residents (Resident identifier is #20). Findings include: Observation on 11/14/23 at approximately 11:00 a.m. of Resident #20's left hand appeared that his/her hand was contracted. Observation on 11/15/23 at approximately 1:00 p.m. of Resident #20's left hand appeared that his/her hand was contracted. Review on 11/15/23 of Resident #20's medical record revealed that there were no physician orders for a splint for Resident #20's left hand. Review on 11/15/23 of Resident #20's care plans revealed the following: Status Post Chronic Physical Disability L [left] side weakness post CVA [cerebral vascular accident], further review of Resident #20's care plan revealed that there was no mention of Resident #20 requiring a splint for his/her left hand to prevent further contracture. Review on 11/15/23 of Resident #20's Occupational Therapy Discharge summary, dated [DATE] revealed: . Discharge Recommendations: RA [Restorative Aide] program followed by nursing and care plan for splint use. . Interview on 11/15/23 at approximately 1:15 p.m. with Staff F (Registered Nurse) revealed that there is a hand splint that the resident has in his/her dresser and that he/she is unaware of an order for removal or application of the hand splint. Interview on 11/15/23 at approximately 2:00 p.m. with Staff E (Physical Therapist) revealed that Occupational Therapy was discontinued on 5/16/23 and it was recommended for the resident to use a splint with nursing. Staff E also revealed that this is usually communicated with Staff G (Minimum Data Set Nurse) and Staff G would transcribe the order and ensure that it was entered into a care plan as well. Interview on 11/15/23 at approximately 2:05 p.m. with Staff G revealed that he/she was never notified of the above recommendation and did not initiate a care plan or order for the splint.
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0699 (Tag F0699)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on interview and record review, it was determined that the facility failed to identify indicators of trauma in order to provide trauma informed care for 1 out of 5 residents reviewed for behavio...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on interview and record review, it was determined that the facility failed to identify indicators of trauma in order to provide trauma informed care for 1 out of 5 residents reviewed for behavioral/emotional in a final sample of 23 residents (Resident identifier is #24). Findings include: Review on 11/16/23 of Resident #24's Psychiarty Nursing Home Visit, dated 7/6/23 revealed: .Social History .Previous Occupational History: nurse . Lost license d/t [due to] narcotic abuse. Disabled d/t back pain and psych Substance Use .Type-opiates . previously incarcerated, . incarcerated from 2003-2007 Review on 11/16/23 of Social Service Assessment, dated 8/30/23 revealed no history of trauma identified. Interview on 11/17/23 at approximately 9:00 a.m. with Staff C (Administrator in Training) and Staff D (Activities Director) both revealed they began doing the assessments in July of 2023 and they were not aware that Resident #24 had a history of trauma. Staff C and D also revealed that they have had no specialized training or experience to screen for a history of trauma or triggers of trauma to ensure that trauma informed care is delivered. Review on 11/17/23 of the facility policy titled, Behavioral Assessment, Intervention and Monitoring, Revision Date 2/2018 revealed: . Management 1. The interdisciplinary team will evaluate behavioral symptoms in residents to determine the degree of severity, distress, and potential safety risk to the resident, and develop a care plan accordingly.7. Interventions will be individualized and part of an overall care environment that supports physical, functional, and psychosocial needs, and strives to understand, prevent or relieve the resident's distress or loss of abilities
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0710 (Tag F0710)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on interview and record review it was determined that the facility failed to ensure that the physician was involved in a resident's referral to hospice on 1 of 3 residents reviewed for hospice i...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on interview and record review it was determined that the facility failed to ensure that the physician was involved in a resident's referral to hospice on 1 of 3 residents reviewed for hospice in a final sample of 23 residents (Resident identifier is #2). Findings include: Review on 11/14/23 of the facility matrix revealed that Resident #2 was receiving hospice services. Review on 11/14/23 of Resident #2's medical record revealed that he/she was admitted to receive hospice services on 11/4/23. Further review of Resident #2's medical record revealed that there was no physician's referral/order obtained for a hospice evaluation. Interview on 11/17/23 at approximately 9:00 a.m. with Staff C (Administrator in Training) confirmed that there was no referral/order for Resident #2 to be evaluated by hospice.
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0839 (Tag F0839)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on interview and record review it was determined that the facility failed to ensure that staff had the training or experience necessary to identify residents with a history of trauma in order fo...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on interview and record review it was determined that the facility failed to ensure that staff had the training or experience necessary to identify residents with a history of trauma in order for residents to receive trauma informed care for 1 of 5 residents reviewed for behavioral/emotional in a final sample of 23 residents (Resident identifier is #24). Findings include: Review on 11/14/23 of the facility matrix revealed that Resident #24 was not identified as having history of trauma. Review on 11/16/23 of Resident #24's Psych Nursing Home Visit, dated 7/6/23 revealed: .Social History .Previous Occupational History: nurse. Lost license d/t [due to] narcotic abuse. Disabled d/t back pain and psych Substance Use .Type-opiates . previously incarcerated, . incarcerated from 2003-2007 Review on 11/16/23 of Social Service Assessment, dated 8/30/23 revealed no history of trauma identified. Interview on 11/17/23 at approximately 9:00 a.m. with Staff D (Activities Director) revealed that he/she completed the Social Service Assessment, dated 8/30/23, for Resident #24 and had not identified any history of trauma. Interview on 11/17/23 at approximately 9:00 a.m. with Staff C (Administrator in Training) and Staff D revealed that they have been responsible for completing social service assessments at the facility since July 2023. Further interview with Staff C and Staff D revealed that they have had no specialized training or experience to screen for a history of trauma or triggers of trauma to ensure that trauma informed care is delivered.
CONCERN (D)

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

Infection Control (Tag F0880)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Deficiency Text Not Available

Read full inspector narrative →
Deficiency Text Not Available
CONCERN (E)

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

Report Alleged Abuse (Tag F0609)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

Staff I (Licensed Nursing Assistant (LNA)) Interview on 11/14/23 at approximately 2:30 p.m. during a Resident Council meeting Resident #9 and Resident #10 had reported Staff I was very rough during ca...

Read full inspector narrative →
Staff I (Licensed Nursing Assistant (LNA)) Interview on 11/14/23 at approximately 2:30 p.m. during a Resident Council meeting Resident #9 and Resident #10 had reported Staff I was very rough during care and rude. Interview on 11/16/23 at approximately 9:00 a.m. with Staff B (Administrator) confirmed that the above reported allegations of abuse by Resident #9 and Resident #10 on 11/14/23 had not been reported to the SSA until after 26 hours of them being notified. Review on 11/15/23 of the Grievance Report dated 2/8/23 revealed that Resident #10 and Resident #29 alleged that Staff I was extremely rude and was rough during care. Interview on 11/16/23 at approximately 8:30 a.m. with Staff A confirmed that the above report of alleged abuse on 2/8/23 was not reported to the SSA. Review on 11/16/23 of Staff J's written notice to administration dated 2/23/23 regarding Resident #20's allegations of rough handling and being fearful of Staff I revealed that Staff H (Director of Nursing) had received Staff J's written notice on 3/3/23. Interview on 11/16/23 at approximately 9:00 a.m. with Staff B confirmed that the above report of alleged abuse on 2/23/23 was not reported to the administration of the facility immediately. Staff B also confirmed that the above allegation of abuse on 2/23/23 was not reported to the SSA. Based on interviews and record reviews, it was determined that the facility failed to report an allegation of abuse immediately, but no later than 24 hours, to the State Survey Agency (SSA) and the results of the investigation to the SSA within 5 working days of the incident for 5 of 5 residents reviewed for alleged abuse (Resident Identifiers are #9, #10, #20, #35 and #36). Findings include: Resident #35 Review on 11/17/23 of Resident #35's nurse's notes revealed the following: On 9/24/23 at 8:14 p.m. revealed that .the resident had inappropriate behaviors towards a [gender omitted] . On 7/8/23 at 5:36 p.m. revealed that .the resident was witnessed making sexual advance, reaches for a [gender omitted] areola .' Interview on 11/17/23 at 12:11 a.m. with Staff J (Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN)) revealed that Staff J reported the incident on 9/24/23 to the Director of Nursing. Interview on 11/17/23 at 12:48 p.m. with Staff A (Register Nurse (RN)) revealed that the incidents on 9/24/23 and 7/8/23 were not reported to the SSA. Resident #36 Review on 11/16/23 of Resident #36's behavior notes from 6/1/23 through 11/13/23 revealed that Resident #36 had 19 sexually inappropriate behaviors with residents (11/13/23, 11/7/23, 10/29/23, 9/21/23, 8/8/23, 8/6/23, 7/30/23, 7/21/23, 7/16/23, 7/14/23, 7/12/23, 7/11/23, 7/10/23, 7/3/23, 6/29/23, 6/27/23, 6/22/23, 6/6/23 and 6/5/23). Interview on 11/16/23 at 8:43 a.m. with Staff A revealed that none of the above incidents were reported to the SSA. Review on 11/16/23 of the facility policy titled, Abuse Investigating and Reporting, revised date of 09/2017, revealed .All reports of resident abuse, neglect, exploitation, misappropriation of resident property, mistreatment and/or injuries of unknown source (abuse) shall be promptly reported to local, state and federal agencies (as defined by current regulation) . Findings of abuse investigations will also be reported .Reporting: 2. An alleged violation of abuse . will be reported immediately, but not later than: a. Two (2) hours if the alleged violation involves abuse .
CONCERN (F)

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

Abuse Prevention Policies (Tag F0607)

Could have caused harm · This affected most or all residents

Staff I (LNA) Interview on 11/14/23 at approximately 2:30 p.m. during a Resident Council meeting Resident #9 and Resident #10 had reported Staff I was very rough during care and rude. Interview on 11...

Read full inspector narrative →
Staff I (LNA) Interview on 11/14/23 at approximately 2:30 p.m. during a Resident Council meeting Resident #9 and Resident #10 had reported Staff I was very rough during care and rude. Interview on 11/15/23 at approximately 10:15 a.m. with Staff B (Administrator) revealed that they had not reported to the State Agencies nor had they started the investigation regarding Resident #9 and Resident #10's allegation of abuse on 11/14/23. Review on 11/15/23 of the Grievance Report dated 2/8/23 revealed that Resident #10 and Resident #29 alleged that Staff I was extremely rude and was rough during care. Further review of the Grievance Report indicated no investigation for allegations. Interview on 11/16/23 at approximately 8:30 a.m. with Staff A revealed that no report had been made to the State Agencies and no other residents or staff were interviewed regarding the treatment from Staff I for the allegation of abuse on 2/8/23. Review on 11/16/23 of Staff J's written notice to administration dated 2/23/23 regarding Resident # 20's allegations of rough handling and being fearful of Staff I revealed that Staff H (Director of Nursing) had received the hand written notice on 3/3/23. Interview on 11/16/23 at approximately 9:00 a.m. with Staff B confirmed that the above report of alleged abuse on 2/23/23 was not received by the administration until 3/3/23 and that Staff I had been allowed to work in the facility but had been moved to another unit. Staff B confirmed that no report had been made to the State Agencies and no investigation could be found for allegation of abuse on 2/23/23. Based on interviews, record reviews, and policy review, it was determined that the facility failed to implement the facility's abuse policy for 5 out of 5 residents and 2 out of 3 staff reviewed for abuse (Resident Identifiers are #9, #10, #20, #35 and #36). Findings include: Review on 11/16/23 of the facility policy titled, Abuse Policy and Procedure, with a revised date of 9/2019, revealed .Identification: Incident reports are reviewed by members of the Interdisciplinary Team to identify events, such as suspicious bruising, occurrences, patterns, and trends that may constitute abuse; and to determine the direction of the investigation .Resident to Resident Contact/Abuse: Every attempt to foresee/prevent incident will be made by observing the following: Identify resident with potential behavior problems . Identify the precipitating situation . Closely supervise . Document interventions in Resident Care Plans .Reporting Resident Abuse or Neglect: Observation or suspicion of alleged resident abuse, neglect, or misappropriation of resident property must be reported and investigated IMMEDIATELY . Instructions for Reporting Alleged Resident Abuse: 4. Complete the Notice of Alleged Resident Abuse form . These documents are faced to the following agencies within 24 hours of the incident . Resident #36 Interview on 11/14/23 at 11:14 a.m. with Staff K (Registered Nurse (RN)) revealed that Resident #36 had inappropriate sexual behavior towards other residents. Review on 11/16/23 of Resident #36's behavior notes from 6/1/23 through 11/13/23 revealed that Resident #36 had multiple documented (11/13/23, 11/7/23, 10/29/23, 9/21/23, 8/22/23, 9/11/23, 8/8/23, 8/6/23, 7/30/23, 7/21/23, 7/16/23, 7/14/23, 7/12/23, 7/11/23, 7/10/23, 7/3/23, 6/29/23, 6/27/23, 6/22/23, 6/6/23 and 6/5/23) behaviors of being sexually inappropriate and intrusive with residents. Interview on 11/16/23 at 8:43 a.m. with Staff A (RN) confirmed that Resident #36 had a known history of sexual abuse towards other residents. Interview further revealed that the facility did not do any investigations for any of the above incidents, did not report to state agencies, and no interventions were put in place to prevent further incidents from occurring. Resident #35 Review on 11/17/23 of Resident #35's nurse's notes revealed the following: On 9/24/23 at 8:14 p.m. revealed that .the resident had inappropriate behaviors towards a [gender omitted] . On 7/20/23 at 3:13 p.m. revealed that .the LNA on duty reported seeing resident grope a [gender omitted] resident while he/she was in another resident's room . On 7/8/23 at 5:36 p.m. revealed that .the resident was witnessed making a sexual advance, reaches for a [gender omitted] areola .' Interview on 11/17/23 at 12:11 p.m. with Staff J (Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN)) confirmed the above. Interview on 11/17/23 at 12:48 p.m. with Staff A revealed that there were no interventions in place for Resident #35's known inappropriate sexual behaviors. Interview further revealed that the incidents on 9/24/23 and 7/8/23 were not investigated or reported. Staff M (LPN) Review on 11/17/23 of Facility's Notice of Alleged Resident Abuse form dated 11/16/23 revealed that on 11/15/23 during the 10:00 p.m. to 6:30 a.m. shift, Resident #45 alleged that Staff M was not being nice. Review further revealed that Resident #45 was crying and shaking when describing the alleged incident. Interview on 11/17/23 at 10:40 a.m. with Staff A confirmed the above allegation of abuse. Interview further revealed that Staff M worked from 10:00 p.m. to 6:30 a.m. on 11/16/23.
CONCERN (F)

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

Investigate Abuse (Tag F0610)

Could have caused harm · This affected most or all residents

Staff I (LNA) Interview on 11/14/23 at approximately 2:30 p.m. during a Resident Council meeting Resident #9 and Resident #10 had reported Staff I was very rough during care and rude. Interview on 11...

Read full inspector narrative →
Staff I (LNA) Interview on 11/14/23 at approximately 2:30 p.m. during a Resident Council meeting Resident #9 and Resident #10 had reported Staff I was very rough during care and rude. Interview on 11/15/23 at approximately 10:15 a.m. with Staff B (Administrator) revealed that no one had started the investigation regarding Resident #9 and Resident #10's allegation of abuse on 11/14/23. Review on 11/15/23 of the Grievance Report dated 2/8/23 revealed that Resident #10 and Resident #29 alleged that Staff I was extremely rude and was rough during care. Further review of the Grievance Report indicated no investigation for allegations. Interview on 11/16/23 at approximately 8:30 a.m. with Staff A revealed that no other residents or staff were interviewed regarding the treatment from Staff I for the allegation of abuse on 2/8/23. Review on 11/16/23 of Staff J's (LPN) written notice to administration dated 2/23/23 regarding Resident #20's allegations of rough handling and being fearful of Staff I revealed that Staff H (Director of Nursing) had received the hand written notice on 3/3/23. Interview on 11/16/23 at approximately 9:00 a.m. with Staff B confirmed that the above report of alleged abuse on 2/23/23 was not received by administration until 3/3/23 and that Staff I had been allowed to work in the facility but had been moved to another unit. Staff B confirmed that no investigation could be found for an allegation of abuse on 2/23/23. Based on interviews and record reviews it was determined that the facility failed to ensure that alleged violations of abuse were thoroughly investigated for 5 out of 5 residents and 2 out of 3 staff members reviewed for abuse (Resident Identifiers are #9, #10, #20, #35 and #36) and (Staff Identifiers are I and M ). Findings include: Resident #35 Review on 11/17/23 of Resident #35's nurse's notes revealed the following: On 9/24/23 at 8:14 p.m. revealed that .the resident had inappropriate behaviors towards a [gender omitted] . On 7/8/23 at 5:36 p.m. revealed that .the resident was witnessed making sexual advance, reaches for a [gender omitted] areola .' Interview on 11/17/23 at 12:48 p.m. with Staff A (Registered Nurse (RN)) revealed that the incidents on 9/24/23 and 7/8/23 were not investigated by staff at the facility. Resident #36 Review on 11/16/23 of Resident #36's behavior notes from 6/1/23 through 11/13/23 revealed that Resident #36 had 18 sexually inappropriate behaviors with residents (11/13/23, 11/7/23, 10/29/23, 9/21/23, 8/8/23, 8/6/23, 7/30/23, 7/21/23, 7/16/23, 7/14/23, 7/12/23, 7/11/23, 7/10/23, 7/3/23, 6/29/23, 6/27/23, 6/6/23 and 6/5/23). Interview on 11/16/23 at 8:43 a.m. with Staff A revealed that none of the above incidents were investigated by staff at the facility. Staff M (Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN)) Review on 11/17/23 of the facility's Notice of Alleged Resident Abuse form dated 11/16/23 revealed that on 11/15/23 during the 10:00 p.m. to 6:30 a.m. shift, Resident #45 alleged that Staff M was not being nice. Review further revealed that Resident #45 was crying and shaking when describing the alleged incident. Interview on 11/17/23 at 10:40 a.m. with Staff A confirmed the above allegation of abuse. Interview further revealed that Staff M worked from 10:00 p.m. to 6:30 a.m. on 11/16/23 and a thorough investigation was not completed. Review on 11/16/23 of the facility's policy titled, Abuse Investigating and Reporting, revised date of 09/2017, revealed .All reports of resident abuse, neglect, exploitation, misappropriation of resident property, mistreatment and/or injuries of unknown source (abuse) shall be .thoroughly investigated by facility management. Findings of abuse investigations will also be reported .Role of the Administrator: 1. If an incident or suspected incident of reside abuse, mistreatment, neglect, or injury of an unknown source is reported, the Administrator will assign the investigation to an appropriate individual . 4. The Administrator will suspend immediately any employee who has been accused of resident abuse, pending the outcome of the investigation . 5. The Administrator will ensure that any further potential abuse, neglect, exploitation or mistreatment is prevented .
Jul 2023 1 deficiency 1 IJ (1 facility-wide)
CRITICAL (L)

Immediate Jeopardy (IJ) - the most serious Medicare violation

Infection Control (Tag F0880)

Someone could have died · This affected most or all residents

⚠️ Facility-wide issue

Based on interview and record review, it was determined that the facility failed to follow accepted national standards for the return to work guidelines for health care personnel who were positive for...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on interview and record review, it was determined that the facility failed to follow accepted national standards for the return to work guidelines for health care personnel who were positive for COVID-19 illness for 21 of 21 staff reviewed. Non-complaince with return to work guidelines potenitally increased the exposure to pathogens for the facility's census of 52 residents, as well as staff and visitors (Staff identifiers are A, B, C, D, E, F, G, H, I, J, K, L, M, N, O, P, Q, R, S, T, and U). Findings include: Review on 7/6/23 of the facily COVID-19 line list of positive staff and the June 2023 staff time clock entries revealed the following: Staff A (Registered Nurse (RN)) was asymptomatic, tested positive for COVID-19 on 6/5/23 and returned to work with no retesting for COVID-19 on 6/12/23 (Day 7); Staff B (RN) was symptomatic, tested positive for COVID-19 on 6/11/23 and returned to work on 6/15/23 (Day 4); Staff C (Housekeeper) was symptomatic, tested positive for COVID-19 on 6/11/23 and returned to work on 6/14/23 (Day 3); Staff D (Licensed Nursing Assistant (LNA)) was asymptomatic, tested positive for COVID-19 on 6/12/23 and returned to work on 6/13/23 (Day 1); Staff E (LNA) was symptomatic, tested positive for COVID-19 on 6/12/23 and returned to work on 6/16/23 (Day 4); Staff F (Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN)) was symptomatic, tested positive for COVID-19 on 6/12/23 and returned to work on 6/17/23 (Day 5); Staff T (housekeeper) was symptomatic, tested positive for COVID-19 on 6/12/23 and returned to work with no retesting for COVID-19 on 6/19/23 (Day 7); Staff G (RN) was symptomatic, tested positive for COVID-19 on 6/13/23 and returned to work on 6/19/23 (Day 6); Staff H (Administrative staff), was symptomatic, tested positive for COVID-19 on 6/13/23 and returned to work on 6/15/23 (Day 2); Staff I (LNA) was symptomatic, tested positive for COVID-19 on 6/13/23 and returned to work on 6/15/23 (Day 2); Staff J (LNA) was symptomatic, tested positive for COVID-19 on 6/13/23 and returned to work on 6/15/23 (Day 2); Staff K (Administrative staff) was symptomatic, tested positive for COVID-19 on 6/14/23 and returned on 6/19/23 (Day 5); Staff P (Administrative staff) was symptomatic, tested positive for COVID-19 on 6/14/23 and returned to work on 6/20/23 (Day 6); Staff L (LPN) was symptomatic, tested positive for COVID-19 on 6/15/23 and returned to work on 6/18/23 (Day 3); Staff M (RN) was symptomatic, tested positive for COVID-19 on 6/15/23 and returned to work on 6/19/23 (Day 4); Staff N (LNA) was symptomatic, tested positive for COVID-19 on 6/15/23 and returned to work on 6/19/23 (Day 4); Staff O (LNA) was symptomatic, tested positive for COVID-19 on 6/15/23 and returned to work with no retesting for COVID-19 on 6/24/23 (Day 9); Staff Q (LNA) was symptomatic, tested positive for COVID-19 on 6/15/23 and returned to work on 6/20/23 (Day 5); Staff R (Unit Clerk) was symptomatic, tested positive for COVID-19 on 6/19/23 and returned to work on 6/21/23 (Day 2); Staff S (LPN) was symptomatic, tested positive for COVID-19 on 6/19/23 and returned to work on 6/21/23 (Day 2); Staff U (Activities) was asymptomatic, tested positive for COVID-19 on 6/26/23 and returned to work with no retesting for COVID-19 on 7/5/23 (Day 9). Interview on 7/6/23 at approximately 11:30 a.m. with Staff V (Director of Nursing) and Staff B confirmed the above return to work dates for COVID-19 positive staff. Staff V and Staff B revealed that staff were allowed to return to work if they were asymptomatic or symptoms had improved. Staff V and Staff B also revealed that during the facility COVID-19 outbreak, staffing maintained above the facility determined staffing levels. Staff V and Staff B revealed that they did not have a policy for when staff could return to work and stated that they would follow the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention guidelines (CDC). Interview on 7/6/23 at approximately 11:30 a.m. with Staff B confirmed they were symptomatic, tested positive for COVID-19 on 6/11/23 and returned to work on 6/15/23. Interview on 7/6/23 at approximately 12:17 p.m. with Staff D confirmed they were asymptomatic and tested while at work on 6/12/23. Staff D stated they returned to work on 6/13/23 and resumed all work duties with COVID-19 positive and negative residents. Review on 7/6/23 of the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) Interim Guidance for Managing Healthcare Personnel with SARS-CoV-2 [Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2] Infection or Exposed to SARS-CoV-2, updated September 23, 2022, revealed, . Return to Work Criteria for HCP [Health Care Personnel] with SARS-CoV-2 Infection. The following are criteria to determine when HCP with SARS-CoV-2 infection could return to work and are influenced by severity of symptoms and presence of immunocompromising conditions. After returning to work, HCP should self-monitor for symptoms and seek re-evaluation from occupational health if symptoms recur or worsen. If symptoms recur (e.g. [for example], rebound) these HCP should be restricted from work and follow recommended practices to prevent transmission to others (e.g., use of well-fitting source control) until they again meet the healthcare criteria below to return to work unless an alternative diagnosis is identified. HCP with mild to moderate illness who are not moderately to severely immunocompromised could return to work after the following criteria have been met: At least 7 days have passed since symptoms first appeared if a negative viral test* is obtained within 48 hours prior to returning to work (or 10 days if testing is not performed or if a positive test at day 5-7), and at least 24 hours have passed since last fever without the use of fever-reducing medications, and symptoms (e.g., cough, shortness of breath) have improved. *Either a NAAT [Nucleic Acid Amplification Test] (molecular) or antigen test may be used. If using an antigen test, HCP should have a negative test obtained on day 5 and again 48 hours later .
Oct 2022 5 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

Based on observation, interview and record review it was determined that the facility failed to support resident choice to leave the facility for hospitalization for 1 of 3 residents reviewed for choi...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, interview and record review it was determined that the facility failed to support resident choice to leave the facility for hospitalization for 1 of 3 residents reviewed for choices. (Resident identifier is #24.) Findings include: Review on 10/10/22 at approximately 12:15 p.m. of Resident #24's nursing note dated 10/6/22 8:39 p.m. revealed Resident #24 was projectile vomiting for 30 minutes. Review on 10/11/22 at approximately 8:30 a.m. of nursing note dated 10/7/22 5:28 a.m. revealed that Resident #24 stated that he/she felt the urge to urinate but could not, had burning pain in penis, and requested to go to the hospital. Review of the 10/7/22 3:01 p.m. nursing note revealed that Resident #24 had lower abdominal pain, poor appetite, hematuria, and episode of vomiting in the afternoon. Staff I (Physician) notified and ordered a foley catheter to be placed. Output was bloody and approximately 500 cc's (cubic centimeter.) Review of nursing note dated 10/8/22 11:01 a.m. revealed that Resident #24 was yelling out and only able to state first name. Bladder scan revealed 31 ml (milliliters.) Urine draining noted to have hematuria present. Review of nursing note dated 10/10/22 9:25 a.m. revealed Resident #24 had bilateral flank pain upon palpation and described the pain as achy and intermittent, resident very tearful and not consolable. Review of nursing note dated 10/10/22 9:35 p.m. revealed Resident #24 continues to complain of lower abdominal pain. Tylenol given with little effect. Review of nursing note dated 10/11/22 9:45 a.m. revealed Staff H (charge nurse) received verbal orders to sent Resident #24 to the hospital for evaluation of worsening pain and overall symptoms. Interview on 10/11/22 at approximately 11:39 a.m. with Staff G RN (registered nurse) revealed that Resident #24 is their own decision maker and does not have an activated durable power of attorney for healthcare. Interview on 10/11/22 at approximately 12:30 p.m. with Staff A LPN (licensed practical nurse) confirmed that Resident #24 does not have an activated durable power of attorney for health care and should have been sent to the hospital when Resident #24 requested to go. Review on 10/12/22 of documents titled physician communication form that was provided by the facility revealed that the physician was notified of Resident #24's change in condition on 10/7/22, 10/10/22, and 10/11/22, but was not notified of Resident #24's change in condition that occurred on 10/8/22.
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0658 (Tag F0658)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview and record review, it was determined that the facility failed to obtain and follow physician ord...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview and record review, it was determined that the facility failed to obtain and follow physician orders for 1 of 1 residents reviewed for 3 residents reviewed for general skin conditions and for 1 out of 3 residents reviewed for Urinary Tract Infections in a standard survey sample of 12 residents. (Resident identifiers are #15 and #24.) Findings include: Standards: [NAME], [NAME] A., and [NAME]. Fundamentals of Nursing. 7th ed. St. Louis, Missouri: Mosby Elsevier, 2009. Page 336- Physicians' Orders The physician is responsible for directing medical treatment. Nurses follow physician's orders unless they believe the orders are in error or harm clients. Therefore you need to assess all orders, and if you find one to be erroneous or harmful, further clarification from the physician is necessary . Resident #15 Observation on 10/10/22 at approximately 10:00 a.m. revealed Resident #15 had a dressing applied to his/her head, dated 10/8/22. Observation on 10/11/22 at approximately 11:15 a.m. revealed Resident #15 had a dressing applied to his/her head, dated 10/8/22. Review on 10/11/22 of Resident #15's current physician orders revealed there were no treatment orders for a dressing to be applied to Resident #15's head. Interview on 10/11/22 at approximately 11:15 a.m. with Staff F (Registered Nurse) confirmed there was no current order for Resident #15 to have a dressing applied to his/her head. Resident #24 Review on 10/10/22 of Resident #24's medical record revealed the following nursing note dated, 10/7/22 5:28 a.m. revealed: Very anxious during shift. Started shift stating that [pronoun omitted] needed help to urinate. Previous shift stated that res. (resident) was vomiting x 4 and having loose stools, and evening LNA (Licensed Nursing Assistant) reported res. voided x 3 after supper. So I told res. that [pronoun omitted] wasn't very well hydrated and didn't need to urinate right now. Fluids given and nurse encouraged res. to drink. Frequently turning on call bell during night c/o (complaining of) feeling burning pain in [pronoun omitted] and further complaints that [pronoun omitted] needed help to pee . Res. stated that [pronoun omitted] stomach hurt so Tylenol was administered as per PRN (as needed) orders with no effect. Review on 10/11/22 of Resident #24's October 2022's TAR (Treatment Administration Record) revealed the following physicians order: Bladder Scan indicated for no urine output in 16 hours or for supra-pubic discomfort in 8 hours. as needed Catheterize for post void bladder scan of greater than 200 ml (milliliters), then call MD (Doctor)., Start date 5/6/22. Further review of Resident #24's TAR revealed that Resident #24 was not bladder scanned on 10/7/22. Interview on 10/11/22 at approximately 11:00 a.m. with Staff A (Licensed Practical Nurse) was asked to review the above nursing note and bladder scan order. Staff A confirmed that Resident #24 should have been bladder scanned as the physician ordered. Review on 10/11/22 of the facility policy titled, Medication and Treatment Orders, Revised Date January 2018, revealed: Orders for medications and treatments will be consistent with principles of safe and effective order writing. .
CONCERN (D)

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

Antibiotic Stewardship (Tag F0881)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on record review and interview, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure that a resident that was prescribed an antibiotic was prescribed the appropriate antibiotic by obtaining a cu...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on record review and interview, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure that a resident that was prescribed an antibiotic was prescribed the appropriate antibiotic by obtaining a culture for organism identification for 1 out of 3 residents reviewed for UTI (Urinary Tract Infections) in a final sample of 12 residents reviewed. (Resident identifier is #24.) Findings include: Review on 10/11/22 of Resident #24's October 2022 MAR (Medication Administration Record) revealed the following antibiotic orders: 1. Levaquin Tablet 500 mg (milligrams) (levofloxacin) Give 1 tablet by mouth one time a day for UTI symptoms until 10/13/22, start date 10/7/22, D/C (discontinue) date 10/9/22. 2. Levaquin Tablet 500 mg (milligrams) (levofloxacin) Give 1 tablet by mouth one time a day for hematuria until 10/16/22, start date 10/10/22. Review on 10/11/22 of Resident #24's urinalysis results revealed the following: 10/7/22 Resident #24's urinalysis was collected. 10/9/22 Resident #24's result was finalized revealing: Urine Culture and Sensitivity Final No growth after two days of incubation Interview on 10/11/22 at approximately 11:00 a.m. with Staff D (Infection Preventionist) confirmed that Resident #24's urinalysis did not have any growth and he/she should not be on an antibiotic. Further interview revealed that the result from Resident #24's urinalysis was placed in a communication book for the physician to review. Review on 10/11/22 of the facility policy titled, Antibiotic Stewardship-Orders for Antibiotics, Revised 9/2017 revealed: . 3. Appropriate indications for use of antibiotics include: . b. Pathogen susceptibility, based on culture and sensitivity, to antimicrobial (or therapy begun while culture is pending). . 6. When a culture and sensitivity (C&S) is ordered, it will be completed, and: a. Lab results and the current clinical situation will be communicated to the prescriber as soon as available to determine if antibiotic therapy should be started, continued, modified, or discontinued. .
MINOR (B)

Minor Issue - procedural, no safety impact

Deficiency F0868 (Tag F0868)

Minor procedural issue · This affected multiple residents

Based on interview and record review, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure that the minimum required committee members attended meetings at least quarterly for 3 of the 4 quarterly mee...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on interview and record review, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure that the minimum required committee members attended meetings at least quarterly for 3 of the 4 quarterly meetings reviewed. Findings include: Review on 10/11/22 of the last 4 quarterly Quality Assurance and Performance Improvement (QAPI) meeting attendance sheets revealed the following: October 2022- The Medical Director or designee was not in attendance January 2022- The Director of Nursing or designee was not in attendance April 2022- The Administrator or designee was not in attendance Interview on 10/11/22 at approximately 11:30 a.m. with Staff E (Director of Nursing) confirmed the above findings.
MINOR (C)

Minor Issue - procedural, no safety impact

Deficiency F0885 (Tag F0885)

Minor procedural issue · This affected most or all residents

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview and record review, it was determined that the facility failed to inform residents, resident representatives, ...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview and record review, it was determined that the facility failed to inform residents, resident representatives, and families of those residing in the facility by 5 p.m. the next calendar day following the occurrence of a single confirmed infection of COVID-19. Findings include: Review on 10/10/22 of the facility's COVID-19 testing results revealed, a staff member tested positive for COVID-19 on 9/6/22. Review on 10/10/22 of the facility's information notifications revealed there was no notificateion sent on 9/6/22. Interview on 10/11/22 at 10:30 a.m. with Staff D revealed that the facility did not inform residents, their representatives or families of the positive COVID-19 case confirmed on 9/6/22. Review on 10/11/22 of the facility policy COVID-19 Notification Guide, revised on 3/30/22 revealed .Resident, Resident Representative and Staff Reporting when there is a new onset, COVID-19 positive of two or more residents or staff members, all [NAME] SNF and [NAME] Place ALF residents, their representatives, and staff will be notified within 24 hours via verbal, written or email communication
Understanding Severity Codes (click to expand)
Life-Threatening (Immediate Jeopardy)
J - Isolated K - Pattern L - Widespread
Actual Harm
G - Isolated H - Pattern I - Widespread
Potential for Harm
D - Isolated E - Pattern F - Widespread
No Harm (Minor)
A - Isolated B - Pattern C - Widespread

Questions to Ask on Your Visit

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

Our Honest Assessment

Strengths
  • • Licensed and certified facility. Meets minimum state requirements.
Concerns
  • • Multiple safety concerns identified: 3 life-threatening violation(s), Special Focus Facility, $73,340 in fines, Payment denial on record. Review inspection reports carefully.
  • • 25 deficiencies on record, including 3 critical (life-threatening) violations. These warrant careful review before choosing this facility.
  • • $73,340 in fines. Extremely high, among the most fined facilities in New Hampshire. Major compliance failures.
  • • Grade F (0/100). Below average facility with significant concerns.
Bottom line: This facility is on CMS's Special Focus list for poor performance. Consider alternatives strongly.

About This Facility

What is Morrison's CMS Rating?

CMS assigns MORRISON NURSING HOME an overall rating of 1 out of 5 stars, which is considered much below average nationally. Within New Hampshire, 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 Morrison Staffed?

CMS rates MORRISON NURSING HOME's staffing level at 2 out of 5 stars, which is below average compared to other nursing homes. Staff turnover is 100%, which is 53 percentage points above the New Hampshire average of 47%. High turnover can affect care consistency as new staff learn residents' individual needs.

What Have Inspectors Found at Morrison?

State health inspectors documented 25 deficiencies at MORRISON NURSING HOME during 2022 to 2024. These included: 3 Immediate Jeopardy (the most serious level, indicating potential for serious harm or death), 19 with potential for harm, and 3 minor or isolated issues. Immediate Jeopardy findings are rare and represent the most serious regulatory concerns. They require immediate corrective action.

Who Owns and Operates Morrison?

MORRISON NURSING HOME is owned by a non-profit organization. Non-profit facilities reinvest revenue into operations rather than distributing to shareholders. The facility operates independently rather than as part of a larger chain. With 57 certified beds and approximately 47 residents (about 82% occupancy), it is a smaller facility located in WHITEFIELD, New Hampshire.

How Does Morrison Compare to Other New Hampshire Nursing Homes?

Compared to the 100 nursing homes in New Hampshire, MORRISON NURSING HOME's overall rating (1 stars) is below the state average of 3.0, staff turnover (100%) is significantly higher than the state average of 47%, and health inspection rating (1 stars) is much below the national benchmark.

What Should Families Ask When Visiting Morrison?

Based on this facility's data, families visiting should ask: "What changes have been made since the serious inspection findings, and how are you preventing similar issues?" "How do you ensure continuity of care given staff turnover, and what is your staff retention strategy?" "Can 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?" These questions are particularly relevant given the facility's Immediate Jeopardy citations, the facility's high staff turnover rate, and the below-average staffing rating.

Is Morrison Safe?

Based on CMS inspection data, MORRISON NURSING HOME has documented safety concerns. Inspectors have issued 3 Immediate Jeopardy citations (the most serious violation level indicating risk of serious injury or death). The facility is currently on the Special Focus Facility watch list (a federal program monitoring the lowest-performing 1% of nursing homes nationwide). The facility has a 1-star overall rating and ranks #100 of 100 nursing homes in New Hampshire. Families considering this facility should ask detailed questions about what corrective actions have been taken since these incidents.

Do Nurses at Morrison Stick Around?

Staff turnover at MORRISON NURSING HOME is high. At 100%, the facility is 53 percentage points above the New Hampshire average of 47%. 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 Morrison Ever Fined?

MORRISON NURSING HOME has been fined $73,340 across 2 penalty actions. This is above the New Hampshire average of $33,812. Fines in this range indicate compliance issues significant enough for CMS to impose meaningful financial consequences. Common causes include delayed correction of deficiencies, repeat violations, or care failures affecting resident safety. Families should ask facility leadership what changes have been made since these penalties.

Is Morrison on Any Federal Watch List?

MORRISON NURSING HOME is currently an SFF Candidate, meaning CMS has identified it as potentially qualifying for the Special Focus Facility watch list. SFF Candidates have a history of serious deficiencies but haven't yet reached the threshold for full SFF designation. The facility is being monitored more closely — if problems continue, it may be added to the official watch list. Families should ask what the facility is doing to address the issues that led to this status.