CRYSTAL LAKE HEALTHCARE AND REHABILITATION

395 LAKESIDE BLVD, BAYVILLE, NJ 08721 (732) 269-0500
For profit - Limited Liability company 235 Beds Independent Data: November 2025 8 Immediate Jeopardy citations
Trust Grade
0/100
Last Inspection: May 2025

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

Overview

Crystal Lake Healthcare and Rehabilitation in Bayville, New Jersey, has received an alarming Trust Grade of F, indicating significant concerns about the facility's care and operations. With no ranking among nursing homes in New Jersey or Ocean County, this facility stands out negatively, suggesting that there are no local options that perform worse. While the number of reported issues has decreased from 22 in 2024 to 16 in 2025, the overall trend remains concerning, especially considering the serious nature of some incidents, including physical abuse of a resident and failure to report it, as well as a lack of timely investigations into these allegations. Staffing is a significant weakness, with a high turnover rate of 68%, which is well above the state average, and less RN coverage than 92% of facilities in New Jersey. Compounding these issues, the facility has incurred $391,336 in fines, indicating ongoing compliance problems that may jeopardize resident safety and care.

Trust Score
F
0/100
In New Jersey
#112/223
Top 50%
Safety Record
High Risk
Review needed
Inspections
Getting Better
22 → 16 violations
Staff Stability
⚠ Watch
68% turnover. Above average. Higher turnover means staff may not know residents' routines.
Penalties
✓ Good
$391,336 in fines. Lower than most New Jersey facilities. Relatively clean record.
Skilled Nurses
⚠ Watch
Each resident gets only 19 minutes of Registered Nurse (RN) attention daily — below average for New Jersey. Fewer RN minutes means fewer trained eyes watching for problems.
Violations
⚠ Watch
54 deficiencies on record. Higher than average. Multiple issues found across inspections.
☆☆☆☆☆
0.0
Overall Rating
☆☆☆☆☆
0.0
Staff Levels
☆☆☆☆☆
0.0
Care Quality
☆☆☆☆☆
0.0
Inspection Score
Stable
2024: 22 issues
2025: 16 issues

The Good

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

Facility shows strength in fire safety.

The Bad

Staff Turnover: 68%

22pts above New Jersey avg (46%)

Frequent staff changes - ask about care continuity

Federal Fines: $391,336

Well above median ($33,413)

Significant penalties indicating serious issues

Staff turnover is elevated (68%)

20 points above New Jersey average of 48%

The Ugly 54 deficiencies on record

8 life-threatening 2 actual harm
May 2025 12 deficiencies
CONCERN (D)

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

Safe Environment (Tag F0584)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** F548 Based on observation, interview and review of other facility documentation, it was determined that the facility failed to e...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** F548 Based on observation, interview and review of other facility documentation, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure residents received a homelike environment during dining by removing the food from the tray and providing tablecloths. This deficient practice was identified for 1 of 6 dining rooms, the main dining room, and was evidenced by the following: 1. On 05/01/2025 at 11:50 AM during the lunch meal in the main dining room [ROOM NUMBER] residents were in attendance by surveyor count. 30 dining tables were available by surveyor count and numbered table cards. 30 tables were observed without tablecloths. The first lunch meal tray was delivered at 12:01 PM. Staff brought the meal tray into the dining room and placed the tray on the table in front of the resident. Staff removed the top pellet and then proceeded to exit the dining room. Staff proceeded to distribute resident lunch meal trays from a meal cart to residents in attendance for the lunch meal. 43 of 43 residents in attendance at the lunch meal received their meal served on plastic meal trays. 2. On 05/02/2025 at 11:55 AM surveyor #2 observed the main dining room for the lunch meal. Meal trays arrived and 4 staff delivered lunch meal trays to 44 residents present in the dining room. Surveyor #2 observed 44 of 44 residents received the lunch meal on plastic trays. 3. On 05/06/2025 at 11:59 AM the surveyor observed the lunch meal in the main dining room. 43 residents were present in the main dining room. 30 tables were counted to be present. 30 of 30 tables were observed to not have tablecloths. The lunch meal arrived at 12:07 PM with meal trays on mobile meal carts. 43 of 43 counted residents in attendance received their meal served on a tray. On 05/06/2025 at 12:25 PM the surveyor conducted an interview with the facility Licensed Nursing Home Administrator (LNHA) who was present in the main dining room during the lunch meal service. The surveyor asked the LNHA if the facility was providing a homelike dining experience by not providing tablecloths at meals and serving residents their meals from plastic meal trays. The LNHA told the surveyor that the facility has been working on creating a communal meal experience and told the surveyor that one of the things we are working on is serving from a steam table. The LNHA believed that serving meals from the steam table would eliminate the need for meal trays. The LNHA further stated that she agreed that we (the facility) should not be serving meals on trays. N.J.A.C. 8:39-4.1(a)(12)
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0655 (Tag F0655)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on observation, interview, review of the Electronic Medical Record (EMR) and review of other facility documentation, it was determined that the facility failed to develop and implement a baselin...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, interview, review of the Electronic Medical Record (EMR) and review of other facility documentation, it was determined that the facility failed to develop and implement a baseline care plan (BCP) within 48 hours of admission that included the minimum healthcare information necessary to properly care for the immediate needs of the resident. This deficient practice was identified for 3 of 35 sampled residents (Resident #185, Resident #187 and #293) and was evidenced by the following: 1.)1. According to the admission record, Resident #185 was admitted to the facility in January 2025 with the following but not limited to diagnoses: paranoid schizophrenia, diabetes mellitus and heart failure. A review of the [facility name] Baseline Care Plan - V 2 revealed that there were five (5) sections to the baseline care plan and were as follows: 1. General Information and Initial Goals 2. Functional Status 3. Health Conditions 4. Dietary, Therapy and Social Services 5. BCP Summary and Signatures A review of Resident #185's base line care plan revealed that Section 1, Section 2, Section 3, Section 4 and Section 5 were not completed within 48 hours of admission. Staff did not sign the tasks had been completed until 5/9/25, after surveyor inquiry. 2. According to the admission record, Resident #293 was admitted to the facility in January 2025 with the following but not limited to diagnoses: paranoid schizophrenia, diabetes mellitus and overactive bladder. A review of the [facility name] Baseline Care Plan - V 2 revealed that there were five (5) sections to the baseline care plan and were as follows: 1. General Information and Initial Goals 2. Functional Status 3. Health Conditions 4. Dietary, Therapy and Social Services 5. BCP Summary and Signatures A review of Resident #185's base line care plan revealed that Section 1, Section 2, Section 3, and Section 4 were not completed within 48 hours of admission. Staff did not sign the tasks had been completed until 5/9/25, after surveyor inquiry. 3.) According to the admission record, Resident #187 was admitted to the facility with the following but not limited to diagnoses: vascular dementia, altered mental status, dysphagia (difficulty swallowing), and hyperlipidemia (elevated fats/triglycerides/cholesterol/phospholipids in the blood). A review of the [facility name] Baseline Care Plan - V 2 revealed that there are five (5) sections to the baseline care plan as follows: 1. General Information and Initial Goals 2. Functional Status 3. Health Conditions 4. Dietary, Therapy and Social Services 5. BCP Summary and Signatures A review of Resident #187's base line care plan revealed that section 2, section 3 and Section 4 A and B were not completed within 48 hours of admission. The signature of Resident #187 was missing and the only staff who signed was the Director of Social Services. A review of the facility policy titled Care Planning, dated January 2025. Under Purpose the policy revealed: To ensure that a comprehensive person-centered Care Plan is developed for each resident based on their individual needs. In addition, the following was revealed under the heading Procedure: 1. The facility will develop a person-centered Baseline Care Plan for each resident within 48 hours of admission. The Baseline Care Plan will include at least the following information: A. Initial goals based on admission orders B. Physician orders C. Dietary orders D. Therapy services E. Social services F. PASARR recommendations, if applicable NJAC 8:39-11.2(d)
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0688 (Tag F0688)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on observation, interview, review of the medical record, and other facility documentation, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure that a resident who was identified as having a con...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, interview, review of the medical record, and other facility documentation, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure that a resident who was identified as having a contracture (a condition of shortening and hardening of muscles, tendons, or other tissue, often leading to deformity or rigidity of joints) received services to prevent further decreased range of motion (ROM) after discharge from therapy. This deficient practice was identified for 1 of 2 residents reviewed for limited ROM, (Resident #33) and was evidenced by the following: On 4/30/2025 at 9:49 AM, during the initial tour of the facility, the surveyor observed Resident #33 sitting in the wheelchair in the hallway. The resident's left thumb and 4th finger were noted curled inward towards the palm. When the resident was asked if they could extend their left fingers, the resident stated that they could not and that their fingers were stiff. The fingernails on both hands were trimmed and buffed. There was no skin opening on the left palm. The resident was not wearing any brace or splint. There were no brace or splint observed in the resident's wheelchair or in the resident's room. On 5/1/2025 at 8:43 AM, the resident was observed eating breakfast with their right hand which was holding a regular fork. There was hard-boiled egg, and a toast sliced into smaller pieces. Their left hand was resting on their lap with fingers curled inward towards the palm. There was no brace or splint in their person or in the room. On 5/1/2025 at 10:33 AM, a review of the resident's hybrid (electronic and paper) medical record revealed the following: A review of the admission Record reflected that the resident was admitted to the facility with diagnoses that included cellulitis (bacterial infection of the skin) of unspecified part of limb and muscle weakness. A review of the most current comprehensive Minimum Data Set (MDS), an assessment tool, dated 3/28/2025 revealed a Brief Interview Mental Status (BIMS) score of 6 out of 15 indicating a severely impaired cognition. Further review of the MDS reflected the resident's participation in occupational therapy from 10/2/2024 to 11/18/2024. The MDS did not indicate the resident's participation in a restorative nursing program. A review of the Clinical Physician Order active and discontinued as of 5/1/2025 at 10:39 AM did not reveal any order for devices used for positioning of the left hand. A review of the discharge summary and recommendations from occupational therapy initiated on 10/2/2024 and concluded on 11/18/2024 included the following: Patient improved tolerance for manipulation and bracing of left upper extremity hand and digits this period with notable improvements in tone and contraction reduction of digits with intermittent placement for up to 2 hours of gauze roll at each session multiple time per week with increase in gauze diameter during point of care as noted contracture reduction between sessions. A review of the discharge summary from the latest occupational therapy that concluded on 11/18/2024 included the following patient and caregiver training: Instructed patient and primary caregivers in splinting/ orthotic schedule to preserve current level of function and facilitate increased opportunities for participation in activities of choice/ hobbies. A review of the resident's comprehensive care plan revised on 8/2/2021 did not include interventions from occupational therapy discharge recommendations addressing the resident's contracted fingers on the left hand during the period of 10/2/2024 to 11/18/2024. On 5/6/2025 at 10:59 AM, during an interview with the surveyor, the Director of Rehabilitation (DOR) stated that they put in the therapy recommendations as orders in the PCC (PointClickCare) (an electronic medical record). The DOR also stated that they have access to the care plans. On 5/6/2025 at 12:10 PM, the DOR stated to the survey team that they do quarterly assessments of all residents every 3 months. The last evaluation of Residen #33 was on 10/2/2024. On 5/8/2024 at 11:01 AM, during an interview with the survey team, the Assistant Director of Nursing stated that therapy department issues the device needed after residents with contractures are discharged from therapy. The ADON stated that the therapy department will let the nursing department know what device to apply to the resident. The ADON further stated that the therapy department develops the care plan and specific orders. A review of the undated facility-provided policy titled Therapy Documentation and Billing included the following under Discharge Summary: .Discharge orders must be obtained on all patients who remain in the facility after therapy services are discontinued. N.J.A.C. 8:39-27.1(a), 27.2(m)
CONCERN (D)

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

Incontinence Care (Tag F0690)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview, record review, and review of pertinent facility documents, it was determined that the facility ...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview, record review, and review of pertinent facility documents, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure that a resident received appropriate care and sufficient services based upon current standards of practice for a urinary catheter. The deficient practice was identified for 1 of 2 residents (Resident # 118) investigated under the Urinary Catheter investigation. This deficient practice was evidenced by the following: On 04/30/2025 at 09:48 AM, during the initial tour of the facility, the surveyor observed Resident # 118 in bed in their room. At that time, the resident told the survey that his urinary catheter was connected to a leg bag. A review of Resident # 118's Electronic Medical Record (EMR) revealed under, Orders that there was a Physician's Order that indicated, Monitor urine output. The order was started on 01/31/2025. There were no other orders related to a urinary catheter. A review of Resident # 118's Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated [DATE] revealed in section H that the resident had an indwelling catheter. On 05/07/2025 at 09:52 AM, during an interview with the surveyor, the Licensed Practical Nurse # (LPN) said that residents with urinary catheters should have orders for catheter care. When asked to look at Resident # 118's orders the LPN could not find any orders related to catheter care. The LPN replied, yes, when asked if there should be orders related to catheter care. On 05/08/2025 at 10:10 AM, during an interview with the surveyor, Assistant Director of Nursing (ADON) said that resident with urinary catheters should have orders for catheter care every shift. A review of the facility policy titled Catheter-Suprapubic, Care of Nursing Manual dated January 2025 revealed under policy that, Suprapubic catheter care will be performed daily and as needed. NJAC 8:39-27.1 (a)
CONCERN (D)

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

Respiratory Care (Tag F0695)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on observation, interview, review of the medical record and other facility documentation, it was determined that the facility failed to a.) obtain a physician order for the use of oxygen b.) obt...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, interview, review of the medical record and other facility documentation, it was determined that the facility failed to a.) obtain a physician order for the use of oxygen b.) obtain a physician order for the use of a suction catheter (a flexible plastic tube used to remove fluid from the airway). This deficient practice was identified for 2 of 2 residents reviewed for respiratory care (Resident #185 and Resident #68) and was evidenced by the following: During the initial tour of the facility on 4/30/2025 at 10:45 AM, the Surveyor #1 observed Resident # 185 in the dayroom receiving oxygen via nasal cannula (a device used to deliver supplemental oxygen). On 5/1/2025 at 11:36 AM, the surveyor observed the resident in the dayroom receiving oxygen via nasal cannula. On 5/5/2025 at 1:58 PM, the surveyor observed the resident in the dayroom receiving oxygen via nasal cannula. The surveyor reviewed the medical record for Resident #185. A review of the admission Record reflected Resident #185 was admitted to the facility with diagnoses which included but were notlimited to: paranoid schizophrenia, asthma (a lung condition where a person's airways become inflamed, narrow and swell making it difficult to breath) and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) (chronic lung disease that is characterized by breathlessness). A review of the most recent comprehensive Minimum Data Set (MDS), an assessment tool dated 4/15/2025, reflected that the resident had a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of 12 out of 15, which indicated moderately impaired cognition. The MDS further included that the resident had not received respiratory treatments in the last 14 days. A review of the Order Summary Report did not reveal an order for oxygen use until after surveyor inquiry. The following order was dated 5/6/2025: Apply oxygen 2 LPM (liters per minute) via N/C (nasal cannula) continuous for COPD. A review of the Treatment Administration Record (TAR) for May 2025 did not reveal documentation for oxygen use/application until after surveyor inquiry on 5/6/2025. A review of the individualized comprehensive care plan (ICCP) date revised 3/3/2025 included a Focus for asthma r/t (related to) allergies, COPD. The goal was for the resident to remain free from complications of asthma through the review date. Interventions included to give nebulizer treatments and oxygen therapy as ordered. On 5/6/2025 at 1:26 PM, the surveyor interviewed Resident #185's assigned Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN #2) who stated the resident would use oxygen via nasal cannula and concentrator when seated, but when walking around they would not use oxygen. At that time the surveyor reviewed Resident #185's current physician's orders (PO) with LPN #2 who confirmed there were no orders for the resident to receive oxygen. On 5/8/2025 at 11:01 AM, the survey team met with the facility Administration to address concerns. The Assistant Director of Nursing (ADON) confirmed a physician's order was required for oxygen administration or therapy. A review of facility provided policy with a subject titled Stationary Oxygen Concentrators revised in January 2025, included .Make sure the flow is set at the prescribed amount . 2.) On 4/30/2025 at 9:43 AM, during the initial tour of the facility, Surveyor #2 observed Resident #68 in bed. The resident's head was lying on a pillow which was wet with an unknown substance. A suction machine was noted on top of the bedside table and was connected to a plastic canister. The canister contained a clear liquid substance and was connected to tubing with the tip hanging from the top drawer of the table. Inside the open drawer, a blue Yankauer suction tip (a device used to remove fluid from the airway) was observed disconnected from the suction tubing. Neither the Yankauer tip nor the suction tubing was bagged nor dated. A dried reddish substance was observed inside the suction tip and tubing. The resident sat up and was observed with secretions (fluids produced by glands) from the mouth. On 5/1/2025 at 9:42 AM, the surveyor was accompanied by Registered Nurse (RN #1) inside the resident's room during an incontinence round. The surveyor asked RN#1 if the suction machine and catheter were being used and RN#1 stated, Yes. The resident was observed with secretions from the mouth dripping down on their shirt while speaking. RN#1 confirmed the secretions were saliva. On 5/1/2025 at 12:10 PM, a review of the hybrid (electronic and paper) medical record for Resident #68 revealed the following: A review of the admission Record reflected the resident was admitted to the facility with diagnoses including but not limited to: pneumonitis (swelling and irritation of lung tissue) due to inhalation of food and vomit and autistic disorder (a condition characterized by persistent difficulties with social communication). A review of the most current comprehensive MDS, an assessment tool, dated 3/19/2025 revealed that the resident had a BIMS score of 6 out of 15 which indicated a severely impaired cognition. The MDS further revealed suctioning was not performed during the assessment period. A review of the Clinical Physician (CPO) active as of 5/1/2025 at 1:30 PM, did not reflect a physician order for suctioning secretions. The CPO did not include instructions for storage and periodic replacement of used catheter. A review of the Treatment Administration Record (TAR) for the months of April and May 2025, did not reflect an order for suctioning of secretions from the mouth. A review of Resident #68's care plan did not include a focus, goal, and interventions for their respiratory need including suctioning of secretions from the mouth. On 5/7/2025 at 10:23 AM, the surveyor toured the resident's room with LPN #4. The surveyor showed LPN #4 the suction setup on the resident's bedside table. LPN #4 stated that the setup needed to be cleaned and replaced. When asked by the surveyor how should the suction setup be stored, LPN #4 stated that the tubing and suction tip should have been bagged and dated. The LPN #4 was observed to bundle up and throw the canister, suction tubing and Yankauer suction tip in the trash bin. The surveyor then asked LPN #4 if the suctioning of secretions required a physician order, and LPN #4 stated, Yes. The nurse looked at the resident's electronic medical record and stated to this surveyor that they forgot to reenter a discontinued order for suctioning when the resident was readmitted from the hospital. LPN #4 also stated it was their fault. On 5/8/2025 at 11:01 AM, during an interview with the survey team, the Assistant Director of Nursing (ADON) stated yes when asked if suctioning of secretions need a physician order. When the ADON was asked how the suction setup should be stored, they replied that the Yankauer tip and tubing should have been disposed of after use. A review of undated facility-provided policy titled Oxygen Concentrators did not include suction setup. N.J.A.C. 8:39-27.1(a)
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0806 (Tag F0806)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on observation, interview and record review, it was determined that the facility failed to effectively accommodate the needs and preferences of residents during dining. This deficient practice w...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, interview and record review, it was determined that the facility failed to effectively accommodate the needs and preferences of residents during dining. This deficient practice was identified for 2 residents (Residents #14 and #85) on 1 of 6 dining rooms, who were included in the review of the dining observation and was evidenced by the following: 1. On 05/01/2025 at 12:12 PM the surveyor observed Resident #85 seated alone in the main dining room eating the lunch meal. The lunch meal consisted of baked ziti, green beans, and garlic bread. Resident #85 consumed 100%of baked ziti and garlic bread. Resident #85 did not eat the green beans received. Resident #85 stated to the surveyor that the lunch was excellent. The surveyor asked Resident #85 why he/she did not eat their green beans and Resident #85 responded that he/she did not like green beans. Observation of Resident #85's meal ticket for the lunch meal on Thursday 05/01/25 revealed the following DISLIKES: Green Beans Resident #85 was provided green beans at the lunch meal when his/her meal ticket clearly indicated that green beans were a resident food dislike. 2. On 05/06/2025 at 12:14 PM the surveyor observed the lunch meal ticket of Resident #14 after receiving resident permission. Review of the ticket revealed that Resident #14 was to receive a regular, double portion, with thin liquids. In addition, Resident #14 was to receive a ham and cheese sandwich with the lunch meal as observed under the NOTES section. Resident #14 received meat loaf, mashed potatoes, California blend vegetable and a fruit cup. There was no ham and cheese sandwich observed on the lunch meal tray. In addition, Resident #14 was to receive a Magic Cup with the lunch meal, as observed in the MEAL PREFERENCES section. No Magic Cup was provided to Resident #14 at the lunch meal. 3. On 05/06/2025 at 12:25 PM the surveyor conducted an interview with the facility Licensed Nursing Home Administrator (LNHA) who was present in the dining room at the lunch meal. The surveyor reviewed Resident #14's lunch meal ticket with the administrator after receiving Resident #14's permission. Upon reviewing Resident #14's lunch meal ticket the LNHA agreed that Resident #14 should have received a ham and cheese sandwich and a Magic Cup, as noted on the lunch meal ticket. 4. On 05/06/2025 at 12:33 PM the surveyor went to the facility kitchen. The surveyor conducted a brief interview with the dietary aide (DA) responsible for ensuring meal trays were accurate prior to being delivered from the kitchen. The surveyor showed the DA Resident #14's meal ticket for the lunch meal on 05/06/2025. The checker agreed after reviewing the lunch meal ticket for Resident #14 that he/she should have received a ham and cheese sandwich and a Magic Cup on the lunch meal tray. The surveyor did observe a box of Magic Cups in the main kitchen for the lunch meal and observed a tray of sandwiches. The DA told the surveyor that she missed it. NJAC 8:39-17.4 (a)1
CONCERN (E)

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

Comprehensive Assessments (Tag F0636)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview and record review, it was determined that the facility failed to complete the Comprehensive Minimum Data Set ...

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 complete the Comprehensive Minimum Data Set (MDS), a periodic and federally mandated, standardized assessment tool, within the required time frame. This deficient practice was identified for 23 of 59 residents (Residents #2, #108, #69, #125, #90, #57, #111, #100, #60, #21, #165, #177, #136, #134, #132, #172, #83, #104, #174, #96 ,#54, and #19) reviewed for Resident Assessment and was evidenced by the following: Reference: The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid (CMS) Resident Assessment Instrument (RAI) Version 3.0 Manual classified the Observation (Look Back) Period as the time period over which the resident's condition or status was to be captured by the MDS. The Assessment Reference Date (ARD) referred to the last day of the observation (or look back) period that the assessment covered for the resident. At a minimum, facilities are required to complete a comprehensive assessment for each resident within 14 calendar days after admission to the facility, when there is a significant change in the resident's status and not less than once every 12 months while a resident, where 12 months refers to a period within 366 days. The following residents were identified that the comprehensive MDS was not completed in a timely manner: 1. Resident # 2: The Annual MDS dated [DATE] which should have been completed by 03/22/2025 is in progress (44 days late as of 05/05/25). 2. Resident # 108: The Annual MDS dated [DATE] was completed on 01/17/2025 (34 days late). 3. Resident #69: The Annual MDS dated [DATE] was completed on 01/24/2025 (33 days late). 4. Resident #125: The Annual MDS dated [DATE] was completed on 01/17/2025 (31 days late). 5. Resident #90: The Annual MDS dated [DATE] was completed on 01/27/2025(33 days late). 6. Resident #57: The Annual MDS dated [DATE] should have been completed by 03/26/2025 (40 days late) as of 05/05/2025. 7. Resident #111: The Annual MDS dated [DATE] was completed on 02/04/2025 (36 days late). 8. Resident #100: The Annual MDS dated [DATE] was completed on 02/16/2025. (38 days late). 9. Resident #60: The Annual MDS 03/08/2025 which should have been completed by 3/22/25 is in progress (44 days late) as of 05/05/2025. 10. Resident #21: The Annual MDS dated [DATE] which should have been completed on 04/04/2025 is in progress. (31 days late) as of 05/05/2025. 11. Resident # 165: The Annual MDS dated [DATE] which should have been completed by 03/28/2025 is in progress (38 days late) as of 05/05/2025. 12. Resident # 177: The Annual MDS dated [DATE] which should have been completed by 04/07/2025 is in progress (28 days late) as of 05/05/2025. 13.Resident #136: The Annual MDS dated [DATE] which should have been completed by 03/27/2025 is in progress (39 days late) as of 5/5/25. 14.Resident # 47: The Annual MDS dated [DATE] was completed on 1/27/25. (25 days late). 15.Resident # 134: The Annual MDS dated [DATE] which should have been completed by 03/26/2025 is in progress (40 days late) as of 05/05/2025. 16.Resident # 132: The admission MDS dated [DATE] which should have been completed by 03/29/2025 is in progress. (38 days late) as of 05/05/2025. 17.Resident # 172: The Annual MDS dated [DATE] was completed on 2/16/25 (49 days late). 18.Resident # 83: The Annual MDS dated [DATE] which should have been completed by 3/21/25 is in progress (45 days late) as of 05/05/2025. 19.Resident # 104: The admission (annual) MDS dated [DATE] which should have been completed by 3/24/25 is in progress. (42 days late) as of 05/05/2025. 20.Resident # 174: Th Annual MDS dated [DATE] was completed on 4/20/25 (40 days late). 21.Resident # 96: The Annual MDS dated [DATE] which should have been completed by 3/29/25 is in progress (38 days late) as of 05/05/2025. 22.Resident # 54: The Annual MDS dated [DATE] was completed on 01/30/2025 (35 days late). 23.Resident # 19: The Annual MDS dated [DATE] was completed on 1/31/25. (33 days late). On 05/08/2025 at 08:40 AM, the surveyor interviewed the MDS Coordinator. She said she was aware that there are comprehensive assessments that have not been completed within the required time frame. She stated she is working on getting them completed. A review of facility provided policy titled, MDS 3.0 Completion, copyright 2023, reflected b. admission assessment-completed within 14 days of admission counting the day of admission as day #1.c. annual assessment-comprehensive assessment completed using an ARD no greater than 366 days from the most recent prior comprehensive assessment and no later than greater than 92 days from the most recent quarterly assessment (counting ARD to ARD). NJAC 8:39-11.2 (e)
CONCERN (E)

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

Deficiency F0638 (Tag F0638)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple 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 complete the Quarterly Minimum Data Set (QMD...

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 complete the Quarterly Minimum Data Set (QMDS), a periodic and federally mandated, standardized assessment tool, within the required time frame. This deficient practice was identified for 54 of 59 residents (Residents # 129,#51, #42, #8, #2, #108, #69, #5, #1, #125, #58, #48, #111, #100, #3, #60, #21, #159, #46, #169, #75, #138, #71, #165, #107, #177, #67, #181, #176, #136, #147, #74, #134, #132, #126, #172, #18, #23, #83, #38, #104, #13, #96, #54, #78, #19, #105, #155, #116, #182, #135, #99, #39, and #52) reviewed for Resident Assessment and was evidenced by the following: Reference: The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid (CMS) Resident Assessment Instrument (RAI) Version 3.0 Manual classified the Observation (Look Back) Period as the time period over which the resident's condition or status was to be captured by the MDS. The Assessment Reference Date (ARD) referred to the last day of the observation (or look back) period that the assessment covered for the resident. The Quarterly assessment was considered timely if 1). The Assessment Reference Date (ARD) of the Quarterly MDS was within 92 days after the ARD of the previous MDS and; 2). the completion date was no later than 14 days after the ARD. The following residents were identified that the quarterly MDS was not completed in a timely manner as of 05/05/2025: 1.Resident # 129: The QMDS dated [DATE] which should have been completed by 3/16/25 is in progress. 2. Resident # 51: The QMDS dated [DATE] was completed on 1/30/25 (46 days late). The QMDS dated [DATE] which should be completed by 3/28/25 is in progress. 3. Resident #42: The QMDS dated [DATE] was completed on 1/19/24 (28 days late). The QMDS dated [DATE] which should have been completed by 3/21/25 is in progress. 4.Resident # 8: The QMDS dated [DATE] was completed on 0 2/10/2025(36 days late). 5.Resident # 2: The QMDS dated [DATE] was completed on 01/27/2025 (34 days late). 6.Resident #108: The QMDS dated [DATE] which should have been completed by 04/03/2025 is in progress. 7.Resident #69: The QMDS dated [DATE] which should have been completed by 03/21/2025 is in progress. 8.Resident #5: The QMDS dated [DATE] which should have been completed by 03/18/2025 is in progress. 9.Resident #1The QMDS dated [DATE] was completed on 01/05/2025 (18 days late). The QMDS dated [DATE] which should have been completed by 03/16/2025 is in progress. 10.Resident #125: The QMDS dated [DATE] which should have been completed by 03/16/2025 is in progress. 11.Resident # 58: The QMDS dated [DATE] which should have been completed by 03/17/2025 is in progress. 12.Resident #48: The QMDS dated [DATE] should have been completed as of 3/18/25 is in progress. 13.Resident #111: The QMDS dated [DATE] which should have been completed by 3/30/25 is in progress. 14.Resident #100: The QMDS dated [DATE] which should have been completed by 4/7/25 is in progress. 15.Resident #3: The QMDS dated [DATE] was completed on 02/07/2025 (38 days late). The QMDS dated [DATE] which should have been completed by 3/29/25 is in progress. 16.Resident #60: The QMDS dated [DATE] was completed on 01/24/2025 (31 days late). 17.Resident #21: The QMDS dated [DATE] was completed on 02/13/2025 (28 days late). 18. Resident #159: The 2/23/25 Q MDS was completed on 4/15/25. (37 days late). 19.Resident #46 :The QMDS dated [DATE] was completed on 2/13/25.(38 days late). The QMDS dated [DATE] which should have been completed by 4/5/25 is in progress. 20.Resident #169: The QMDS dated [DATE] was completed on 02/13/2025 (29 days late). The QMDS dated [DATE] which should have been completed by 04/04/2025 is in progress. 21.Resident #75: The QMDS dated [DATE] was completed on 2/15/2025. (35 days late). The QMDS dated [DATE] which should have been completed by 04/10/25 is in progress. 22.Resident #138: The QMDS dated which should have been completed on by 03/17/2025 is in progress. 23. Resident #71: The QMDS dated [DATE] was completed on 01/30/2025.(32 days late). The QMDS dated [DATE] which should have been completed by 03/28/2025 is in progress. 24.Resident # 165: The QMDS dated [DATE] was completed on 02/07/2025 (39 days late). 25.Resident # 107: The QMDS dated [DATE] was completed on 01/31/2025. (33 days late). The QMDS dated [DATE] which should be completed by 03/26/2025 is in progress. 26.Resident # 177: The QMDS dated [DATE] was completed on 02/16/2025 (38 days late). 27.Resident #67: The QMDS dated [DATE] was completed on 1/30/25 (34 days late). The QMDS dated [DATE] which should have been completed by 3/26/25 is in progress. 28.Resident # 181: The QMDS dated [DATE] was completed on 2/10/25. (40 days late). The QMDS dated [DATE] which should have been completed by 03/31/2025 is in progress. 29.Resident #176: The QMDS dated [DATE] was completed on 1/19/25. (29 days late). The QMDS dated [DATE] which should have been completed by 03/20/2025 is in progress. 30.Resident #136: The QMDS dated [DATE] was completed on 02/07/2025 (39 days late). 31.Resident # 47: The QMDS dated [DATE] which should have been completed by 3/23/25 is in progress. 32.Resident # 74: The QMDS dated [DATE] was completed on 2/10/25. (36 days late). The QMDS dated [DATE] which should have been completed by 4/3/25 is in progress. 33.Resident # 134: The QMDS dated [DATE] was completed on 1/30/25 (33 days late). 34.Resident # 132: The QMDS dated [DATE] was completed on 2/7/25. (38 days late). 35.Resident #126: The QMDS dated [DATE] which should have been completed by 03/16/2025 is in progress. 36.Resident # 172: The QMDS dated [DATE] which should have been completed by 04/11/2025 is in progress. 37.Resident # 18: The QMDS dated [DATE] was completed on 01/24/2025. (33 days late). The QMDS dated [DATE] which should have been completed by 03/21/2025 is in progress. 38. Resident # 23: The QMDS dated [DATE] which should have been completed by 3/16/25 is in progress. 39.Resident # 83: The QMDS dated [DATE] was completed on 01/24/2025 ( 32 days late). 40.Resident # 38: The QMDS dated [DATE] was completed on 02/16/2025. (50 days late). The QMDS dated [DATE] which should have been completed by 4/10/25 is in progress. 41.Resident # 104: The QMDS dated [DATE] was completed on 1/30/25 (35 days late). 42.Resident #13: The QMDS dated [DATE] Q which should have been completed by 3/15/25 is in progress. 43.Resident # 96: The QMDS dated [DATE] was completed on 02/07/2025. (38 days late). 44.Resident # 54: The QMDS dated [DATE] which should have been completed by 03/24/2025 is in progress. 45.Resident # 78: The QMDS dated [DATE] which should have been completed by 04/10/2025 is in progress. 46.Resident # 19: The QMDS dated [DATE] Q which should be completed by 03/28/2025 is in progress. 47.Resident # 105: The QMDS dated [DATE] which should have been completed by 03/15/2025 is in progress. 48.Resident # 155: The QMDS dated [DATE] was completed on 02/07/2025. (38 days late). The QMDS dated [DATE] which should have been completed by 03/30/2025 is in progress. 49.Resident # 116: The QMDS dated [DATE] Q MDS which should have been completed by 03/15/2025 is in progress. 50.Resident # 182: The QMDS dated [DATE] was completed on 02/10/2025 (38 days late). The QMDS dated [DATE] Q which should have been completed by 04/01/25 is in progress. 51.Resident # 135: The QMDS date 12/12/2024 was completed on 01/27/2025 ( 32 days late). The QMDS dated [DATE] Q MDS which should have been completed by 3/25/25 is in progress. 52.Resident # 99: The QMDS dated [DATE] was completed on 01/19/2025 (29 days late). The QMDS dated [DATE] which should be completed by 3/20/25 is in progress. 53.Resident # 39: The QMDS dated [DATE] was completed on 01/27/2025 (33 days late). The QMDS dated [DATE] which should have been completed by 3/24/25 is in progress. 54.Resident # 52: The QMDS dated [DATE] was completed on 2/10/25 (50 days late). The QMDS dated [DATE] which should have been completed by 04/03/2025 is in progress. On 05/08/25 at 08:40 AM, during an interview with the surveyor, the MDS Coordinator stated that is aware that there are Quarterly MDSs that are not completed within the required timeframe. She said she is trying her best. A review of facility provided policy titled, MDS 3.0 Completion, copyright 2023, which reflected e. quarterly assessment-completed using an ARD no greater than 92 days from the most recent prior quarterly or comprehensive assessment (counting ARD to ARD). N.J.A.C. 8:39-11.1
CONCERN (E)

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

MDS Data Transmission (Tag F0640)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview and record review, it was determined the facility failed to complete and transmit a Minimum Data Set death in...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview and record review, it was determined the facility failed to complete and transmit a Minimum Data Set death in facility tracking record in accordance with federal guidelines and that the facility failed to transmit a Minimum Data Set (MDS) in accordance with federal guidelines. This deficient practice was identified for 5 of 59 residents reviewed for resident assessment (Resident #34, #129, #58, #26 and #48 ). This deficient practice was evidenced by: The MDS is a comprehensive federal mandated process for clinical assessment of all residents that should be completed and submitted to the Quality Measure System. The facility must electronically transmit the MDS no later than 14 days after the assessment being completed. After transmission of the MDS, it will generate a quality measure to enable a facility to monitor the residents decline and progress. The following residents were identified that the MDSs were not transmitted timely: 1. Resident #34: the resident expired on [DATE]. There was no death in facility tracking record completed and the MDS was not transmitted as of [DATE]. 2. Resident #129: the Quarterly MDS was completed on [DATE] and was due to be transmitted no later than [DATE]. It was transmitted on [DATE] (23 days late). 3. Resident # 58: the Quarterly MDS was completed on [DATE] and due to be transmitted no later than [DATE]. It was transmitted on [DATE] (23 days late). 4. Resident # 26: the Quarterly MDS dated [DATE] was completed on [DATE] and was not transmitted as of [DATE] 5. Resident #48: the Quarterly MDS dated was completed on [DATE] and was due to be transmitted no later than [DATE]. It was transmitted [DATE] (23 days late). On [DATE] at 8:40 AM, during an interview with the surveyor, the MDS Coordinator stated that MDS's should be transmitted within 2 weeks of completion. The MDS Coordinator acknowledged that the MDSs are being transmitted late. A review of the facility provided policy titled, MDS 3.0 Completion, copyright 2023, which reflected 7. transmission requirements: all assessments shall be transmitted to the designated Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services within 14 days of completion. NJAC 8:39-11.1
CONCERN (E)

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

Food Safety (Tag F0812)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview, and review of other facility documentation, it was determined that the facility failed to handl...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview, and review of other facility documentation, it was determined that the facility failed to handle potentially hazardous foods and maintain sanitation in a safe and consistent manner designed to prevent food borne illness. This deficient practice was evidenced by the following: On 04/30/2025 from 09:33 to 9:58 AM the surveyor, accompanied the by the facility Registered Dietitian Nutritionist (RDN), observed the following in the kitchen: 1. In the dry storage room, a can of pear halves on 1of 4 mobile, multi-tiered storage racks had a significant dent on the bottom seam of the can. The RDN removed the dented can to the designated dented can area and told the surveyor that he noticed the dent. 2. On an upper shelf of a multi-tiered storage shelf, two (2) previously opened packages of dry pasta had no open or use by dates. The RDN removed the opened bags of dry pasta to the trash. The pasta consisted of fine noodles and rigatoni noodles. When asked what the facility practice was for labeling and dating the RDN told the surveyor that open and use by is the general practice for labeling and dating of food products. On 05/06/2025 from 09:38 to 9:53 AM the surveyor, accompanied by the Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN #3), observed the following on the 7th floor pantry: 1. On an upper shelf four (4) portion control cups (pc) of house applesauce had a date of 4/29/25 and one (1) pc of applesauce had a date of 4/30/25. On the same shelf a Chobani yogurt drink had a date of [DATE]. On the lower shelf of the refrigerator a plastic container with a plastic lid contained an unknown food substance. The container had no name and no date. An Asian food takeout paper container had its lid partially open, and the food was exposed. The container had no name and no date. A clear plastic bag contained 4 pieces of fried chicken. The bag had no name and no dates. On interview LPN #3 told the surveyor that all foods need a name and a date. LPN #3 also agreed that if the refrigerator was regularly monitored that these food items should have been removed from the refrigerator. LPN # removed the food items to the trash. The surveyor reviewed the facility policy titled Food Brought in for Patients and Residents, undated. The policy revealed the following under POLICY: Food brought to patients/residents by family or visitors will be handled and stored in a safe and sanitary manner. The following was revealed under the heading PROCEDURE: 1. Storing Food Brought in that Requires Refrigeration: 1.2 Food items that require refrigeration must be labeled with the patient/resident's name and the date the food was brought in. 1.3 Foods must be stored in a closed container to prevent contamination. 1.4 Foods considered unsafe for human consumption or beyond the expiration date will be discarded by staff upon notification to patient/resident. 1.5 Food will be held in the refrigerator for three (3) days following the date on the label and will be discarded by staff upon notification to patient/resident. The surveyor reviewed the facility policy titled Food Storage, copyright 2019. The policy did not address dented cans. The surveyor reviewed the facility policy titled Labeling and Dating, undated. The following was revealed under POLICY: Policy that all food items must be labeled and dated. In addition, the following was observed under PROCEDURE: 1. All food items must be labeled with either a manufacturer label or handwritten label. 2. All food products, upon receiving, must be labeled with a 'Use By date. N.J.A.C. 18:39-17.2(g)
CONCERN (E)

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

Infection Control (Tag F0880)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

Based on observation, interview, record review and review of other facility documentation, it was determined that the facility failed to a.) ensure the infection control practices for residents on enh...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, interview, record review and review of other facility documentation, it was determined that the facility failed to a.) ensure the infection control practices for residents on enhanced barrier precautions (EBP) were implemented in accordance with facility policy and accepted national standards, b.) follow appropriate hand hygiene practices during wound treatment, and c.) follow appropriate hand hygiene practices during incontinence rounds to prevent the potential spread of infection in accordance with the Center for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) guidelines and standards of clinical practice. This deficient practice was identified in 2 of 4 resident's reviewed for transmission-based precautions (Resident's #30 and #88), 1 of 1 resident (Resident #30) observed for wound treatment, and 10 of 10 residents (Resident #30, #40, #48, #52, #81, #132, #167, #169, #187, and #187) observed during incontinence rounds. The deficient practice was evidenced by the following: Reference: Hand hygiene should be performed immediately before touching a patient; before performing an aseptic task such as placing an indwelling device or handling invasive medical devices; before moving from work on a soiled body site to a clean body site on the same patient; after touching a patient or patient's surroundings; after contact with blood, body fluids, or contaminated surfaces; immediately after glove removal. CDC recommendations for Hand Hygiene: Updated February 27, 2024: https://www.cdc.gov/clean-hands/hcp/clinical-safety/index.html#cdc_clinical_safety_best_practices_recomm-recommendations a.) On 04/30/2025 at 10:55 AM during the initial tour of the facility Resident #30 stated to the surveyor that he/she was incontinent and developed a sore to their backside. The surveyor did not observe any signage posted outside of Resident #30's room indicating that enhanced barrier precautions were in place for a resident with an open wound and no personal protective equipment (PPE) was observed to be readily available. Resident #30 was admitted to the facility with the following but not limited to diagnoses: bipolar disorder, kidney failure, paranoid schizophrenia, changes in skin texture, major depressive disorder and schizoaffective disorder. A review of the comprehensive Resident Assessment Instrument Minimum Data Set (MDS), an assessment tool, dated 03/3/2025, revealed that Resident #30 had short-term and long-term memory problems. Section GG of the MDS failed to document what assistance Resident #30 required with activities of daily living. Section M of the MDS failed to identify that Resident #30 had a pressure ulcer. Resident #30 had the following physician's orders: Cleanse the sacrum with NSS pat dry apply leptospermum honey with alginate calcium on top and cover with silicon foam dressing. every day shift for Wound healing (4/17/2025). Review of Resident #30's comprehensive care plan revealed that Resident #30 had a care plan with the following Focus: [Resident name] has MASD (moisture associated skin damage) to the sacrum (reopened 2/12/2025). Review of the comprehensive care plan interventions did not reveal that Resident #30 was on EBP secondary to an open wound. On 05/01/2025 at 09:00 AM the surveyor observed Resident #30 lying in bed on their back. There was no signage posted outside of Resident #30's room to indicate that Resident #30 was on EBP and there was no PPE readily available. On 5/05/2025 at 09:24 AM the surveyor observed Resident #30 lying in bed. No signage was observed to indicate that Resident #30 was on enhanced barrier precautions and no PPE was observed to be readily available. Resident #30 was diagnosed with a stage 3 pressure ulcer to the sacrum, according to the electronic medical record. On 05/05/2025 at 12:39 PM the surveyor asked the facility acting Infection Preventionist (IP) for a current line list of residents on EBP. The IP provided the surveyor with a handwritten list of residents on EBP. Resident #30 was listed as currently being on EBP. On 04/30/2025 at 10:21 AM during the initial tour of the facility Resident #88 was not observed to be in their room. The surveyor was able to confirm with the assigned Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN #3) that Resident #88 had an indwelling Foley catheter and was on EBP. Observation of Resident #88's room did not reveal signage outside the doorway of the room for EBP. Resident #88 was not present in the room, which had three (3) other residents occupying the room. According to the admission Record, Resident #88 was admitted to the facility with the following but not limited to diagnoses: major depressive disorder, retention of urine, anxiety disorder, constipation and schizoaffective disorder. A review of the 04/17/2025 MDS revealed in Section C that Resident #88 had short-term and long-term memory problems. According to section GG of the MDS, Resident #88 required partial/moderate assistance with toileting hygiene, shower/bathe self, lower body dressing and putting on/taking off footwear. Resident #88 required supervision or touching assistance with eating, oral hygiene, and upper body dressing. Section H of the MDS revealed that Resident #88 had an indwelling catheter. A review of the physician's orders revealed that Resident #88 had the following physician orders: Foley catheter Drainage bag/Leg bag while ambulating. one time a day related to RETENTION OF URINE, UNSPECIFIED (R33.9) (4/22/2025). Foley catheter care (16 fr/10cc) (French/cubic centimeter) every shift (4/15/2025). Urine output every shift (4/14/2025). A review of Resident #88's comprehensive care plan revealed that Resident #88 had the following care plan Focus: [Resident name] has indwelling catheter: Atonal bladder (a condition where the bladder muscles have lost their ability to contract fully, leading to difficult or inability to empty the bladder completely). The following was listed under Interventions: Maintain infection control including isolation as indicate (sic) per policy, keep gravity bag off floor, secure tubing. Date Initiated: 04/22/2025. On 05/01/2025 at 09:07 AM the surveyor observed Resident #88 seated on the 7th floor tv room. No catheter was visible. The surveyor had previously entered Resident #88's room and observed three (3) residents in the room. No signage was posted outside or inside the room for EBP and no PPE was observed to be readily available. On 05/05/25 at 09:12 AM the surveyor observed Resident #88 seated in the tv room on the 7th floor. Resident #88's catheter was not visible (leg bag). Observation of Resident #88's room did not reveal any EBP signage posted outside of the doorway and no PPE was observed to be readily available. On 05/06/2025 at 08:49 AM the surveyor observed Resident #88 seated in 7th floor tv room. Resident #88's indwelling Foley catheter was not visible on observation. The surveyor then proceeded to Resident #88's assigned room. Observation of the exterior doorway of the four (4) bed bedroom did not reveal any signage that enhanced barrier or contact precautions were in place. There was no signage on the exterior entrance to the room and no PPE was readily available outside of the room, including gowns and gloves. On 05/06/2025 at 08:56 AM the surveyor conducted an interview with the Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA #1) assigned to Resident #88. CNA #1 told the surveyor that Resident #88 was minimum assist with most activities of daily living. The surveyor then asked CNA #1 if Resident #88 had an indwelling catheter and CNA #1 told the surveyor, Yes. He/she has a urinary catheter. The surveyor then asked CNA #1 if he provided urinary catheter care for Resident #88. CNA #1 stated, Yes. I do empty the catheter bag when he/she cooperates. The surveyor then asked CNA #1 what PPE was required when providing catheter with the resident. CNA #1 told the surveyor that he wears gloves when having physical contact with the resident. The surveyor then asked CNA #1 if a gown was required when providing care with extended physical contact and CNA #1 told the surveyor, No. Not that I know of that gown and gloves should be worn when having close contact with the resident. On 05/06/2025 at 09:00 AM the surveyor conducted an interview with the Licensee Practical Nurse (LPN #3) assigned to Resident #88 that shift. LPN #3 agreed that Resident #88 had an indwelling catheter and usually had 300-500 ml (milliliters) of urine output per day on his shift. The surveyor then asked LPN #3 if Resident #88 should have EBP in place secondary to having an indwelling catheter, LPN #3 told the surveyor, Yes. EBP should be in place and explained that there should be a sign outside the room to alert for EBP. LPN #3 further explained that it should also be listed on the CNA's assignment. The surveyor then asked LPN #3 what PPE was required when providing care to Resident #88 with close contact. LPN #3 told the surveyor that the appropriate PPE would be gloves and gown. The surveyor then asked LPN #3 to accompany the surveyor to resident #88's assigned room. Upon arrival at Resident #88's assigned room the surveyor asked LPN #3 if he observed any signage indicating that Resident #88 was on EBP. LPN #3 told the surveyor he did not see any signage and then agreed that there should be a sign to indicate EBP. The surveyor and LPN #3 then entered Resident #88's room. There was no available PPE. LPN #3 stated I have gloves on my cart and the CNA's keep them in their pockets. We don't have gowns available. The CNAs don't carry them in their pockets. On 05/06/2025 at 09:07 AM LPN #3 stated, We're gonna get them right now. (gowns). On 05/06/2025 at 09:12 AM the surveyor interviewed the facility Licensed Nursing Home Administrator (LNHA). The surveyor asked the LNHA if a resident with an indwelling urinary catheter or an open wound would require EBP. The LNHA stated, Yes. A resident with an indwelling catheter should be on enhanced barrier precautions. There should be signage posted outside the room to alert to EBP/contact precautions. The LNHA told the surveyor that the appropriate PPE for touch contact is a gown and gloves, and that hand hygiene should be performed before and after treatment. The LNHA also assured the surveyor that gowns and gloves should be readily available outside the room of residents on EBP. The surveyor reviewed the facility provided policy titled Enhanced Barrier Precautions, reviewed/revised: 3/26/2024. The following was revealed under POLICY: It is the policy of this facility to adhere to the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) and CMS (Center for Medicare/Medicaid Services) guidelines as related to Enhanced Barrier Precautions (EBP's) to prevent the transmission of multidrug-resistant organisms (MDRO's) while promoting resident quality of life by addressing the need for psychosocial well-being of residents who are colonized with MDRO's. In addition, the policy revealed the following under Policy and Procedure: Enhanced Barrier Precautions: 4. The facility will implement enhanced barrier precautions to include any resident with an indwelling medical device (e.g., central lines, urinary catheters, feeding tubes, and tracheostomies) or chronic wounds (e.g., pressure injuries, diabetic foot ulcers, unhealed surgical wounds, and venous stasis ulcers), regardless of MDRO colonization or infection status. 5. Enhanced barrier precautions will remain in effect for the duration of the resident's stay in the facility or until resolution of the wound or discontinuation of the indwelling medical device that placed them at higher risk. 7. Facility will use identifiers to alert staff when EBP use is necessary to help maintain a home-like environment. 8. An isolation cart containing appropriate PPE and hand sanitizer will be readily accessible for use. 11. The facility IP/Designee will maintain a current line list of all residents on enhanced barrier precautions. b.) On 5/6/2025 at 11:10 AM, Surveyor #2 observed Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) #5 administer wound treatment to Resident #30 with the assistance of the resident's assigned Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA). The LPN #5 donned disposable gown and gloves without performing hand hygiene first. LPN #5 wiped the overbed table with sanitizing wipes after which they doffed (remove) their gloves and washed their hands for 20 seconds. The nurse donned a new pair of gloves, placed a new chuck on the overbed table, and took from the treatment cart a tube of Medihoney (medical-grade honey) gel and a pack of calcium alginate pad (a wound dressing). The nurse squeezed Medihoney gel to a medicine cup. The nurse placed the supplies on top of the chuck together with bordered silicone dressing, box of gloves and new incontinence briefs. The nurse doffed their gown and gloves and donned a new gown and gloves without performing hand hygiene. The nurse then moved the resident's bed frame to the right and repositioned the resident to their right side. The CNA wiped the resident's buttocks area around the wound with new wipes moistened with saline solution. The CNA disposed of the wipes and soiled incontinence brief in the trash bin, doffed their gloves, washed their hands for 20 seconds and donned new gloves. The CNA then put the new incontinence brief under the resident on top of a new chuck. The LPN #5 removed old dressing from the sacral wound, cleansed the wound with a wipe moistened with saline solution. The nurse patted dry the wound with a dry wipe, doffed their gloves and donned a new pair of gloves without performing hand hygiene. The LPN #5 applied the medihoney gel to the wood using a sterile tongue depressor. The LPN #5 applied the calcium alginate wafer to the wound, covered the wound with bordered silicone dressing. The LPN #5 disposed of the incontinence brief and put a new one on the resident. The nurse doffed their gown and gloves, threw them in the trash bin and tied the plastic bag lining the trash bin. The nurse did not do hand hygiene before touching the scissors and box of gloves to return them to the treatment cart. On 5/6/2025 at 11:30 AM, the surveyor asked LPN #5 if they should have performed hand hygiene after touching the bed frame and prior to and after glove changes. The nurse stated yes, they should have washed again after touching the bedframe and after they changed their gloves. The LPN #5 further stated that they forgot about that part of the wound treatment. On 5/8/2025 at 11:08 AM, during an interview with the survey team, the Assistant Director of Nursing (ADON) stated that hand hygiene should be performed before and after glove changes. A review of the undated facility-provided policy titled Infection Control Overview under Handwashing included the following: Healthcare providers are recommended to perform hand hygiene at certain points to disrupt the transmission of bacteria to patients Centers for Disease Control). Hand hygiene is recommended: between patients, before patient contact, after contact with blood, body fluids, or contaminated surfaces (even if gloves are worn), before invasive procedures, and after removing gloves. c.) On 5/1/2025 at 9:29 AM, Surveyor #2 did an incontinence tour of the 4th floor with Registered Nurse (RN) #1. On 5/1/2025 at 9:30 AM, the surveyor and RN #1 went to Resident #81's room to check their incontinence brief. RN #1 donned a new pair of gloves without doing hand hygiene first and exposed the brief which the nurse agreed with the surveyor to be soaked. There was no urine odor. The RN #1 doffed their gloves and did not perform hand hygiene. The surveyor asked the Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA) assigned to the resident that the resident was last checked at the start of the day shift and that they were just waiting for the resident to finish eating breakfast before changing the resident again. On 5/1/2025 at 9:35 AM, the surveyor and RN #1 went to Resident #167's room to check their incontinence brief. RN #1 donned a new pair of gloves without doing hand hygiene first and pulled down the resident's pants. The resident was observed to have no underwear. The RN #1 stated that the resident goes to the toilet by themselves. There was no urine odor. The nurse doffed their gloves and did not perform hand hygiene after. On 5/1/2025 at 9:36 AM, the surveyor and RN #1 went to Resident #52's room to check their incontinence brief. RN#1 donned a new pair of gloves without doing hand hygiene first and exposed the resident's brief. The RN #1 stated that the brief was soaked. There was no urine odor. The nurse stated that they were going to tell the resident's CNA to change the resident's brief. The nurse doffed their gloves and did not do hand hygiene after. On 5/5/2025 at 10:01 AM, Surveyor #2 did an incontinence tour of the 7th floor with Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) #5. On 5/5/2025 at 10:05 AM, the surveyor and LPN #5 went to Resident #132's room to check their incontinence brief. LPN #5 donned a new pair of gloves without doing hand hygiene first and exposed the resident's brief. The nurse stated that the resident's brief was soaked. The nurse also stated that they will get somebody to change the resident. There was no urine odor. The nurse doffed their gloves and did not perform hand hygiene after. On 5/5/2025 at 10:08 AM, the surveyor and LPN #5 went to Resident #84's room to check their incontinence brief. LPN #5 donned a new pair of gloves without doing hand hygiene first and pulled down the resident's pants. The resident was not wearing underwear. The nurse stated that the resident goes to the bathroom by themselves. There was no urine odor. The nurse doffed their gloves and did not perform hand hygiene after. On 5/5/2025 at 10:10 AM, the surveyor and LPN #5 went to Resident #48's room to check their incontinence brief. LPN #5 donned a new pair of gloves without doing hand hygiene first and pulled down the resident's pants. The resident was not wearing underwear. The nurse stated that the resident goes to the bathroom by themselves. There was no urine odor. The nurse doffed their gloves and did not perform hand hygiene after. On 5/5/2025 at 10:12 AM, the surveyor and LPN #5 went to Resident #40's room to check their incontinence brief. LPN #5 donned a new pair of gloves without doing hand hygiene first and exposed the resident's brief. The nurse stated that the resident's brief was soaked. The nurse stated that they will get somebody to change the resident. There was no urine odor. The nurse doffed their gloves and did not perform hand hygiene after. On 5/5/2025 at 10:13 AM, the surveyor and LPN #5 went to Resident #30's room to check their incontinence brief. LPN #5 donned a new pair of gloves without doing hand hygiene first and exposed the resident's brief. The resident's brief was dry. The nurse doffed their gloves and did not perform hand hygiene after. On 5/5/2025 at 10:15 AM, the surveyor and LPN #5 went to Resident #169's room to check their incontinence brief. LPN #5 donned a new pair of gloves without doing hand hygiene first and exposed the resident's brief. The resident's brief was dry. The nurse doffed their gloves and did not perform hand hygiene after. On 5/5/2025 at 10:16 AM, the surveyor and LPN #5 went to Resident #187's room to check their incontinence brief. LPN #5 donned a new pair of gloves without doing hand hygiene first and exposed the resident's brief. The resident's brief was dry. The nurse doffed their gloves and did not perform hand hygiene after. On 5/6/2025 at 11:30 AM, the surveyor asked LPN #5 if they should have performed hand hygiene prior to and after glove changes. The nurse stated yes, they should have washed before and after they changed their gloves. On 5/8/2025 at 11:08 AM, during an interview with the survey team, the Assistant Director of Nursing (ADON) stated that hand hygiene should be performed before and after glove changes. A review of the undated facility-provided policy titled Infection Control Overview under Handwashing included the following: Healthcare providers are recommended to perform hand hygiene at certain points to disrupt the transmission of bacteria to patients Centers for Disease Control). Hand hygiene is recommended: between patients, before patient contact, after contact with blood, body fluids, or contaminated surfaces (even if gloves are worn), before invasive procedures, and after removing gloves. N.J.A.C. 8:39 - 19.4 (a) 1
CONCERN (F)

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

Deficiency F0848 (Tag F0848)

Could have caused harm · This affected most or all residents

Based on interview and review of pertinent facility documents, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure that the arbitration agreement and admission agreement specifically provides for the...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on interview and review of pertinent facility documents, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure that the arbitration agreement and admission agreement specifically provides for the selection of a venue that is convenient to both parties, specifically by stating in the admission Agreement a specific location where binding arbitration will be settled. This deficient practice was identified for all residents in the facility. The deficient practice was evidenced by the following: Review of a copy of the facility's undated admission Agreement revealed in section 9. Miscellaneous Category G, Disputes, Any controversy, dispute or disagreement arising out of or in connection with this Agreement, the breach thereof, or the subject matter thereof including Facility's obligation thereof shall be settled by binding arbitration, which shall be conducted in Jersey City, New Jersey in accordance with the American Health Lawyers Association Alternative Dispute Resolution Service Rules of Procedure for Arbitration, and which to the extent of the subject matter of the arbitration shall be binding not only on all the parties to this Agreement, but on any other entity controlled by, in control of or under common control with then party to the extent that such affiliates joins in the arbitration, and judgment on the award rendered by the arbitrator may be entered in any court having jurisdiction thereof. A review of the facility policy titled, Arbitration Agreements Policy and Procedure with a date of 2025, revealed under Policy and Procedure at d. The agreement shall specifically provide for the selection of a venue that is agreed upon and convenient - - to both parties. On 5/08/2025 at 11:09 AM during an interview with the surveyor, the Licensed Nursing Home Administrator replied, No, and we will get that fixed. when the surveyor asked does the admission Agreement specifically provide for the selection of a venue that is agreed upon and convenient. NJAC 8:39-13.1(a)
Apr 2025 4 deficiencies 2 IJ
CRITICAL (J) 📢 Someone Reported This

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

Immediate Jeopardy (IJ) - the most serious Medicare violation

Free from Abuse/Neglect (Tag F0600)

Someone could have died · This affected 1 resident

Complaint #: NJ185153 Based on interviews, medical record review, and review of other pertinent facility documentation on 4/10/25, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure: a) a staff memb...

Read full inspector narrative →
Complaint #: NJ185153 Based on interviews, medical record review, and review of other pertinent facility documentation on 4/10/25, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure: a) a staff member immediately reported an observed sexual encounter between a resident (Resident #1) who had a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of 3 (severe cognitive impairment) from a resident (Resident #2) who had a BIMS score of 8 (moderate cognitive impairment) and b) both residents were immediately separated, safe, and no other residents were placed in immediate danger. The facility also failed to follow its policy titled Resident Abuse/Neglect Policy. On 4/3/25 at approximately 12:00 P.M., the Housekeeper (HK) stated she went to Resident #1 and Resident #2's room and knocked on the door. The HK entered the room and observed Resident #1 on the bed performing oral sex on Resident #2. The HK finished collecting hangers from out of the room and then went on her lunch break for approximately 30 minutes. When the HK returned from lunch, she reported it to her co-worker. The co-worker then reported the sexual encounter that the HK observed to the Central Supply Coordinator (CSC). The CSC reported it to the 5th floor nurse, the Abuse Coordinator, the Licensed Nursing Home Administrator (LNHA), and the Assistant Director of Nursing (ADON). The facility failed to follow its policies and procedures and protect facility residents when the HK failed to immediately report the observed sexual encounter between both residents (Resident #1 and Resident #2) and ensure both residents were immediately separated. The facility also failed to ensure the safety of all other residents within the facility. This placed all residents in an immediate jeopardy (IJ) situation. The IJ began on 4/3/25, was identified on 4/10/25 at 5:32 P.M., and was reported to the LNHA. The LNHA was presented with the IJ template at that time. An acceptable removal plan was electronically mailed to the surveyor on 4/14/25 at 9:19 A.M., indicating the facility's actions to prevent serious harm from occurring or recurring. The facility implemented a corrective action plan to remediate the deficient practice. The Housekeeper and facility staff were educated on the facility's policy on sexual abuse, the ability for residents to consent to sexual interactions with each other, and to immediately report any sexual activity between residents and ensure the residents were safe. The LNHA conducted audits to monitor compliance with education and conducted staff assessment and testing to ensure staff had a true understanding of education. The surveyor verified the removal plan on site on 4/16/25 and determined the IJ for F600 was removed as of 4/16/25. After the IJ removal, the non-compliance continued from 4/16/25 for no actual harm with the potential for more than minimal harm that is not an immediate jeopardy. This deficient practice was identified for 2 of 3 residents (Resident #1 and Resident #2) reviewed for abuse and was evidenced by the following: According to the Facility Reportable Event (FRE), a New Jersey Department of Health (NJDOH) document used by healthcare facilities to report incidents with an event date of 4/3/25 revealed Staff reported she witnessed Resident #1 perform oral sex on Resident #2. According to the facility's Summary of Investigation with an event date of 4/3/25 revealed under Summary, Staff knocked on the door and entered the room to complete her work assignment. The staff member observed Resident #1 and #2 involved in a sexual act between each other. The staff member exited the room and reported what she witnessed to the nurse. The residents were immediately separated and placed on 1:1. The residents expressed consent to their actions without anyone being taken advantage of by the other. Abuse is unsubstantiated as both residents were consenting to their sexual action. 1. According to the admission Record (AR), Resident #1 was admitted to the facility in April 2021 with diagnoses which included but were not limited to: major depressive disorder, alcohol abuse, and toxic encephalopathy (a neurologic disorder caused by exposure to toxins). According to the Quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS), an assessment tool dated 1/26/25, Resident #1 had a BIMS score of 3, which indicated the resident had severe cognitive impairment. 2. According to the AR, Resident #2 was admitted to the facility in September 2020 with diagnoses which included but were not limited to: schizoaffective disorder (a mental health condition with hallucinations, delusions, and mood disorder symptoms), bipolar disorder, and major depressive disorder. According to the Quarterly MDS, an assessment tool dated 2/21/25, Resident #2 had a BIMS score of 8, which indicated the resident's cognition was moderately impaired. A review of Resident #2's care plan (CP) revealed under Focus, Resident #2 has an alteration in thought process related to cognitive loss associated with mental illness. History of asking for pornography and fixating on females. Under Interventions, Monitor for sexually inappropriate behaviors. On 4/10/25 at 11:03 A.M., the surveyor interviewed the Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN#1), who stated that on 4/3/25 she was informed by the CSC that the HK walked into the room and witnessed both residents in a sexual act. LPN #1 stated she immediately reported the incident to the ADON and the LNHA. LPN #1 stated Resident #2 told me he had been involved with another guy before, but I never seen [sic] anything. LPN #1 further stated that even though both residents were able to make their own decisions, she did not know if they were able to have sex. On 4/10/25 at 11:46 A.M., the surveyor interviewed the HK, who stated last week she was collecting hangers, and she went to both residents' room and knocked on the door. She further stated when she entered the room, she observed Resident #1 on the bed performing oral sex on Resident #2, who had his/her pants partially down. The HK stated that both residents stopped when they saw her. She stated she finished collecting the hangers, then left the room and observed Resident #2 come out of the room behind her. The HK indicated she could not remember the exact date and time the incident had occurred. The HK further stated she went to lunch for 30 minutes and when she returned, she told her co-worker who reported it to the CSC. The HK stated I did not tell my supervisor because he was off. I was scared to report it to a supervisor because my English is not always understood. The HK indicated Yes, I should have reported it sooner. I knew I had to report it, but I did not at that moment. The surveyor asked the HK why she wrote in her statement that she immediately told a staff member. The HK did not respond to the surveyor's question. On 4/10/25 at 12:20 P.M., the surveyor interviewed the CSC who stated she could not remember the actual date and time of the incident, but her daughter, who was the HK's co-worker reported to her that the HK told her she witnessed two residents on the fifth floor having sexual intercourse. The CSC further stated she immediately reported what was told to her to the fifth-floor nurse, the abuse coordinator, the LNHA, and the ADON. The CSC stated after she reported the incident, she called the HK to find out what she had observed. The CSC stated, The HK should have went [sic] straight to a department head and reported it. On 4/10/25 at 2:23 P.M., the surveyor interviewed the Social Worker (SW), who stated she was made aware by the LNHA that both residents were involved in a sexual interaction with each other. The SW stated she interviewed both residents and that Resident #2 told her that he had oral sex with Resident #1. The SW stated that the facility residents were allowed to engage in sexual activity under certain circumstances such as having the capacity to give consent. The SW stated that capacity to consent meant that the residents understood the consequences of their actions. The SW stated the BIMS score determined the resident's ability to give consent. The SW further stated No, I would not consider a resident having a BIMs score of 3, that they have the capacity to make a decision regarding having sex. The SW further indicated I think a BIMS score of 8 is too low for giving consent as well. On 4/10/25 at 3:20 P.M., the surveyor interviewed the ADON who stated that the CSC reported to her that her daughter informed her that the HK stated Resident #1 was lying on the side of the bed, Resident #2 had his/her pants partially down and Resident #1 was performing oral sex on Resident #2. She further stated that once she was made aware by the CSC she immediately placed both residents on 1:1 and conducted an investigation. The ADON stated the local police came to the facility and Resident #1 denied what occurred but Resident #2 confirmed what the HK stated she observed. The ADON stated Yes, I wrote that both residents were consenting to their sexual action. Neither of them said they were raped in front of the police. The ADON further stated Every resident has a right to make a decision, whether good, bad, or indifferent. They all have rights. I don't have the right to tell them not to do it. The ADON further indicated she did not have the right to tell the residents not to have sex. She further stated, I don't think they can consent to sexual acts with a BIMS score of 3 and 8. The ADON stated that if the staff had seen any residents having sex, they must immediately report it to the abuse coordinator and separate both residents to ensure their safety. She further indicated that any sexual activity should be reported immediately because it could be abuse. The ADON further indicated she was not aware of any sexually inappropriate behaviors from Resident #1 and Resident #2 prior to the incident. On 4/10/25 at 4:10 P.M., the surveyor interviewed the LNHA in the presence of the Director of Nursing (DON). The LNHA stated that the CSC reported the sexual act between Resident #1 and #2 to the abuse coordinator and the abuse coordinator reported it to her. The LNHA stated Yes, correct it was unsubstantiated because both residents said in front of the police that they consented to having sex. The LNHA stated the HK told her that she reported the incident to her co-worker who reported it immediately to the CSC. The LNHA indicated she was not aware that the HK went to lunch prior to reporting the incident. The LNHA stated Yes, she (HK) should have reported it immediately to the nurse and the abuse coordinator, so it could have been addressed and the safety of all residents could have been assured. A review of the undated facility policy titled Sexual Intimacy revealed It is the policy of [NAME] Lake Health Care and Rehabilitation Center that residents who wish to engage in sexual intimacy with one another, are permitted to do so, contingent upon they are both consenting adults and have been deemed capable to make decisions according to guidelines of the MDS. A review of the undated facility policy titled Resident Abuse/Neglect' revealed under Policy, An employee witnessing any form of abuse or neglect is also required to report the incident promptly to the charge nurse. NJAC 8:39-4.1 (a) (5)
CRITICAL (J) 📢 Someone Reported This

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

Immediate Jeopardy (IJ) - the most serious Medicare violation

Administration (Tag F0835)

Someone could have died · This affected 1 resident

Complaint # NJ185153 Based on interviews, medical record review, and review of other pertinent facility documentation on 4/10/25 and 4/23/2025, it was determined that the facility's Licensed Nursing H...

Read full inspector narrative →
Complaint # NJ185153 Based on interviews, medical record review, and review of other pertinent facility documentation on 4/10/25 and 4/23/2025, it was determined that the facility's Licensed Nursing Home Administrator (LNHA) failed to a) ensure that the staff implemented the facility's policies and procedures for a witnessed sexual abuse that occurred between two residents, and b) ensure that residents were provided with the care and services to achieve their highest practical wellbeing. On 4/3/25 at approximately 12:00 P.M., the Housekeeper (HK) stated she went to Resident #1 and Resident #2's room and knocked on the door. The HK entered the room and observed Resident #1 on the bed performing oral sex on Resident #2. The HK finished collecting hangers from out of the room and then went on her lunch break for approximately 30 minutes. When the HK returned from lunch, she reported it to her co-worker. Her co-worker then reported the sexual encounter that the HK observed to the Central Supply Coordinator (CSC). The CSC reported it to the 5th floor nurse, the abuse coordinator, the LNHA, and the Assistant Director of Nursing (ADON). The LNHA's failure to ensure that the facility staff implemented the facility's policies and procedures for a witnessed sexual abuse that occurred between two residents placed all residents at risk for an Immediate Jeopardy (IJ) situation. This IJ was identified on 4/23/2025 at 1:37 P.M. and was reported to the LNHA. The LNHA was presented with the IJ template. The IJ began on 4/3/25. An acceptable removal plan was electronically mailed to the surveyor on 4/24/2025 at 4:26 P.M., indicating the facility's actions to prevent serious harm from occurring or recurring. The facility implemented a corrective action plan to remediate the deficient practice. The co-founder/ Chief Executive Officer (CEO) educated the LNHA on the Administrator's job description. The CEO educated the LNHA and the facility's department heads on their roles and responsibilities to ensure the facility administration maintains the highest practicable, physical, mental, and psychosocial well-being of each resident. The Corporate Consultant/designee educated the governing body on their roles and responsibilities to ensure the facility administration maintains the highest practicable, physical, mental, and psychosocial well-being of each resident. The surveyor verified the removal plan on site on 4/29/2025 and determined the IJ for F835 J was removed as of 4/29/2025. After the IJ removal, the non-compliance continued from 4/29/2025 for no actual harm with the potential for more than minimal harm that is not an immediate jeopardy. According to the Facility Reportable Event (FRE), a New Jersey Department of Health (NJDOH) document used by healthcare facilities to report incidents with an event date of 4/3/25 revealed Staff reported she witnessed Resident #1 perform oral sex on Resident #2. According to the facility's Summary of Investigation with an event date of 4/3/25 revealed under Summary, Staff knocked on the door and entered the room to complete her work assignment. The staff member observed Resident #1 and #2 involved in a sexual act between each other. The staff member exited the room and reported what she witnessed to the nurse. The residents were immediately separated and placed on 1:1. The residents expressed consent to their actions without anyone being taken advantage of by the other. Abuse is unsubstantiated as both residents were consenting to their sexual action. 1. According to the admission Record (AR), Resident #1 was admitted to the facility in April 2021 with diagnoses which included but were not limited to: major depressive disorder, alcohol abuse, and toxic encephalopathy (a neurological disorder caused by exposure to toxins). According to the Quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS), an assessment tool dated 1/26/25, Resident #1 had a BIMS score of 3, which indicated the resident's cognition was severely impaired. 2. According to the AR, Resident #2 was admitted to the facility in September 2020 with diagnoses which included but were not limited to: Schizoaffective disorder (a mental health condition with hallucinations, delusions, and mood disorder symptoms), bipolar disorder, and major depressive disorder. According to the Quarterly MDS, an assessment tool dated 2/21/25, Resident #2 had a BIMS score of 8, which indicated the resident's cognition was moderately impaired. A review of Resident #2's care plan (CP) revealed under Focus, Resident #2 has an alteration in thought process related to cognitive loss associated with mental illness. History of asking for pornography and fixating on females. Under Interventions, Monitor for sexually inappropriate behaviors. On 4/10/25 at 11:46 A.M., the surveyor interviewed the HK, who stated last week she was collecting hangers, and she went to both residents' room and knocked on the door. She further stated when she entered the room, she observed Resident #1 on the bed performing oral sex on Resident #2, who had his/her pants partially down. The HK stated that both residents stopped when they saw her. She stated she finished collecting the hangers, then left the room and observed Resident #2 come out of the room behind her. The HK indicated she could not remember the exact date and time the incident had occurred. The HK further stated she went to lunch for 30 minutes and when she returned, she told her co-worker who reported it to the CSC. The HK stated I did not tell my supervisor because he was off. I was scared to report it to a supervisor because my English is not always understood. The HK indicated Yes, I should have reported it sooner. I knew I had to report it, but I did not at that moment. The surveyor asked the HK why she wrote in her statement that she immediately told a staff member. The HK did not respond to the surveyor's question. On 4/10/25 at 2:23 P.M., the surveyor interviewed the Social Worker (SW), who stated that the facility residents were allowed to engage in sexual activity under certain circumstances such as having the capacity to give consent. The SW stated that capacity to consent meant that the residents understood the consequences of their actions. The SW stated the BIMS score determined the resident's ability to give consent. The SW further stated No, I would not consider a resident having a BIMs score of 3, that they have the capacity to make a decision regarding having sex. The SW further indicated I think a BIMS score of 8 is too low for giving consent as well. On 4/10/25 at 3:20 P.M., the surveyor interviewed the ADON who stated that the local police came to the facility and Resident #1 denied what occurred but Resident #2 confirmed what the HK stated she observed. The ADON stated Yes, I wrote that both residents were consenting to their sexual action. Neither of them said they were raped in front of the police. The ADON further stated Every resident has a right to make a decision, whether good, bad, or indifferent. They all have rights. I don't have the right to tell them not to do it. The ADON further indicated she did not have the right to tell the residents not to have sex. She further stated, I don't think they can consent to sexual acts with a BIMS score of 3 and 8. The ADON stated that if the staff had seen any residents having sex, they must immediately report it to the abuse coordinator and separate both residents to ensure their safety. She further indicated that any sexual activity should be reported immediately because it could be abuse. On 4/10/25 at 4:10 P.M., the surveyor interviewed the LNHA in the presence of the Director of Nursing (DON). The LNHA stated that the CSC reported the sexual act between Resident #1 and #2 to the abuse coordinator and the abuse coordinator reported it to her. The LNHA stated Yes, correct it was unsubstantiated because both residents said in front of the police that they consented to having sex. The LNHA stated the HK told her that she reported the incident to her co-worker who reported it immediately to the CSC. The LNHA indicated she was not aware that the HK went to lunch prior to reporting the incident. The LNHA stated Yes, she (HK) should have reported it immediately to the nurse and the abuse coordinator, so it could have been addressed and the safety of all residents could have been assured. On 4/23/25 at 12:06 P.M., the surveyor conducted a follow up interview with the LNHA who stated, I oversee everything in the building as the Administrator. The LNHA further indicated she reviewed the completed investigation for the incident between the two residents. She stated, Based on everything in the investigation, I agreed abuse was unsubstantiated. The LNHA indicated that she did not know why the HK did not report the incident immediately. A review of the facility's undated job description titled Facility Administrator revealed This role is responsible for ensuring compliance with regulatory standards, maintaining a high standard of care, managing staff, and fostering a supportive environment for residents and employees. Under Miscellaneous, Assure that all residents receive care in a manner and in an environment that maintains or enhances their quality of life without abridging the safety and rights of the residents. Assure that each resident receives the necessary nursing, medical, and psychosocial services to attain and maintain the highest possible mental and physical functional status, as defined by the comprehensive assessment and care plan. NJAC 8:39-9.2 (a)
CONCERN (D) 📢 Someone Reported This

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

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

Deficiency F0728 (Tag F0728)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Complaint #: NJ182091 Based on interviews and review of other pertinent facility documentation on 4/10/25, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure that a staff member assigned the positio...

Read full inspector narrative →
Complaint #: NJ182091 Based on interviews and review of other pertinent facility documentation on 4/10/25, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure that a staff member assigned the position of Monitor was not performing direct resident care. This deficient practice was identified for 1 of 3 monitors reviewed and was evidenced by the following: According to the Facility Reportable Event (FRE), a New Jersey Department of Health (NJDOH) document used by healthcare facilities to report incidents with an event date of 1/1/25 revealed the Physical Therapist Aide (PTA) was approached by Resident #4 who stated the aide hit Resident #3. The PTA went to the residents' room, where the aide (Monitor #1) was performing Activities of Daily Living (ADLS) with Resident #3. According to the admission Record (AR), Resident #3 was admitted to the facility in July 2024 with diagnoses which included but were not limited to: dementia, schizoaffective disorder, and major depressive disorder. According to the Quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS), an assessment tool dated 10/25/24, Resident #3 had a BIMs score of 9, which indicated the resident's cognition was moderately impaired. The MDS further revealed the resident required partial to moderate assistance with personal hygiene and supervision for toileting hygiene. A review of Monitor #1's personnel file revealed a facility form titled Master Payroll Form, under Job Title, Monitor with an effective date of 5/23/24. The surveyor did not observe a CNA license in the personnel file. On 4/10/25 at 2:47 P.M., the surveyor interviewed the PTA who stated that on 1/1/2025 she went to Resident #3's room to check on the resident and observed a staff member cleaning the resident and a diaper on the bed. The PTA stated she could not remember the staff member's name. On 4/10/25 at 3:00 P.M., the surveyor interviewed Monitor #1 utilizing the Language Link translator service. Monitor #1 stated Yes, I am a CNA. I do not have a license yet. I have certification in skills. I took the test, but I failed. Monitor #1 further stated the last test she took was in February of last year. Monitor #1 further indicated Yes, I change diapers, bathe them, and transfer them. I do everything. She further stated that she took care of Resident #3 and had changed his/her brief on 1/1/25. On 4/10/25 at 3:58 P.M., the surveyor interviewed the Human Resources Director (HRD) who stated, No a monitor cannot bathe a resident, change a diaper, or transfer a resident out of bed. The HRD confirmed that Monitor #1 was not a CNA but had been to CNA school. The HRD further indicated that Monitor #1 could not give direct care to the residents. She stated that she was not aware that Monitor #1 was giving direct resident care. On 4/10/25 at 4:10 P.M., the surveyor interviewed the Licensed Nursing Home Administrator (LNHA) in the presence of the Director of Nursing (DON) stated that a monitor could pass trays and make beds. The LNHA further indicated that the monitor could not provide care or transfer a resident. The LNHA confirmed Monitor #1 was not an CNA. The LNHA stated Yes, it could be a safety issue, but my understanding was that monitors don't do CNA responsibilities. The facility was unable to provide the surveyor with the assignment sheet for 1/1/25 on 4/10/25. A review of the facility's job description titled Monitor revealed under Function, Monitor residents while smoking to ensure safe environment and safe smoking. Provide assistance with transportation of residents within facility. Provide safety devices as needed. Make beds. Keep room clean and safe. Encourage activities during leisure times. Monitor inside and outside. Assist with dining room as needed. Help with transportation during smoking hours. Monitor day rooms. Assist with mealtimes. Offer water and/or juice. Encourage hydration. Offer snacks. Will attend in-service sessions relating to the care of the residents in the facility. Make frequent rounds on the residents. NJAC 8:39-43.2 (a)
CONCERN (F) 📢 Someone Reported This

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

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

Deficiency F0865 (Tag F0865)

Could have caused harm · This affected most or all residents

Complaint #: NJ185153 Based on interviews and review of other pertinent facility documentation on 4/23/25, it was determined that the facility failed to maintain documentation and demonstrate evidence...

Read full inspector narrative →
Complaint #: NJ185153 Based on interviews and review of other pertinent facility documentation on 4/23/25, it was determined that the facility failed to maintain documentation and demonstrate evidence of its Quality Assurance and Performance Improvement (QAPI) program. On 4/23/25 at 10:47 AM, the surveyor requested the facility's QAPI plan and most recent meeting minutes from the Licensed Nursing Home Administrator (LNHA). On 4/23/25 at 11:05 AM, the surveyor interviewed the LNHA who stated she was unable to retrieve the QAPI plan and meeting minutes due to not having internet access. The LNHA stated she kept the QAPI plan and meeting minutes on her computer. She further stated she would try to email the surveyor the QAPI plan and meeting minutes. On 4/23/25 at 12:06 PM, the surveyor conducted a follow up interview with the LNHA who stated No, I am unable to print my QAPI meeting minutes. Since we don't have internet, I am unable to access it. The LNHA further indicated that the QAPI should have been readily accessible to the surveyors when requested. A review of the facility's policy titled Facility Quality Improvement Plan revealed under Authority and Responsibility, Record minutes of all meetings according to Lineage policy. Maintain documentation according to Lineage policy. NJAC 8:39-33.1 (b) (c)
Dec 2024 4 deficiencies 2 IJ (2 facility-wide)
CRITICAL (L) 📢 Someone Reported This

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

Immediate Jeopardy (IJ) - the most serious Medicare violation

Free from Abuse/Neglect (Tag F0600)

Someone could have died · This affected most or all residents

⚠️ Facility-wide issue

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Complaint #: NJ181767, NJ181768, NJ181846 Based on observations, interviews, medical record review, and review of other pertinen...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Complaint #: NJ181767, NJ181768, NJ181846 Based on observations, interviews, medical record review, and review of other pertinent facility documents on 12/23/2024 and 12/30/2024, it was determined that the facility failed to a.) prevent physical and verbal abuse towards a resident (Resident #1) from a staff member and b.) staff members that witnessed the abuse failed to intervene and report the incident. The facility also failed to follow its policy titled Abuse Policy and Procedure. During an interview on 12/23/2024 at 3:08 P.M., the Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN #1) stated she recorded a video on her cellphone of the Director of Nursing (DON) hitting Resident #1 with a broom. LPN #1 sent the video to a friend, and it was posted to a social media website. On 12/21/2024, the local police went to the facility to investigate an abuse allegation after receiving notification that the video was circulating online. The Surveyors and the Assistant Director of Nursing (ADON) reviewed a video on 12/23/2024 at 10:41 A.M. found on a social media website, that revealed a staff member hitting at a resident with a broom. Several other staff members observed the incident and did not intervene. The ADON identified the resident in the video as Resident #1. The ADON identified the staff member holding the broom throughout the video as the DON. The DON was heard asking the staff that were present during the incident to go get another staff member. The DON then stated, before I kill this man. The other staff members seen in the video that did not intervene when the incident occurred were identified by the ADON as LPN #2, Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA #2), and the Housekeeper (HK). The ADON stated that according to the Facility Reportable Event (FRE) completed by the DON, the incident occurred on 06/20/2023. Review of the FRE dated 06/20/2023 revealed the DON conducted the investigation. The DON never reported the incident to the Department of Health. There was only one witness statement from the staff of the incident. In addition, the incident of alleged staff to resident abuse occurred on 06/20/2023 and the DON remained employed at the facility until she was suspended on 12/21/2024. This placed Resident #1 and all other residents at risk for an Immediate Jeopardy (IJ) situation. The IJ began on 06/20/2023 and was identified on 12/23/2024 at 5:40 P.M. and was reported to the ADON. The ADON was presented with the IJ template. An acceptable removal plan was electronically mailed to the surveyors on 12/26/2024 at 2:37 P.M. indicating the action the facility will take to prevent serious harm from occurring or recurring. On 12/30/2024, a revisit to verify the Removal Plan was conducted. The facility implemented the Removal Plan, which included education to all staff on abuse, neglect, and exploitation. The facility also provided education on intervening and calling the police if abuse was witnessed, what to do when abuse was reported, and the process for reporting abuse. A third-party consultant company completed an audit that reviewed all incident and accident reports from 06/20/2023 to 12/24/2024 to ensure that each incident included a thorough investigation and appropriate follow-up. The third-party consultant company provided the facility with recommendations based on the audits. The staff within the video that witnessed the incident between the DON and Resident #1 were no longer working at the facility. The Human Resources Director (HRD) received education from the ADON on the proper reporting process when an abuse allegation was reported to her. CNA #1 and CNA #3 who witnessed the incident but were not in the video, continue to work at the facility and education was provided to both staff on intervening and calling the police if abuse was witnessed. The surveyors determined the IJ was removed as of 12/26/2024. The noncompliance remained on 12/30/2024 as a level I for actual harm that is not an IJ based on the following: The DON has been suspended since 12/21/2024 and the facility confirmed they were terminating her employment and reporting the DON to the Board of Nursing (BON). All staff have been educated on abuse, neglect, and to intervene and call the police if abuse was witnessed. This deficient practice was identified for 1 of 3 residents (Resident #1) who were reviewed for abuse and was evidenced by the following: According to the Facility Reportable Event (FRE), a New Jersey Department of Health (NJDOH) document used by healthcare facilities to report incidents with a date of event of 06/20/2023 and the DON identified as the person reporting, revealed that Resident #1 attempted to scratch LPN #1 with something that looked blue, plastic, and shiny in the resident's hand. The DON came to the unit and was told by LPN #1 that the resident was chasing her down the hallway. The DON approached Resident #1 and he/she attempted to claw at her with what appeared to be a blue disposable razor. The DON took a broom and tried to swat the razor out of Resident #1's hand. The resident could not be redirected, and the DON snatched the razor from Resident #1's hand. The nurse called the police. The FRE did not specify the nurse that called the police. According to the FRE, Resident #1 was sent to the hospital. A review of the video footage that was found on a social media website on 12/21/2024 revealed the DON standing in front of Resident #1 holding a broom. Resident #1 appeared to have his/her back towards the corner of the wall. The DON and Resident #1 had a verbal altercation between each other. Resident #1 then moved towards the DON, and the DON hit the resident with the broom. The DON asked the staff that were present during the incident to go get another staff member. The DON then stated, before I kill this man. The video further revealed LPN #2, CNA #3, and the HK that were present during the incident but did not intervene. The video did not reveal that the DON snatched a razor from Resident #1's hand. According to the admission Record (AR), Resident #1 was admitted to the facility on [DATE], with diagnoses which included but were not limited to: Major Depressive Disorder, Dementia, and Epilepsy (seizures). According to the Quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS), an assessment tool dated 11/02/2024, Resident #1 had a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of 3 out of 15, which indicated the resident's cognition was severely impaired. The MDS further indicated Resident #1 had experienced hallucinations but had no physical or verbal behaviors towards others. A review of Resident #1's Care Plan (CP) initiated on 11/01/2022 revealed that the resident could be verbally and physically aggressive. Interventions initiated on 11/01/2022 included: Allow to verbalize frustrations, redirect as needed, and provide diversional activities. A review of Resident #1's June 2023 Progress Notes (PNs) revealed no documentation related to the incident that occurred on 06/20/2023. The PNs further revealed no documentation that the police were notified of the incident or that the resident was transferred to the hospital. A review of the DON's personnel file revealed that she received training on abuse on 04/13/2023. During an interview with the surveyors on 12/23/2024 at 10:41 A.M., the ADON stated the Receptionist, and the Licensed Nursing Home Administrator (LNHA) called her on 12/21/2024 and made her aware that the local police were at the facility to investigate an abuse allegation involving Resident #1. The ADON stated she notified the NJDOH of the abuse allegation on 12/21/2024. The ADON stated she was not aware of what occurred during the incident prior to seeing the video. The ADON stated that according to the FRE and an investigation conducted by the DON, the incident on the video occurred on 06/20/2023. The ADON stated she was off the day the incident occurred. The ADON stated she was not aware that the DON hit Resident #1 with a broom and that the other staff members did not intervene until she watched the video. The ADON stated the staff members who observed the incident should have not stood there but got the resident help. The ADON stated it was not the facility's protocol to hit a resident with a broom. The ADON stated the DON had been suspended since 12/21/2024 pending the outcome of the investigation being conducted by a third-party consultant company. The ADON stated that according to the FRE from 06/20/2023, the police and the NJDOH were notified of the incident. The ADON was unable to provide the surveyor evidence that the FRE was reported to the NJDOH and that the police were called on 06/20/2023. During an interview with the surveyors on 12/23/2024 at 11:52 A.M., the Housekeeping Director (HD) stated one of his co-workers sent him a video over the weekend of the incident involving Resident #1 and the DON. The HD stated that he identified one of the staff members in the video was his former HK and that she had retired. The HD stated that no staff should let another staff member hit a resident with a broom and the other staff members should have intervened. The HD further stated that his former HK did not report the incident to him. The HD stated the expectation was that the HK should have reported what happened in the video to him immediately. During an interview with the surveyors on 12/23/2024 at 12:44 P.M., CNA #1 stated she had seen the video involving the incident between the DON and Resident #1 on social media. CNA #1 identified the person recording the video as LPN #1. CNA #1 stated she was present when the incident occurred involving the DON and Resident #1. CNA #1 stated Resident #1 was upset about his/her clothing prior to the incident. The DON was called to the unit due to Resident #1 having aggressive behaviors. CNA #1 stated the DON came to the unit and went to Resident #1's room and the resident threw a chair at the DON. The DON then ran to the nursing station where CNA #1, CNA #2, and the HK were standing. CNA #1 stated the DON grabbed a broom and hit Resident #1 with the broom. CNA #1 stated she did not remember Resident #1 having any items in his/her hand. CNA #1 further stated she remembered Resident #1 was bleeding after the DON hit him/her with the broom. CNA #1 stated she did not intervene when the incident occurred because the DON had threatened her job if she had intervened. CNA #1 further stated if the DON had not threatened her job she would have called the police. CNA #1 stated the DON was aggressive towards the residents at times. During an interview with the surveyors on 12/23/2024 at 2:22 P.M., the Social Worker (SW) stated she had seen the video involving the DON and Resident #1 that had been circulating on social media. The SW stated she was not aware of the incident until she had seen the video on 12/21/2024. The SW stated if a resident was aggressive, the facility policy was to try to de-escalate the resident, address the resident's needs, and ensure the safety of all residents. The SW stated it was not acceptable for a staff member to hit a resident with a broom and considered this a form of abuse. The SW stated if she witnessed abuse, she would ensure the safety of the resident involved and immediately notify the abuse coordinator, the NJDOH, and the police. During a telephone interview with the surveyor on 12/23/2024 at 3:08 P.M., LPN #1 stated she was present when the incident occurred and recorded it on her cellphone. LPN #1 stated she observed a walker fly past the charting room after the DON came to the unit. LPN #1 further stated she observed Resident #1 chasing the DON. LPN #1 stated she yelled out for someone to call the police, but no one called them. She further stated that the DON hit Resident #1 with a broom and then the resident walked away. LPN #1 stated she observed cuts to Resident #1's hands and that he/she was bleeding. LPN #1 stated she reported the incident to the Human Resources Director (HRD) which resulted in her not being allowed to return to the facility since she was agency staff. LPN #1 stated she sent the video of the incident to her friend who posted the video to a social media website. During a telephone interview with the surveyor on 12/23/2024 at 3:20 P.M., CNA #3 stated she was present when the incident occurred but could not remember the exact date. CNA #3 stated It happened a long time ago. CNA #3 stated Resident #1 was agitated and threw a chair at the DON. CNA #3 further stated Resident #1 started to go after the DON and the DON hit the resident with a broom. CNA #3 stated she believed the DON was trying to defend herself against the resident. CNA #3 stated We are given education on how to de-escalate the residents when they are aggressive. We are not taught to hit a resident with a broom. CNA #3 stated she did not report the incident because the DON was in charge and that she had threatened the staff member's jobs. CNA #3 stated she thought someone called the police after the incident occurred. During a follow up telephone interview with the surveyor on 12/30/2024 at 10:21 A.M., CNA #3 stated she did not remember if the police came to the facility after the incident occurred. CNA #3 stated she did not remember if Resident #1 had anything in his/her hand when the incident occurred. During an interview with the surveyor on 12/23/2024 at 3:34 P.M., the HRD stated she was made aware of the video that was circulating on social media on 12/21/2024. She further stated she was not aware of the incident that occurred prior to watching the video on 12/21/2024. The HRD stated that no staff came to her to report the incident prior to her watching the video. The HRD stated that it was not the facility's protocol to hit a resident with a broom. The HRD further stated that the staff that had witnessed the event should have reported the incident immediately. The HRD confirmed that the DON has been suspended since 12/21/2024. During a telephone interview with the surveyors on 12/30/2024 at 1:30 P.M., the DON stated she could not remember the date the incident occurred with Resident #1. The DON stated that a code was called due to Resident #1 having combative behaviors, and she went up to the unit. The DON stated when she arrived on the unit, Resident #1 was running down the hallway. Resident #1 then grabbed a chair and threw it at the DON. The DON further stated she observed a blue object in Resident #1's hand. The DON stated that Resident #1 attempted to hit her with what was in his/her hand. The DON stated she got a broom from the HK and then told all the other staff in the area to move away. The DON further stated Resident #1 started coming towards her and she hit him/her with the broom in attempt to swat what was in the resident's hand. The DON stated that after she hit the resident with the broom, Resident #1 walked away. The DON further stated when the resident walked away, she snatched a blue razor from his/her hand. The DON stated, I apologize, we are never supposed to hit a resident even if they are aggressive. The DON stated she overreacted when she hit Resident #1 with a broom because she thought the resident had a weapon in his/her hand. The DON further stated she though the local police were notified but that was the unit nurses' responsibility to call the police. During an interview with the surveyors on 12/30/2024 at 2:12 P.M., the Licensed Nursing Home Administrator (LNHA) stated she was off when the incident occurred between the DON and Resident #1. The LNHA stated the DON was suspended and the Corporate Human Resources was sending the DON a termination letter in the mail. The LNHA stated that it was not acceptable to hit a resident with a broom. The LNHA stated she would consider hitting a resident with a broom a form of abuse. The LNHA stated she was not aware at the time of the incident that Resident #1 was hit with a broom by the DON and that other staff members watched and did not intervene. The LNHA stated the expectation was that if staff witnessed abuse, they were to intervene and notify the local police immediately. The surveyors were unable to reach LPN #2, CNA#2, and the HK for an interview regarding the incident that occurred on 06/20/2023 with Resident #1. Review of the facility policy titled Abuse Policy and Procedure updated 8/2014, revealed under Policy that This facility requires that any allegations of abuse be addressed immediately in accordance with all federal and state regulations. All allegations will be evaluated in a prompt and thorough manner. Under Procedure, 6. Any employee alleged to have participated in abusive activity will be removed from care of the involved resident immediately. 9. The RN supervisor will contact the Director of Nursing immediately upon suspicion or confirmation of abuse. If the Director of Nursing is unable to be contacted, the Administrator will be contacted. 10. The Administrator will be contacted regarding all cases of physical and verbal abuse. 22. Employees who have had allegations of physical abusive treatment will be removed from direct resident care. Review of the undated facility job description titled Director of Nursing revealed, This leadership role ensures the highest standards of care and compliance with regulatory requirements while fostering a collaborative environment for residents and staff. Revealed under Key Responsibilities, Resident Advocacy: Ensure residents' rights are respected and upheld. N.J.A.C:8:39-4.1 (a) (5)
CRITICAL (L) 📢 Someone Reported This

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

Immediate Jeopardy (IJ) - the most serious Medicare violation

Investigate Abuse (Tag F0610)

Someone could have died · This affected most or all residents

⚠️ Facility-wide issue

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Complaint #: NJ181767, NJ181768, NJ181846 Based on observations, interviews, medical record review, and review of other pertinen...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Complaint #: NJ181767, NJ181768, NJ181846 Based on observations, interviews, medical record review, and review of other pertinent facility documents on 12/23/2024, it was determined that the facility failed to conduct a timely and thorough investigation for an allegation of witnessed staff to resident physical abuse toward a resident (Resident #1). During an interview on 12/23/2024 at 3:08 P.M., the Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN #1) stated she recorded a video on her cellphone of the Director of Nursing (DON) hitting Resident #1 with a broom. LPN #1 sent the video to a friend, and it was posted to a social media website. The Surveyors and the Assistant Director of Nursing (ADON) reviewed a video on 12/23/2024 at 10:41 A.M. found on a social media website, that revealed a staff member hitting at a resident with a broom. Several other staff members observed the incident and did not intervene. The ADON identified the resident in the video as Resident #1. The ADON identified the staff member holding the broom throughout the video as the DON. The DON was heard asking the staff that were present during the incident to go get another staff member. The DON then stated, before I kill this man. The other staff members seen in the video that did not intervene when the incident occurred were identified by the ADON as LPN #2, Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA #2), and the Housekeeper (HK). The ADON stated that according to the Facility Reportable Event (FRE) form completed by the DON, the incident occurred on 06/20/2023. On 12/21/2024, the local police went to the facility to investigate an abuse allegation after receiving notification that the video was circulating online. Review of the FRE dated 06/20/2023 revealed the DON conducted the investigation. The DON never reported the incident to the Department of Health. There was only one witness statement from the staff of the incident. In addition, the incident of alleged staff to resident abuse occurred on 06/20/2023 and the DON remained employed at the facility until she was suspended on 12/21/2024. This placed Resident #1 and all other residents at risk for an Immediate Jeopardy (IJ) situation. The IJ began on 06/20/2023 and was identified on 12/23/2024 at 5:40 P.M. and was reported to the ADON. The ADON was presented with the IJ template. An acceptable removal plan was electronically mailed to the surveyors on 12/26/2024 at 2:37 P.M. indicating the action the facility will take to prevent serious harm from occurring or recurring. On 12/30/2024, a revisit to verify the Removal Plan was conducted. The facility implemented the Removal Plan, which included education to all staff on conducting a thorough investigation related to an abuse allegation. A third-party consultant company completed an independent investigation of the abuse allegation which was comprised of a documentation review, review of the resident's medical records, staff interviews, resident observations, and a review of the reportable event from 06/20/2023. The third-party consultant company conducted an audit of all incident and accident reports from 06/20/2023 to ensure that each incident included a thorough investigation. The Licensed Nursing Home Administrator (LNHA) implemented a daily audit to assure abuse allegations were addressed and investigated according to the facility's policy. The surveyors determined the IJ was removed as of 12/26/2024. The noncompliance remained on 12/30/2024 as a level I for actual harm that is not an IJ based on the following: The DON has been suspended since 12/21/2024 and the facility confirmed they were terminating her employment and reporting the DON to the Board of Nursing (BON). All facilty staff were educated on conducting a thorough investigation related to an abuse allegation and a third-party consultant company conducted an investigation of the abuse allegation. This deficient practice was identified for 1 of 3 residents (Resident #1) who were reviewed for abuse and was evidenced by the following: According to the Facility Reportable Event (FRE), a New Jersey Department of Health (NJDOH) document used by healthcare facilities to report incidents dated 06/20/2023 and the DON identified as the person reporting, revealed that Resident #1 attempted to scratch LPN #1 with something that looked blue, plastic, and shiny in the resident's hand. The DON came to the unit and was told by LPN #1 that the resident was chasing her down the hallway. The DON approached Resident #1 and he/she attempted to claw at her with what appeared to be a blue disposable razor. The DON took a broom and tried to swat the razor out of Resident #1's hand. The resident could not be redirected, and the DON snatched the razor from Resident #1's hand. The nurse called the police and Resident #1 was sent to the hospital. A review of the video footage that was found on a social media website on 12/21/2024 revealed the DON standing in front of Resident #1 holding a broom. Resident #1 appeared to have his/her back towards the corner of the wall. The DON and Resident #1 had a verbal altercation between each other. Resident #1 then moved towards the DON, and the DON hit the resident with the broom. The DON asked the staff that were present during the incident to go get another staff member. The DON then stated, before I kill this man. The video further revealed LPN #2, CNA #3, and the HK that were present during the incident but did not intervene. The video did not reveal that the DON snatched a razor from Resident #1's hand. According to the admission Record (AR), Resident #1 was admitted to the facility on [DATE], with diagnoses which included but were not limited to: Major Depressive Disorder, Dementia, and Epilepsy (seizures). According to the Quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS), an assessment tool dated 11/02/2024, Resident #1 had a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of 3 out of 15, which indicated the resident's cognition was severely impaired. The MDS further indicated Resident #1 had experienced hallucinations but had no physical or verbal behaviors towards others. A review of Resident #1's Care Plan (CP) initiated on 11/01/2022 revealed that the resident could be verbally and physically aggressive. Interventions initiated on 11/01/2022 included: Allow to verbalize frustrations, redirect as needed, and provide diversional activities. A review of Resident #1's June 2023 Progress Notes (PNs) revealed no documentation related to the incident that occurred on 06/20/2023. The PNs further revealed no documentation that the police were notified of the incident or that the resident was transferred to the hospital. During an interview with the surveyors on 12/23/2024 at 10:41 A.M., the ADON stated the Receptionist, and the Licensed Nursing Home Administrator (LNHA) called her on 12/21/2024 and made her aware that the local police were at the facility to investigate an abuse allegation involving Resident #1. The ADON stated she notified the NJDOH of the abuse allegation on 12/21/2024. The ADON stated she was not aware of what occurred during the incident prior to seeing the video. The ADON stated that according to the FRE and an investigation conducted by the DON, the incident on the video occurred on 06/20/2023. The ADON stated she was off the day the incident occurred. The ADON stated she was not aware that the DON hit Resident #1 with a broom and that the other staff members did not intervene until she watched the video. The ADON stated the staff members who observed the incident should have not stood there but got the resident help. The ADON stated it was not the facility's protocol to hit a resident with a broom. The ADON stated the DON had been suspended since 12/21/2024 pending the outcome of the investigation being conducted by a third-party consultant company. The ADON stated that according to the FRE from 06/20/2023, the police and the NJDOH were notified of the incident. According to the local police department's report dated 12/21/2024, the police were never dispatched to the facility on the date of the incident regarding Resident #1. During a telephone interview with the surveyors on 12/30/2024 at 1:30 P.M., the DON stated she could not remember the date the incident occurred with Resident #1. The DON stated that a code was called due to Resident #1 having combative behaviors, and she went up to the unit. The DON stated when she arrived on the unit, Resident #1 was running down the hallway. Resident #1 then grabbed a chair and threw it at the DON. The DON further stated she observed a blue object in Resident #1's hand. The DON stated that Resident #1 attempted to hit her with what was in his/her hand. The DON stated she got a broom from the HK and then told all the other staff in the area to move away. The DON further stated Resident #1 started coming towards her and she hit him/her with the broom in attempt to swat what was in the resident's hand. The DON stated that after she hit the resident with the broom, Resident #1 walked away. The DON further stated when the resident walked away, she snatched a blue razor from his/her hand. The DON further stated she thought the local police were notified but that was the unit nurses' responsibility to call the police. During an interview with the surveyors on 12/30/2024 at 2:12 P.M., the Licensed Nursing Home Administrator (LNHA) stated she was off when the incident occurred between the DON and Resident #1. The LNHA stated the DON was suspended and the Corporate Human Resources was sending the DON a termination letter in the mail. The LNHA stated that it was not acceptable to hit a resident with a broom. The LNHA stated she would consider hitting a resident with a broom a form of abuse. The LNHA stated she was not aware at the time of the incident that Resident #1 was hit with a broom by the DON and that other staff members watched and did not intervene. The LNHA stated the expectation was that if staff witnessed abuse, they were to intervene and notify the local police immediately. Review of the facility policy titled Abuse Policy and Procedure updated 8/2014, revealed under Policy that This facility requires that any allegations of abuse be addressed immediately in accordance with all federal and state regulations. All allegations will be evaluated in a prompt and thorough manner. Under Procedure, 6. Any employee alleged to have participated in abusive activity will be removed from care of the involved resident immediately. 9. The RN supervisor will contact the Director of Nursing immediately upon suspicion or confirmation of abuse. If the Director of Nursing is unable to be contacted, the Administrator will be contacted. 10. The Administrator will be contacted regarding all cases of physical and verbal abuse. 22. Employees who have had allegations of physical abusive treatment will be removed from direct resident care. Review of the facility policy titled Investigation, Recording & Reporting of Accidents/Incidents dated 12/22/2024 revealed under Policy, It is the policy of this Center to investigate all accidents and incidents. Under Purpose, the purpose of investigating an accident/incident is to find out what actually happened, why it happened, what needs to be done to prevent a recurrence. A comprehensive investigation of all Accidents/Incidents must be completed, and documentation must be maintained in a secure location. All accident and incidents must be investigated for possible abuse. Under Investigation Basics, 8. Statements and an accident/incident report should be completed by the end of the shift during which the event occurred or as close to the time of the even as possible. 9. Notify the Director of Nursing and/or Administrator of any significant events. 10. Collect statements from ALL staff on the unit. Under Responsibility Nurse, 1. Safety is priority. Assess the situation and take the necessary steps to ensure the safety of residents, visitors, and staff. 2. Conduct and document a full head to toe assessment of all residents involved. Under Director of Nursing/Designee, 3. If the Accident/Incident is reportable, ensure that all necessary entities have been notified. Document the date and time and name of individual notified. NJAC 8:39-4.1(a) 5
CONCERN (D) 📢 Someone Reported This

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

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

Deficiency F0583 (Tag F0583)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Complaint #: NJ181767, NJ181768, NJ181846 Based on observations, interviews, and review of facility documentation, it was determ...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Complaint #: NJ181767, NJ181768, NJ181846 Based on observations, interviews, and review of facility documentation, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure a resident's right to privacy and confidentiality were not violated when a video of a resident (Resident #1) being hit with a broom by the Director of Nursing (DON) was recorded by a staff member and sent to their friend who posted the video on a social media website. This deficient practice was identified for 1 of 1 resident (Resident #1) who was reviewed for privacy and confidentiality and was evidenced by the following: According to the admission Record (AR), Resident #1 was admitted to the facility on [DATE], with diagnoses which included but were not limited to: Major Depressive Disorder, Dementia, and Epilepsy (seizures). According to the Quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS), an assessment tool dated 11/02/2024, Resident #1 had a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of 3 out of 15, which indicated the resident's cognition was severely impaired. The local police came to the facility on [DATE] after receiving notification that a video was circulating on a social media website of the DON hitting Resident #1 with a broom while several other staff members observed the incident and did not intervene. During a telephone interview with the surveyor on 12/23/2024 at 3:08 P.M., the Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN #1) stated she was present when the incident occurred and recorded it on her cellphone. LPN #1 stated she sent the video of the incident to her friend who posted the video to a social media website. LPN #1 further stated she did not know how resident privacy and confidentiality worked, so she was unable to tell the surveyor whether she violated Resident #1's privacy and confidentiality when she sent the video to her friend. During an interview with the surveyors on 12/30/2024 at 1:25 P.M., the Assistant Director of Nursing (ADON) stated that the staff were not allowed to record the residents because it was a violation of their privacy and confidentiality. The ADON stated she could not speak to why LPN #1 recorded Resident #1 on her cell phone. The ADON further stated that all staff including agency staff received training on resident privacy and confidentiality upon hire and twice yearly thereafter. During an interview with the surveyors on 12/30/2024 at 2:12 P.M., the Licensed Nursing Home Administrator (LNHA) stated that staff were not allowed to record the residents on their cellphone because it violated the resident's privacy. The LNHA further stated that LPN #1 did not follow the facility policy when she recorded Resident #1 on her cell phone. The LNHA stated she was not present when the incident occurred and could not speak to why LPN #1 recorded the incident involving Resident #1. Review of the undated facility policy titled Personal Electronic Equipment revealed that The Company prohibits the use or possession in the workplace of any camera phone, cell phone camera, digital camera, video camera, or other form of image or voice recording device without the express permission of the Company and of each person whose image and or voice is recorded. N.J.A.C. 8:39-4.1 (a) (18)
CONCERN (D) 📢 Someone Reported This

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

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

Report Alleged Abuse (Tag F0609)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Complaint #: NJ181767, NJ181768, NJ181846 Based on observations, interviews, medical record review, and review of other pertinen...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Complaint #: NJ181767, NJ181768, NJ181846 Based on observations, interviews, medical record review, and review of other pertinent facility documents on 12/23/2024, it was determined that the facility failed to report an allegation of witnessed staff to resident physical and verbal abuse toward a resident (Resident #1) to the Department of Health and to the local Police Department when the incident occurred on 06/20/2023. This deficient practice was identified for 1 of 3 residents (Resident #1) who were reviewed for abuse and was evidenced by the following: The Surveyors and the Assistant Director of Nursing (ADON) reviewed a video on 12/23/2024 at 10:41 A.M. found on a social media website, that revealed a staff member hitting at a resident with a broom. Several other staff members observed the incident and did not intervene. The ADON identified the resident in the video as Resident #1. The ADON identified the staff member holding the broom throughout the video as the DON. The DON was heard asking the staff that were present during the incident to go get another staff member. The DON then stated, before I kill this man. The other staff members seen in the video that did not intervene when the incident occurred were identified by the ADON as LPN #2, Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA #2), and the Housekeeper (HK). The ADON stated that according to the Facility Reportable Event (FRE) form completed by the DON, the incident occurred on 06/20/2023. The ADON presented to the surveyors a Facility Reportable Event (FRE) form, a New Jersey Department of Health (NJDOH) document used by healthcare facilities to report incidents dated 6/20/2023 with an event date of 6/20/2023. The FRE revealed that Resident #1 attempted to scratch LPN #1 with something that looked blue, plastic, and shiny in the resident's hand. The DON came to the unit and was told by LPN #1 that the resident was chasing her down the hallway. The DON approached Resident #1 and he/she attempted to claw at her with what appeared to be a blue disposable razor. The DON took a broom and tried to swat the razor out of Resident #1's hand. The resident could not be redirected, and the DON snatched the razor from Resident #1's hand. The nurse called the police and Resident #1 was sent to the hospital. The ADON was unable to provide the surveyor evidence that the FRE was reported to the NJDOH and that the police were called on 06/20/2023. According to the local police department's report dated 12/21/2024, the police were never dispatched to the facility on the date of the incident regarding Resident #1. A review of the video footage that was found on a social media website on 12/21/2024 revealed the DON standing in front of Resident #1 holding a broom. Resident #1 appeared to have his/her back towards the corner of the wall. The DON and Resident #1 had a verbal altercation between each other. Resident #1 then moved towards the DON, and the DON hit the resident with the broom. The DON asked the staff that were present during the incident to go get another staff member. The DON then stated, before I kill this man. The video further revealed LPN #2, CNA #3, and the HK that were present during the incident but did not intervene. The video did not reveal that the DON snatched a razor from Resident #1's hand. According to the admission Record (AR), Resident #1 was admitted to the facility on [DATE], with diagnoses which included but were not limited to: Major Depressive Disorder, Dementia, and Epilepsy (seizures). According to the Quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS), an assessment tool dated 11/02/2024, Resident #1 had a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of 3 out of 15, which indicated the resident's cognition was severely impaired. The MDS further indicated Resident #1 had experienced hallucinations but had no physical or verbal behaviors towards others. A review of Resident #1's Care Plan (CP) initiated on 11/01/2022 revealed that the resident could be verbally and physically aggressive. Interventions initiated on 11/01/2022 included: Allow to verbalize frustrations, redirect as needed, and provide diversional activities. A review of Resident #1's June 2023 Progress Notes (PNs) revealed no documentation related to the incident that occurred on 06/20/2023. The PNs further revealed no documentation that the police were notified of the incident or that the resident was transferred to the hospital. During an interview with the surveyors on 12/23/2024 at 10:41 A.M., the ADON stated the Receptionist, and the Licensed Nursing Home Administrator (LNHA) called her on 12/21/2024 and made her aware that the local police were at the facility to investigate an abuse allegation involving Resident #1. The ADON stated she notified the NJDOH of the abuse allegation on 12/21/2024. The ADON stated she was not aware of what occurred during the incident prior to seeing the video. The ADON stated that according to the FRE and an investigation conducted by the DON, the incident on the video occurred on 06/20/2023. The ADON stated she was off the day the incident occurred. The ADON stated she was not aware that the DON hit Resident #1 with a broom and that the other staff members did not intervene until she watched the video. The ADON stated the staff members who observed the incident should have not stood there but got the resident help. The ADON stated it was not the facility's protocol to hit a resident with a broom. The ADON stated the DON had been suspended since 12/21/2024 pending the outcome of the investigation being conducted by a third-party consultant company. The ADON stated that according to the FRE from 06/20/2023, the police and the NJDOH were notified of the incident. During an interview with the surveyors on 12/23/2024 at 12:44 P.M., CNA #1 stated she had seen the video involving the incident between the DON and Resident #1 on social media. CNA #1 identified the person recording the video as LPN #1. CNA #1 stated she was present when the incident occurred involving the DON and Resident #1. The DON was called to the unit due to Resident #1 having aggressive behaviors. CNA #1 stated the DON came to the unit and went to Resident #1's room and the resident threw a chair at the DON. The DON then ran to the nursing station where CNA #1, CNA #2, and the HK were standing. CNA #1 stated the DON grabbed a broom and hit Resident #1 with the broom. CNA #1 stated she did not remember Resident #1 having any items in his/her hand. CNA #1 further stated she remembered Resident #1 was bleeding after the DON hit him/her with the broom. CNA #1 stated she did not intervene when the incident occurred because the DON had threatened her job if she had intervened. CNA #1 further stated if the DON had not threatened her job she would have called the police. During a telephone interview with the surveyor on 12/23/2024 at 3:20 P.M., CNA #3 stated she was present when the incident occurred but could not remember the exact date. CNA #3 stated It happened a long time ago. CNA #3 stated Resident #1 was agitated and threw a chair at the DON. CNA #3 further stated Resident #1 started to go after the DON and the DON hit the resident with a broom. CNA #3 stated she believed the DON was trying to defend herself against the resident. CNA #3 stated We are given education on how to de-escalate the residents when they are aggressive. We are not taught to hit a resident with a broom. CNA #3 stated she did not report the incident because the DON was in charge and that she had threatened the staff member's jobs. CNA #3 stated she thought someone called the police after the incident occurred. During a telephone interview with the surveyors on 12/30/2024 at 1:30 P.M., the DON stated she could not remember the date the incident occurred with Resident #1. The DON stated that a code was called due to Resident #1 having combative behaviors, and she went up to the unit. The DON stated when she arrived on the unit, Resident #1 was running down the hallway. Resident #1 then grabbed a chair and threw it at the DON. The DON further stated she observed a blue object in Resident #1's hand. The DON stated that Resident #1 attempted to hit her with what was in his/her hand. The DON stated she got a broom from the HK and then told all the other staff in the area to move away. The DON further stated Resident #1 started coming towards her and she hit him/her with the broom in attempt to swat what was in the resident's hand. The DON stated that after she hit the resident with the broom, Resident #1 walked away. The DON further stated when the resident walked away, she snatched a blue razor from his/her hand. The DON further stated she thought the local police were notified but that was the unit nurses' responsibility to call the police. During an interview with the surveyors on 12/30/2024 at 2:12 P.M., the Licensed Nursing Home Administrator (LNHA) stated she was off when the incident occurred between the DON and Resident #1. The LNHA stated the DON was suspended and the Corporate Human Resources was sending the DON a termination letter in the mail. The LNHA stated that it was not acceptable to hit a resident with a broom. The LNHA stated she would consider hitting a resident with a broom a form of abuse. The LNHA stated she was not aware at the time of the incident that Resident #1 was hit with a broom by the DON and that other staff members watched and did not intervene. The LNHA stated the expectation was that if staff witnessed abuse, they were to intervene and notify the local police immediately. Review of the facility policy titled Abuse Policy and Procedure updated 8/2014, revealed under Policy that This facility requires that any allegations of abuse be addressed immediately in accordance with all federal and state regulations. All allegations will be evaluated in a prompt and thorough manner. Under Procedure, 6. Any employee alleged to have participated in abusive activity will be removed from care of the involved resident immediately. 9. The RN supervisor will contact the Director of Nursing immediately upon suspicion or confirmation of abuse. If the Director of Nursing is unable to be contacted, the Administrator will be contacted. 10. The Administrator will be contacted regarding all cases of physical and verbal abuse. 22. Employees who have had allegations of physical abusive treatment will be removed from direct resident care. Review of the facility policy titled Investigation, Recording & Reporting of Accidents/Incidents dated 12/22/2024 revealed under Policy, It is the policy of this Center to investigate all accidents and incidents. Under Purpose, the purpose of investigating an accident/incident is to find out what actually happened, why it happened, what needs to be done to prevent a recurrence. A comprehensive investigation of all Accidents/Incidents must be completed, and documentation must be maintained in a secure location. All accident and incidents must be investigated for possible abuse. Under Investigation Basics, 8. Statements and an accident/incident report should be completed by the end of the shift during which the event occurred or as close to the time of the even as possible. 9. Notify the Director of Nursing and/or Administrator of any significant events. 10. Collect statements from ALL staff on the unit. Under Responsibility Nurse, 1. Safety is priority. Assess the situation and take the necessary steps to ensure the safety of residents, visitors, and staff. 2. Conduct and document a full head to toe assessment of all residents involved. Under Director of Nursing/Designee, 3. If the Accident/Incident is reportable, ensure that all necessary entities have been notified. Document the date and time and name of individual notified. NJAC 8:39-9.4 (f)
Oct 2024 6 deficiencies 4 IJ
CRITICAL (J) 📢 Someone Reported This

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

Immediate Jeopardy (IJ) - the most serious Medicare violation

Free from Abuse/Neglect (Tag F0600)

Someone could have died · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Complaint # NJ178530 Based on interviews, medical record review, and review of other pertinent facility documentation on 10/22/2...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Complaint # NJ178530 Based on interviews, medical record review, and review of other pertinent facility documentation on 10/22/2024, 10/23/2024, 10/24/2024 and 10/29/2024, it was determined that the facility: a) failed to provide services necessary to prevent physical abuse for a resident (Resident #1), b) used a physical hold restraint for a resident (Resident #1) with a known history of physically aggressive behaviors towards others and diagnoses of Traumatic Brain Injury, Impulse Disorder, and Schizoaffective Disorder. On 10/14/2024 at approximately 11:58 AM, the Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA#1) stated she observed Resident #1 on the floor in the hallway with CNA #2 and the Smoking Monitor (SM) hitting Resident #1, at which time she ran to get the Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN#1) who was already on her way to the hallway. LPN #1 stated she heard a loud bang and yelling in the hallway. LPN #1 responded to the hallway and saw Resident #1 laying on the floor in the hallway yelling please stop, get them off of me. LPN #1 stated she observed CNA #2 kicking Resident #1 and the SM hitting Resident #1 with his fist. LPN #1 told both staff members (CNA #2 and SM) to stop and to get off the resident. LPN#1 stated CNA #2 and the SM did not immediately stop and get off the resident. She had to repeat the request. LPN#1 stated the SM said, Its ok we are told to do this. LPN #1 stated she assisted Resident #1 off the floor to the nursing station and immediately reported the incident to the Assistant Director of Nursing (ADON). CNA #2 and the SM went down to the other side of the hallway and passed the lunch trays. The Social Worker (SW#1) stated the ADON got her to come to the unit. SW #1 stated Resident #1 was yelling They just beat the [profanity] out of me. SW#1 stated while at the nursing station, she observed the resident's back when Resident #1 lifted his/her tee shirt. SW #1 reported the observation to the ADON. SW#1 stated she was asked by LPN#1 to take Resident #1 to her office on the first floor. SW #1 stated Resident #1 complained of back pain. During an interview with SW#1, she stated while Resident #1 stated oh my back while attempting to pick up food from off the floor. The ADON stated Resident #1 told her that he/she fell, and an order was obtained from the Medical Director to send Resident #1 to the hospital for a fall. On 10/14/2024, Resident #1 was admitted to the hospital with diagnoses of splenic laceration, subcapsular hematoma, and an active bleed. The facility failed to follow its policy titled Abuse Policy and Procedure and the facility job description titled Certified Nursing Assistant Job Description. This placed Resident #1 and all other residents at risk for an Immediate Jeopardy (IJ) situation. This IJ was identified on 10/22/2024 at 8:50 PM and was reported to the Licensed Nursing Home Administrator (LNHA), the Director of Nursing (DON), and ADON. The LNHA, DON, and ADON were presented with the IJ template. The IJ began on 10/14/2024 and continued through 10/29/2024 when the facility submitted an acceptable Removal Plan. On 10/29/2024, a revisit to verify the Removal Plan was conducted. The facility implemented the Removal Plan, which included re-educating all facility staff on the importance of preventing abuse, ensuring resident safety, and the importance of following the facility's abuse policy. The facility also provided re-education on incident investigations, importance of collecting all written statements, utilizing the SW to assist in obtaining the resident statements, assuring the original signed statements are turned into the abuse coordinator, and reporting all incidents to the abuse coordinator immediately. The facility initiated an audit to monitor compliance with the education and conducted a staff assessment and testing to ensure true understanding of the facility's abuse policy. The noncompliance remained on 10/29/24 as a level G for actual harm that is not an IJ based on the following: Resident #1 is no longer at the facility, CNA #2 and the SM no longer work at the facility, and all facility staff have been re-educated on the facility's abuse policy. This deficient practice was identified for 1 of 7 residents (Resident #1) and was evidenced by the following: According to the Facility's Reportable Event (FRE), a New Jersey Department of Health (NJDOH) document used by healthcare facilities to report incidents with a report date of 10/15/2024, Resident #1 was upset while in his/her room and threw an overbed tray table at a staff member outside of Resident #1's room on 10/14/2024. While throwing the overbed tray table, Resident #1 lost balance and fell to the floor. While on the floor, Resident #1 continued to be a danger to the staff and others. Staff attempted to subdue Resident #1 by using gentle resistance while on the floor. Resident #1 was sent to the hospital for further evaluation. While at the hospital, Resident #1 stated to hospital staff that he/she had been beaten up by two staff members. The police department notified the facility on 10/15/2024 of Resident #1's allegation. According to the FRE, a full investigation was initiated on 10/15/2024. Both staff members were suspended pending an investigation on 10/15/2024. According to the facility's document titled Summary of Investigation with a date reported of 10/15/2024 under Summary, Resident #1 sustained injuries when he/she fell on top of the overbed tray table while trying to continue an attack on the staff member. Resident #1 had a history of aggression towards others and staff were protecting residents and themselves while trying to keep Resident #1 from continuing aggression. The staff were concerned for everyone's safety and tried to keep Resident #1 down on the floor to avoid Resident #1 from hurting others. They were too aggressive while trying to keep Resident #1 down to prevent further aggression from Resident #1. According to the admission Record (AR), Resident #1 was admitted to the facility on [DATE], with diagnoses which included but were not limited to: Traumatic Brain Injury (a head injury causing damage to the brain), Impulse Disorder (an inability to control impulses and behaviors), and Schizoaffective Disorder (a chronic mental health condition that combines symptoms of psychosis with symptoms of mood disorders). According to the admission Minimum Data Set (MDS), an assessment tool dated 08/09/2024, Resident #1 had a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of 3 out of 15, which indicated the resident's cognition was severely impaired. The MDS further indicated Resident #1 was on antipsychotic medications and had no behaviors that were exhibited towards others. According to the Discharge MDS dated [DATE], Section A, a discharge assessment indicated return anticipated. Section E revealed that Resident #1 had physical and behavioral symptoms directed toward others. A review of Resident #1's Care Plan (CP) initiated on 8/25/2024 revealed under Focus: Resident #1 is the aggressor in a physical altercation with peer related to poor impulse control. The Goal included Resident #1 will not harm others through the review date. Interventions initiated on 8/25/2024 included: When Resident #1 becomes agitated, intervene before agitation escalates. Guide away from source of distress. Engage calmly in conversation. If response is aggressive, staff to walk calmly away and approach later. A review of Resident #1's Progress notes (PNs) dated 10/14/2024 at 2:24 PM written by the ADON revealed Resident #1 became upset while in the room and threw an overbed table at a staff member outside the room door. During the throwing of the overbed tray table, Resident #1 lost his/her balance and fell to the floor. While on the floor, Resident #1 continued to be a danger to the staff. Staff attempted to subdue Resident #1 using gentle resistance while on the floor. Resident #1 was given time to calm down before being assisted to a standing position. Resident #1 was taken off the unit with Social Services (SS) to further calm down. The Physician was informed of Resident #1's behaviors. An order was secured to send Resident #1 to the hospital for a behavioral evaluation and x-ray of the right hip and ribs. A review of Resident #1's PNs dated 10/14/2024 at 9:35 PM revealed at 5:30 PM, Resident #1 was picked up by transport via stretcher and taken to the emergency room (ER). A review of CNA#2 and the SM's personnel files revealed that both staff had training on abuse and how to deal with aggressive residents. During an interview with the surveyors on 10/22/2024 at 1:04 PM, CNA #1 stated that on 10/14/2024 at 11:58 AM, she walked out of the dayroom, heard a commotion, and observed Resident #1 on the floor in the hallway between Resident #1's room and the dayroom on his/her back. She observed CNA#2 and the SM hitting resident with their fists. CNA #1 stated the camera could show you better. CNA #1 further stated she ran to get LPN#1, who responded to the incident. CNA #1 stated that CNA# 2 and the SM continued to work the rest of the shift on another unit. She stated that Resident #1 went to the hospital the same day the incident occurred but was unsure of the time. CNA #1 stated that Resident #1 can be aggressive at times but re-directable with a calm approach. CNA #1 stated she heard both CNA #2 and the SM tell LPN #1 that Resident #1 got upset because resident was told to wait to go out to smoke. During an interview with the surveyors on 10/22/2024 at 1:27 PM, LPN #1 stated she worked on 10/14/2024 and was assigned Resident #1. LPN #1 stated she was in the charting room speaking with the Speech therapist (ST) and heard a loud bang and yelling. LPN #1 stated the ST and herself immediately got up and as she was coming out of the charting room door, she was met by CNA #1 who was coming to get her. LPN #1 stated she looked down the hallway where the yelling was coming from and observed Resident #1 laying in the hallway in front of his/her room. LPN #1 stated she heard Resident #1 yelling please stop, get them off of me. LPN #1 further stated that the ST was behind her and stated, Oh my God, what are they doing to him? LPN #1 stated she observed CNA #2 kicking Resident #1 and the SM punching Resident #1. LPN #1 stated Resident #1 was laying on his/her side. LPN #1 stated she told CNA #2 and the SM to stop and get off the resident. CNA #2 and the SM did not immediately stop. She had to repeat the request to CNA#2 and the SM to stop hitting the resident. CNA #2 and the SM then stopped hitting the resident. LPN #1 further stated that the SM said, its ok, we are told to do this. LPN #1 did not state who told the SM that it was okay to hit and punch the resident. LPN #1 stated she assisted the resident off the floor to the nursing station and immediately reported the incident to the ADON. She stated that CNA #2 and the SM went down the other hallway and passed out the lunch trays. LPN #1 further stated I don't know what time, but CNA #2 and the SM were moved off the floor to the other units. LPN #1 stated SW#1 and the ADON came to the unit after the incident. SW#1 stayed with her and the resident at the nursing station. LPN #1 stated, I don't know where the ADON went. LPN #1 further stated Resident #1 complained of pain all over and asked her to call the police because he/she wanted to press charges. LPN #1 stated SW#1 lifted Resident #1's tee shirt, and they both observed red marks on the resident's back. She stated that SW#1 told the ADON that the resident had red marks on their back. LPN #1 stated she asked the ADON what are we doing with the resident. LPN #1 stated SW#1 took Resident #1 downstairs to her office. LPN #1 heard an overhead page for CNA#2 and the SM to report to the first floor, was unsure how long it was after the incident occurred, but it was not immediate. LPN#1 stated CNA #2 and the SM left the unit after the overhead page. LPN #1 stated she received a call from the DON asking her and CNA#1 to write a witness statement. LPN #1 stated she wrote her witness statement and brought both her and CNA #1's original witness statements to the DON's office. Upon her return to the unit, she received a phone call from the ADON stating that Resident #1 was going to the hospital. LPN#1 further stated that the ADON told her that Resident #1 and their roommate (Resident #4) were being moved to the seventh-floor unit. Resident #1 was not moved to the seventh floor unit because he/she was transferred to the hospital. She stated she received Resident #1's universal transfer form (UTF) already completed by the ADON. She took Resident #1's chart and the UTF to the seventh-floor unit and observed CNA #2 on that unit. LPN #1 stated she did not observe Resident #1 on the seventh-floor unit. She stated CNA #2 came to work on 10/15/2024, but the SM had called out. LPN #1 further stated that CNA #2 did not work on her unit on 10/15/2024. LPN #1 stated no administrative staff came to talk to me after the incident had occurred. During an interview with the surveyors on 10/22/2024 at 2:48 PM, CNA #3 stated that she was watching the residents in the dayroom around 12:00 PM on 10/14/2024 when she heard a commotion in the hallway. She came out from the dayroom and observed Resident #1 on the floor laying on his/her side. CNA #3 stated she observed the SM pinning down the resident on the floor and CNA #2 was standing there. CNA #3 further stated SW#1 and the ADON came and took Resident #1 downstairs. She stated that when the lunch tray came to the unit, all the CNAs including CNA #2 and the SM passed out the lunch trays. CNA #3 stated she did not see CNA #2 and the SM on the unit after lunch but saw CNA #2 and the SM when she clocked out at the end of her shift at 3:00 PM. CNA #3 stated CNA #2 was assigned as the monitor for Resident #1 on the day of the incident. She stated on the morning of 10/15/2024 she saw CNA #2 on the fifth floor. During an interview with the surveyors on 10/22/2024 at 4:06 PM, SW #1 stated she met the ADON by the elevators on 10/14/2024, and the ADON told her that Resident #1 was upset and wanted her to go to talk with the resident. She stated when she got upstairs, she observed LPN #1 and Resident #1 at the nursing station. She further stated that the resident was yelling they just beat the [profanity] out of me. SW #1 stated Resident #1 pulled his/her tee shirt up and she observed red marks to the resident's back. She told the ADON about the red marks on the resident's back. SW #1 stated she was asked by LPN #1 to take the resident off the unit. SW#1 stated she took the resident to her office on the first floor, and LPN #1 brought the resident's lunch tray. She stated the resident appeared anxious, had excessive speech, and was agitated. SW #1 stated while Resident #1 was eating he/she dropped a piece of mashed potato on the floor, the resident attempted to pick up the mashed potato and stated, oh my back. She stated the resident was still in her office for approximately 45 minutes when she texted the LNHA to let her know the resident was still in her office. During an interview with the surveyors on 10/22/2024 at 4:47 PM, the ADON stated on 10/14/2024, I was told that Resident #1 was having some behaviors and took the over bed table and tried to hit the CNA. The ADON stated she did not know where the resident got the overbed tray table from and was unsure of the staff involved in the incident. She further stated that she was called to the unit by LPN #1. She stated LPN #1 told her that Resident #1 tried to throw the overbed tray table at the aide and the resident and the overbed table went down. The surveyor asked the ADON if LPN#1 made her aware of the abuse allegation and she stated, LPN#1 did not say anything else. The ADON stated that when she got to the unit, she did not see anyone on the floor but saw the overbed tray table broken in half. The ADON further stated she saw Resident #1 and he appeared angry, and she tried to get the resident somewhere quiet. She asked Resident #1 what happened with the overbed tray table, and the resident stated he/she fell. According to the ADON the resident refused an assessment. The ADON called the doctor and got an order to send Resident #1 to the hospital because the resident was on the floor. The ADON stated the reason for Resident #1's transfer to the hospital was because the resident complained of right leg pain, had agitation, and an x-ray was requested. The ADON was unsure of what time Resident #1 went to the hospital. During an interview with the surveyors on 10/22/2024 at 5:01 PM, the DON stated that LPN #1 told her Resident #1 was acting out. The DON stated that when she came to work on 10/15/2024 there were two police officers and a detective at the facility. The DON stated she was asked if she knew what happened to the resident. The DON stated she was asked by the police if she had heard that Resident #1 had been beaten up the day before and the DON stated she told them No. During an interview with the surveyors on 10/22/2024 at 5:03 PM, the LNHA stated on 10/15/2024 the police asked her if she knew Resident #1 had been beaten up. The LNHA stated she knew that the resident had thrown an overbed tray table, the overbed tray table got broken, and the resident had a fall. The LNHA stated she did not call the police because she thought it was a resident to staff incident. The LNHA further stated she normally would have called the police for a resident to resident, staff to resident, and resident to staff incident but did not for this incident. The LNHA further stated she would have called the police if the resident hit the staff or if the resident was a harm to self and others. The LNHA stated she would have considered a resident throwing an overbed tray table a danger to a resident's self and others. The LNHA stated the police should have been notified. The LNHA stated the police came to the facility on [DATE] and talked to the staff and were trying to determine if abuse had occurred. The LNHA further stated she reviewed the camera surveillance on 10/15/2024 in the presence of the police and observed the overbed tray table come out of the resident's room. She also observed CNA#2 and the SM holding Resident #1 on the floor. When asked by the surveyor if the camera surveillance was reviewed on 10/14/2024, the LNHA stated no, I was told the resident threw an overbed tray table and had a fall. I didn't think to review the camera because it was reported as a regular fall. The LNHA stated after reviewing the camera surveillance with the police, she was informed by them that they were taking CNA #2. The LNHA further stated the SM was not at the facility on 10/15/2024. The LNHA determined through the investigation CNA #2 and the SM were trying to hold Resident #1 after the resident threw the overbed tray table. The LNHA stated a physical hold was not a part of how to deal with aggressive residents and a physical hold would be considered a restraint. The LNHA stated the facility did not have a policy on restraints. The surveyors requested a copy of surveillance footage from the LNHA throughout the complaint survey. During exit conference on 10/29/2024 at 3:24 PM, the LNHA stated that the facility was not able to access the footage because 14 days had passed since the incident occurred on 10/14/2024. During a post survey telephone interview with the surveyors on 10/30/2024 at 2:52 PM, the ST stated she was on the third-floor unit to use the bathroom and did not witness the incident with Resident #1 that occurred on 10/14/2024. Review of the facility policy titled Abuse Policy and Procedure updated 8/2014, revealed under Policy that This facility requires that any allegations of abuse be addressed immediately in accordance with all federal and state regulations. All allegations will be evaluated in a prompt and thorough manner. Under Procedure, 6. Any employee alleged to have participated in abusive activity will be removed from care of the involved resident immediately. 9. The RN supervisor will contact the Director of Nursing immediately upon suspicion or confirmation of abuse. If the Director of Nursing is unable to be contacted, the Administrator will be contacted. 10. The Administrator will be contacted regarding all cases of physical and verbal abuse .11. The supervisor/Nurse Manager/Director of Nursing/designee will interview all staff who have provided care. 13. Confused residents will be interviewed with a witness present. 16. Employee statement forms and an incident form will be filled out completely. An Incident Report form will include the following information: a. The name of the involved resident, b. the date and time the incident occurred, c. the circumstances surrounding the incident, d. where the incident took place, e. the name(s) of those participating in the act, f. physician and family notification, g. treatment rendered. 22. Employees who have had allegations of physical abusive treatment will be removed from direct resident care. Review of the facility job description titled Certified Nursing Assistant Job Description updated 10/4/2016 revealed under Patient Care, Treat residents with respect and dignity at all times. Observes and reports unusual symptoms, changes, accidents, and injuries to the charge nurse. N.J.A.C:8:39-4.1(a)(5)
CRITICAL (J) 📢 Someone Reported This

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

Immediate Jeopardy (IJ) - the most serious Medicare violation

Investigate Abuse (Tag F0610)

Someone could have died · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Complaint # NJ178530 Based on interviews, medical record review, and review of other pertinent facility documentation on 10/22/2...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Complaint # NJ178530 Based on interviews, medical record review, and review of other pertinent facility documentation on 10/22/2024, 10/23/2024, 10/24/2024, and 10/29/2024, it was determined that the facility failed to conduct a timely and thorough investigation for an allegation of witnessed and reported staff to resident physical abuse toward a resident (Resident #1). On 10/14/2024 at approximately 11:58 AM, the Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA#1) stated she observed Resident #1 on the floor in the hallway with CNA #2 and the Smoking Monitor (SM) hitting Resident #1, at which time she ran to get the Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN#1) who was already on her way to the hallway. LPN #1 stated she heard a loud bang and yelling in the hallway. LPN #1 responded to the hallway and saw Resident #1 laying on the floor in the hallway yelling please stop, get them off of me. LPN #1 stated she observed CNA #2 kicking Resident #1 and the SM hitting Resident #1 with his fist. LPN #1 told both staff members (CNA #2 and SM) to stop and to get off the resident. LPN#1 stated CNA #2 and the SM did not immediately stop and get off the resident. She had to repeat the request. LPN#1 stated the SM said, Its ok we are told to do this. LPN #1 stated she assisted Resident #1 off the floor to the nursing station and immediately reported the incident to the Assistant Director of Nursing (ADON). CNA #2 and the SM went down to the other side of the hallway and passed the lunch trays. The Social Worker (SW#1) stated the ADON got her to come to the unit. SW#1 stated Resident #1 was yelling They just beat the [profanity] out of me. SW#1 stated while at the nursing station, she observed the resident's back when Resident #1 lifted his/her tee shirt. SW#1 reported the observation to the ADON. SW#1 stated she was asked by LPN#1 to take Resident #1 to her office on the first floor. SW#1 stated Resident #1 complained of back pain. During an interview with SW#1, she stated Resident #1 stated oh my back when he/she attempted to pick food up off the floor. The ADON stated Resident #1 told her that he/she fell, and an order was obtained from the Medical Doctor to send Resident #1 to the hospital for a fall. On 10/14/2024, Resident #1 was admitted to the hospital with diagnoses of splenic laceration, subcapsular hematoma, and an active bleed. The facility also failed to follow its policy titled Conducting an Investigation of all Incidents/Accidents and Abuse Policy and Procedure. This placed Resident #1 and all other residents at risk for an Immediate Jeopardy (IJ) situation. This IJ was identified on 10/22/2024 at 8:50 PM and was reported to the Licensed Nursing Home Administrator (LNHA), the Director of Nursing (DON), and ADON. The LNHA, DON, and ADON were presented with the IJ template. The IJ began on 10/14/2024 and continued through 10/29/2024 when the facility submitted an acceptable Removal Plan. On 10/29/2024, an onsite revisit was conducted to verify the facility implemented the Removal Plan. The facility re-educated all staff on incident investigations, the importance of collecting all written statements, utilizing the social worker to assist in obtaining the resident statements, assuring the original signed statements are turned into the abuse coordinator, and reporting all incidents to the abuse coordinator immediately. The noncompliance remained on 10/29/24 as a level G for actual harm that is not an IJ based on the following: Resident #1 is no longer at the facility, CNA #2 and the SM no longer work at the facility, and all facility staff have been re-educated on incident investigations, importance of collecting all written statements, utilizing the social worker to assist in obtaining the resident statements, assuring the original signed statements are turned in to the abuse coordinator, and reporting all incidents to the abuse coordinator immediately. This deficient practice was identified for 1 of 7 residents (Resident #1) and was evidenced by the following: According to the Facility's Reportable Event (FRE), a New Jersey Department of Health (NJDOH) document used by healthcare facilities to report incidents dated 10/15/2024, Resident #1 was upset while in his/her room and threw an overbed tray table at a staff member outside Resident #1's room on 10/14/2024. While throwing the overbed tray table, Resident #1 lost balance and fell to the floor. While on the floor, Resident #1 continued to be a danger to the staff and others. Staff attempted to subdue Resident #1 by using gentle resistance while on the floor. Resident #1 was sent to the hospital for further evaluation. While at the hospital, Resident #1 stated to hospital staff that he/she had been beaten up by two staff members. The police department notified the facility on 10/15/2024 of Resident #1's allegation. According to the FRE, a full investigation was initiated on 10/15/2024. Both staff members were suspended pending an investigation on 10/15/2024. According to the facility's document titled Summary of Investigation with a date reported of 10/15/2024 under Summary, Resident #1 sustained injuries when he/she fell on top of the overbed tray table while trying to continue an attack on the staff member. Resident #1 had a history of aggression towards others and staff were protecting residents and themselves while trying to keep Resident #1 from continuing aggression. The staff were concerned for everyone's safety and tried to keep Resident #1 down on the floor to avoid Resident #1 from hurting others. They were too aggressive while trying to keep Resident #1 down to prevent further aggression from Resident #1. According to the admission Record (AR), Resident #1 was admitted to the facility on [DATE], with diagnoses which included but were not limited to: Traumatic Brain Injury (a head injury causing damage to the brain), Impulse Disorder (an inability to control impulses and behaviors), and Schizoaffective Disorder (a chronic mental health condition that combines symptoms of psychosis with symptoms of mood disorders). According to the admission Minimum Data Set (MDS), an assessment tool dated 08/09/2024, Resident #1 had a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of 3 out of 15, which indicated the resident's cognition was severely impaired. The MDS further indicated Resident #1 was on antipsychotic medications and had no behaviors that were exhibited towards others. According to the Discharge MDS dated [DATE], Section A, a discharge assessment indicated return anticipated. The MDS further indicated that Resident #1 had physical and behavioral symptoms directed towards others. A review of Resident #1's Care Plan (CP) initiated on 08/25/2024 revealed under Focus: Resident #1 is the aggressor in a physically altercation with peer related to poor impulse control. The Goal included Resident #1 will not harm others through the review date. Interventions initiated on 08/25/2024 included: When Resident #1 becomes agitated, intervene before agitation escalates. Guide away from source of distress. Engage calmly in conversation. If response is aggressive, staff to walk calmly away and approach later. A review of Resident #1's Progress notes (PNs) dated 10/14/2024 at 2:24 PM written by the ADON revealed Resident #1 became upset while in the room and threw an overbed tray table at a staff member outside the room door. During the throwing of the overbed tray table, Resident #1 lost his/her balance and fell to the floor. While on the floor, Resident #1 continued to be a danger to the staff. Staff attempted to subdue Resident #1 using gentle resistance while on the floor. Resident #1 was given time to calm down before being assisted to a standing position. Resident #1 was taken off the unit with Social Services (SS) to further calm down. The physician was informed of Resident #1's behaviors. An order was secured to send Resident #1 to the hospital for a behavioral evaluation and x-ray of the right hip and ribs. A review of Resident #1's PNs dated 10/14/2024 at 9:35 PM revealed at 5:30 PM, Resident #1 was picked up by transport via stretcher to the emergency room (ER). A review of CNA #2 and the SM's personnel files revealed that both staff had training on abuse and how to deal with aggressive residents. During an interview with the surveyors on 10/22/2024 at 1:04 PM, CNA #1 stated that on 10/14/2024 at 11:58 AM, she walked out of the dayroom, she heard a commotion and observed Resident #1 on the floor in the hallway between Resident #1's room and the dayroom on his/her back with CNA#2 and the SM hitting resident with their fists. CNA #1 stated the camera could show you better. CNA #1 further stated she ran to get LPN#1 who responded to the incident. CNA #1 stated that CNA# 2 and the SM continued to work the rest of the shift on another unit. She stated that Resident #1 went to the hospital the same day the incident occurred but was unsure of the time. CNA #1 stated that Resident #1 can be aggressive at times but re-directable with a calm approach. CNA #1 stated she heard both CNA #2 and the SM tell LPN #1 that Resident #1 got upset because resident was told to wait to go out to smoke. During a subsequent interview with the surveyors on 10/23/2024 at 3:23 PM, CNA #1 stated I wrote my statement on 10/14/2024 and gave the original copy to LPN#1. During an interview with the surveyors on 10/22/2024 at 1:27 PM, LPN #1 stated she worked on 10/14/2024 and was assigned Resident #1. LPN #1 stated she was in the charting room speaking with the Speech therapist (ST) and heard a loud bang and yelling. LPN #1 stated the ST and herself immediately got up and as she was coming out of the charting room door, she was met by CNA #1 who was coming to get her. LPN #1 stated she looked down the hallway where the yelling was coming from and observed Resident #1 laying in the hallway in front of his/her room. LPN #1 stated she heard Resident #1 yelling please stop, get them off of me. LPN #1 further stated that the ST was behind her and stated, Oh my God, what are they doing to him? LPN #1 stated she observed CNA #2 kicking Resident #1 and the SM punching Resident #1. LPN #1 stated Resident #1 was laying on his/her side. LPN #1 stated she told CNA #2 and the SM to stop and get off the resident. CNA #2 and the SM did not immediately stop. She had to repeat the request. CNA#2 and the SM stopped hitting the resident. LPN #1 further stated that the SM said, its ok, we are told to do this. LPN#1 was unsure of who told both staff they could hit and punch the resident. LPN #1 stated she assisted the resident off the floor to the nursing station and immediately reported the incident to the ADON. She stated that CNA #2 and the SM went down the other hallway and passed out the lunch trays. LPN #1 further stated I don't know what time, but CNA #2 and the SM were moved off the floor to the other units. LPN #1 stated Social Worker (SW#1) and the ADON came to the unit after the incident. SW#1 stayed with her and the resident at the nursing station. LPN#1 stated, I don't know where the ADON went. LPN #1 further stated Resident #1 complained of pain all over and asked her to call the police because he/she wanted to press charges. LPN #1 stated SW#1 lifted Resident #1's tee shirt, and they both observed red marks on the resident's back. She stated that SW#1 told the ADON that the resident had red marks on his/her back. LPN #1 stated she asked the ADON what are we doing with the resident. LPN #1 stated SW#1 took Resident #1 downstairs to her office. LPN #1 heard an overhead page for CNA#2 and the SM to report to the first floor, was unsure how long it was after the incident occurred, but it was not immediate. LPN#1 stated CNA #2 and the SM left the unit after the overhead page. LPN #1 stated she received a call from the DON asking her and CNA#1 to write a witness statement. LPN #1 stated she wrote her witness statement and brought both her and CNA #1's original witness statement to the DON's office. Upon her return to the unit, LPN #1 received a phone call from the ADON stating that Resident #1 was going to the hospital. LPN#1 further stated that the ADON told her that Resident #1 and their roommate (Resident #4) were being moved to the seventh-floor unit. Resident #1 was not moved to the seventh-floor unit and was transported to the hospital. She stated she received Resident #1's universal transfer form (UTF) already completed by the ADON. She took Resident #1's chart and the UTF to the seventh-floor unit and observed CNA #2 on that unit. LPN #1 stated she did not observe Resident #1 on the seventh-floor unit. She stated CNA #2 came to work on 10/15/2024, but the SM had called out. LPN #1 further stated that CNA #2 did not work on her unit on 10/15/2024. LPN #1 stated no administrative staff came to talk to me after the incident had occurred, but LPN #1 wrote a statement for the incident that occurred on 10/14/2024. LPN#1 stated the process after an incident was for the nurse on the unit to complete the incident report, obtain witness statements from all staff on the unit, and complete an assessment of the resident(s) involved. She stated they (Administration) did not make me fill it out (incident report). During an interview with the surveyors on 10/22/2024 at 3:22 PM, the DON stated when an incident occurs the nurse assigned the resident is responsible for completing an incident report. The DON stated, I guess that day it was not filled out. The DON confirmed that no incident report was completed for Resident #1 on 10/14/2024. The DON stated the expectation was that the charge nurse should have filled out an incident report and gathered witness statements after the incident occurred. The DON further stated the next day either the ADON or herself would review the incident report and were responsible to ensure there was an incident report with witness statements. The DON further stated, We did not ask the nurse why an incident report was not completed. The DON confirmed there was no incident report or witness statements regarding 10/14/2024 incident involving Resident #1. The DON stated the expectation was to have an incident report and witness statements completed after an incident occurred. During an interview with the surveyors on 10/22/2024 at 3:22PM, the ADON stated as a team, we go over the incident reports in morning meeting. This has not happened in this case with Resident #1. During an interview with the surveyors on 10/22/2024 at 4:06 PM, SW #1 stated she met the ADON by the elevators on 10/14/2024, and the ADON told her that Resident #1 was upset and wanted her to go to talk with the resident. She stated when she got upstairs, she observed LPN #1 and Resident #1 at the nursing station. SW #1 stated Resident #1 pulled his/her tee shirt up and she observed red marks to the resident's back. She told the ADON about the red marks on the resident's back. SW #1 stated she was asked by LPN #1 to take the resident off the unit. SW#1 stated she took the resident to her office on the first floor, and LPN #1 brought the resident's lunch tray. SW #1 stated she believed Resident #1 said to call the cops. She stated the resident appeared anxious, had excessive speech, and was agitated. SW #1 stated while Resident #1 was eating he/she dropped a piece of mashed potato on the floor, the resident attempted to pick up the mashed potato and stated, oh my back. She stated the resident was still in her office for approximately 45 minutes when she texted the LNHA to let her know the resident was still in her office. SW #1 stated she came to work the next day and the police were at the facility. SW#1 stated she did not speak with the police. SW #1 stated she did not recall why the police were at the facility. SW#1 stated she did not know anything until she read an article online about two staff members at the facility that were detained, and a resident was in the hospital in critical condition. SW #1 further stated she was not asked to write a statement. SW #1 stated she did not speak to any staff or residents about the incident that occurred. SW #1 stated if an abuse allegation occurred, it was to be reported to the LNHA who was the abuse coordinator. SW #1 stated that if the LNHA was not there she would report the allegation to the DON or ADON. SW #1 further stated that she would await instruction from the LNHA. SW #1 stated the LNHA would tell her to interview the resident. SW #1 stated she would report the abuse allegation and then await further instruction from the LNHA. SW #1 stated she did not ask Resident #1 who beat him/her up. SW #1 stated that Resident #1 pointed to the two staff members in the hallway after the incident occurred and the resident stated, they just beat the [profanity] out of me. SW #1 stated she assumed the two staff members were CNA #2 and the SM because she had seen their pictures on the internet after the incident occurred. SW #1 further stated she had not spoken to any residents on CNA #2 and the SM's assignments. SW#1 stated the LNHA did not ask her to speak to any of the residents cared for on 10/14/2024 by CNA #2 and the SM as of 10/22/2024. SW#1 stated she did not speak to Resident #1 about the incident. During an interview with the surveyors on 10/22/2024 at 5:01 PM, the DON stated that LPN #1 told her Resident #1 was acting out. The DON stated that when she came to work on 10/15/2024 there were two police officers and a detective at the facility. The DON stated she was asked if she knew what happened to the resident. The DON stated she was asked by the police if she had heard that Resident #1 had been beaten up the day before and the DON stated she told them No. During an interview with the surveyors on 10/22/2024 at 5:03 PM, the LNHA stated on 10/15/2024 the police asked her if she knew Resident #1 had been beaten up on 10/14/2024. The LNHA stated she knew that the resident had thrown an overbed tray table, the overbed tray table got broken, and the resident had a fall. The LNHA stated she did not call the police because she thought it was a resident to staff incident. The LNHA further stated she normally would have called the police for a resident to resident, staff to resident, and resident to staff incident but did not for this incident. The LNHA further stated she would have called the police if the resident hit the staff or if the resident was a harm to self and others. The LNHA stated she would have considered a resident throwing an overbed tray table, a danger to resident's self and others. The LNHA stated the police should have been notified. The LNHA stated the police came to the facility on [DATE] and talked to the staff and were trying to determine if abuse had occurred. The LNHA stated she reviewed the camera surveillance on 10/15/2024 in the presence of the police and observed the overbed tray table come out of the resident's room. She also observed CNA#2 and the SM holding Resident #1 on the floor. When asked by the surveyor if the camera surveillance was reviewed on 10/14/2024, the LNHA stated no, I was told the resident threw an overbed tray table and had a fall. I didn't think to review the camera because it was reported as a regular fall. The LNHA further stated an incident report should have been completed for the fall and the incident that occurred on 10/14/2024. During an interview with the surveyors on 10/23/2024 at 12:48 PM, the LNHA stated she was the abuse coordinator. The LNHA stated once an abuse allegation was made, the staff was to report it to the SW and herself and they would start the investigation. She stated the nurse on the floor would collect the witness statements and the SW would interview and gather statements from the resident(s) involved. The LNHA stated there were no instances where the SW would not have collected resident statements when an abuse allegation occurred. She further stated, I cannot speak to why there were no statements gathered for the other residents for the incident on 10/14/2024. The LNHA stated, I know the SW talked to the other residents after the incident. The LNHA further stated the expectation was that the SW should have talked to Resident #1 and other residents on CNA #2 and the SM's assignments after the incident occurred. The LNHA stated that she agreed that some of the steps of the abuse and investigation policies were not followed for the incident on 10/14/2024. The LNHA confirmed that SW#1 should have started an investigation and reported the incident to her on 10/14/2024. The LNHA stated I was not made aware of the marks seen by SW#1 and the ADON on 10/14/2024. All I knew was the resident fell. The LNHA stated the witness statements were written and collected on 10/15/2024. During a third interview with the surveyors on 10/23/2024 at 3:05 PM, the LNHA stated she was told the employees' written statements were left in the DON's mailbox. The LNHA stated I think the employees have the original statements and left the copies in the DON's mailbox. The LNHA stated the nurse would collect the statements and put them in the mailbox. The LNHA stated The DON would be the first person to collect and look at the statements if they are put in her mailbox. The LNHA further stated, Yes, for the 10/14/2024 incident the witness statements were all put in the DON's mailbox. During an interview with the surveyors on 10/23/2024 at 3:23 PM, CNA #1 stated I wrote my statement on 10/14/2024 and gave the original copy to LPN #1. During an interview with the surveyors on 10/23/2024 at 3:27 PM, the DON stated copies of the written statements were in her mailbox on 10/15/2024. The DON further stated, I don't remember off the top of my head, who the statements were from. The DON stated she does not review the witness statements and the final investigation. The DON stated she has not reviewed the witness statements for the incident that occurred on 10/14/2024. The DON confirmed she took the witness statements regarding the 10/14/2024 incident out of her mailbox on 10/15/2024. The DON stated, I don't know who would read the witness statements. The facility was unable to provide written statements from CNA #2 and the SM. The surveyors requested a copy of the surveillance footage from the LNHA throughout the complaint survey. During exit conference on 10/29/2024 at 3:24 PM, the LNHA stated that the facility was not able to access the footage because 14 days had passed since the incident occurred on 10/14/2024. Review of the facility policy titled Abuse Policy and Procedure updated 8/2014, revealed under Policy that This facility requires that any allegations of abuse be addressed immediately in accordance with all federal and state regulations. All allegations will be evaluated in a prompt and thorough manner. Under Procedure, 9. The RN supervisor will contact the Director of Nursing immediately upon suspicion or confirmation of abuse. If the Director of Nursing is unable to be contacted, the Administrator will be contacted. 10. The Administrator will be contacted regarding all cases of physical and verbal abuse .11. The Supervisor/Nurse Manager/Director of Nursing/designee will interview all staff who have provided care. 13. Confused residents will be interviewed with a witness present. 16. Employee statement forms and an incident form will be filled out completely. An Incident Report form will include the following information: a. The name of the involved resident, b. the date and time the incident occurred, c. the circumstances surrounding the incident, d. where the incident took place, e. the name(s) of those participating in the act, f. physician and family notification, g. treatment rendered. Review of the undated facility policy titled Conducting an Investigation of all Incidents/Accidents revealed under Policy Statement, It is the policy of this Center to make every effort to investigate any/all incidents/accidents of residents. Under Purpose, to provide appropriate action that can be taken to correct the situation and prevent reoccurrence by gathering all pertinent information about the incident that is reported through a complaint or other report. Under Policy Interpretation and Implementation, A. Initial Investigation: 4. If there appears to be a possibility of abuse, mistreatment, or neglect, the RN supervisor or designee: a. Completes the Resident Incident report, b. Notifies the DON and Administrator. 5. If the incident involves an allegation of abuse, neglect, or mistreatment against an employee, the RN supervisor or designee interviews the employee, gets a written statement, and suspends the employee pending an investigation. The employee is removed from duty for the protection of the residents during the investigation. 7. The Director of Nursing Services or designee reviews the investigation to determine if the incident should be reported as suspected abuse. B. Organizing and conducting the investigation: 1. The RN supervisor or designee starts the investigation immediately. 4. The police should be notified in cases of assault. D. Taking Statements: 1. Never take a statement until you have interviewed them. 3. Remain with the witness as they write the statement. NJAC 8:39-4.1(a)5
CRITICAL (J) 📢 Someone Reported This

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

Immediate Jeopardy (IJ) - the most serious Medicare violation

Comprehensive Care Plan (Tag F0656)

Someone could have died · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Complaint #: NJ178530 Based on interviews, medical record review, and review of other pertinent facility documentation on 10/22/...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Complaint #: NJ178530 Based on interviews, medical record review, and review of other pertinent facility documentation on 10/22/2024, 10/23/2024, 10/24/2024, and 10/29/2024, it was determined that the facility failed to a.) implement care plan (CP) interventions for a resident (Resident #1) with a known history of physically aggressive behaviors towards others and diagnoses of Traumatic Brain Injury (a head injury causing damage to the brain), Impulse Disorder (an inability to control impulses and behaviors), and Schizoaffective Disorder (a chronic mental health condition that combines symptoms of psychosis with symptoms of mood disorders). On 10/14/2024 at approximately 11:58 AM, the Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA#1) stated she observed Resident #1 on the floor in the hallway with CNA #2 and the Smoking Monitor (SM) hitting Resident #1, at which time she ran to get the Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN#1) who was already on her way to the hallway. LPN #1 stated she heard a loud bang and yelling in the hallway. LPN #1 responded to the hallway and saw Resident #1 laying on the floor in the hallway yelling please stop, get them off of me. LPN #1 stated she observed CNA #2 kicking Resident #1 and the SM hitting Resident #1 with his fist. LPN #1 told both staff members (CNA #2 and SM) to stop and to get off the resident. LPN#1 stated CNA #2 and the SM did not immediately stop and get off the resident. She had to repeat the request. LPN#1 stated the SM said, Its ok we are told to do this. LPN #1 stated she assisted Resident #1 off the floor to the nursing station and immediately reported the incident to the Assistant Director of Nursing (ADON). CNA #2 and the SM went down to the other side of the hallway and passed the lunch trays. The Social Worker (SW#1) stated the ADON got her to come to the unit. SW #1 stated Resident #1 was yelling They just beat the [profanity] out of me. SW#1 stated while at the nursing station, she observed the resident's back when Resident #1 lifted his/her tee shirt. SW #1 reported the observation to the ADON. SW#1 stated she was asked by LPN#1 to take Resident #1 to her office on the first floor. SW #1 stated Resident #1 complained of back pain. During an interview with the SW, the SW stated while Resident #1 stated oh my back while attempting to pick up food from off the floor. The ADON stated Resident #1 told her that he/she fell and an order was obtained from the Medical Director to send Resident #1 to the hospital for a fall. On 10/14/2024, Resident #1 was admitted to the hospital with diagnoses of splenic laceration, subcapsular hematoma, and an active bleed. The facility also failed to follow its policy titled Care Plan. This placed Resident #1 and all other residents at risk for an Immediate Jeopardy (IJ) situation. This IJ was identified on 10/22/2024 at 8:50 PM and was reported to the Licensed Nursing Home Administrator (LNHA), the Director of Nursing (DON), and ADON. The LNHA, DON, and ADON were presented with the IJ template. The IJ began on 10/14/2024 and continued through 10/29/2024 when the facility submitted an acceptable Removal Plan. On 10/29/2024, a revisit to verify the Removal Plan was conducted. The facility implemented the Removal Plan, which included education on ensuring CP interventions were implemented, the location of the CPs, how to read the CPs, the importance of following the CPs, and how to update the CPs. Audits were conducted that monitor compliance with the implementation and following of the CP interventions or if updates to the CP were required. The noncompliance remained on 10/29/24 as a level G for actual harm that is not an IJ based on that the facility staff have been educated on how to ensure CP interventions were implemented, the location of the CPs, how to read the CPs, the importance of following the CPs, and how to update the CPs. Audits were conducted that monitor compliance with the implementation and following of the CP interventions and if updates to the CP were required. This deficient practice was identified for 1 of 7 residents (Resident #1) and was evidenced by the following: According to the Facility's Reportable Event (FRE), a New Jersey Department of Health (NJDOH) document used by healthcare facilities to report incidents dated 10/15/2024, Resident #1 was upset while in his/her room and threw an overbed tray table at a staff member outside of Resident #1's room on 10/14/2024. While throwing the overbed tray table, Resident #1 lost balance and fell to the floor. While on the floor, Resident #1 continued to be a danger to the staff and others. Staff attempted to subdue Resident #1 by using gentle resistance while on the floor. Resident #1 was sent to the hospital for further evaluation. While at the hospital, Resident #1 stated to hospital staff that he/she had been beaten up by two staff members. The police department notified the facility on 10/15/2024 of Resident #1's allegation. According to the FRE, a full investigation was initiated on 10/15/2024. Both staff members were suspended pending an investigation on 10/15/2024. According to the facility's document titled Summary of Investigation with a date reported of 10/15/2024 under Summary, Resident #1 sustained injuries when he/she fell on top of the overbed tray table while trying to continue an attack on the staff member. Resident #1 had a history of aggression towards others and staff were protecting residents and themselves while trying to keep Resident #1 from continuing aggression. The staff were concerned for everyone's safety and tried to keep Resident #1 down on the floor to avoid Resident #1 from hurting others. They were too aggressive while trying to keep Resident #1 down to prevent further aggression from Resident #1. According to the admission Record (AR), Resident #1 was admitted to the facility on [DATE], with diagnoses which included but were not limited to: Traumatic Brain Injury, Impulse Disorder, and Schizoaffective Disorder. According to the admission Minimum Data Set (MDS), an assessment tool dated 08/09/2024, Resident #1 had a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of 3 out of 15, which indicated the resident's cognition was severely impaired. The MDS further indicated Resident #1 was on antipsychotic medications and had no behaviors that were exhibited towards others. According to the Discharge MDS dated [DATE], Section A, a discharge assessment indicated return anticipated. Section E revealed that Resident #1 had physical and behavioral symptoms directed toward others. A review of Resident #1's CP initiated on 8/25/2024 revealed under Focus: Resident #1 is the aggressor in a physically altercation with peer related to poor impulse control. Under Goal revealed Resident #1 will not harm others through the review date. Under Interventions initiated on 8/25/2024 revealed the following: When Resident #1 becomes agitated, intervene before agitation escalates. Guide away from source of distress. Engage calmly in conversation. If response is aggressive, staff to walk calmly away and approach later. Resident #1 was sent to ER for behavioral evaluation. A review of Resident #1's Progress notes (PNs) dated 10/14/2024 at 2:24 PM written by the ADON revealed Resident #1 became upset while in the room and threw an overbed table at a staff member outside the room door. During the throwing of the overbed table, Resident #1 lost their balance and fell to the floor. While on the floor, Resident #1 continued to be a danger to the staff. Staff attempted to subdue Resident #1 using gentle resistance while on the floor. Resident #1 was given time to calm down before being assisted to a standing position. Resident #1 was taken off the unit with Social Services (SS) to further calm down. The Physician was informed of Resident #1's behaviors. An order was secured to send Resident #1 to the hospital for a behavioral evaluation and x-ray of the right hip and ribs. A review of Resident #1's PNs dated 10/14/2024 at 9:35 PM revealed at 5:30 PM, Resident #1 was picked up by transport via stretcher to the ER. During an interview with the surveyors on 10/22/2024 at 5:01 PM, the DON stated the expectation was that the staff should follow a resident's CP. The DON further stated that a resident could be in danger if the CP was not followed. The DON confirmed that Resident #1's CP was not followed for the incident that occurred on 10/14/2024. During an interview with the surveyors on 10/22/2024 at 5:03 PM, the LNHA stated she was told by the staff that Resident #1 was on the floor and CNA#3 and the SM held Resident #1 down to prevent any further aggression. The LNHA further stated the expectation was to remove either the aggressor or other people from the situation which ever was safer. The LNHA agreed that Resident #1's CP intervention was not followed for the incident that occurred on 10/14/2024. During an interview with the surveyors on 10/24/2024 at 3:11 PM, the ADON stated the importance of the CPs were for staff to know how to care for the residents. The ADON stated the expectation was that CP interventions should be implemented by the staff. The ADON further stated if the care plan interventions were not implemented, it could cause harm to the resident. The ADON stated the interdisciplinary team (IDT) was responsible for implementing interventions on a resident's CP. A review of the facility's undated policy titled Care Plan revealed under Policy Interpretation and Implementation .2. The comprehensive care plan has been designed to: d. reflects treatment goals and objectives in measurable outcomes., e. identifies the professional services that are responsible for each element of care., f. prevent declines in the resident's functional status and/or functional levels. NJAC 8:39-11.2 (b)
CRITICAL (J) 📢 Someone Reported This

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

Immediate Jeopardy (IJ) - the most serious Medicare violation

Administration (Tag F0835)

Someone could have died · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Complaint # NJ178530 Based on interviews, medical record review, and review of other pertinent facility documentation on 10/22/2...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Complaint # NJ178530 Based on interviews, medical record review, and review of other pertinent facility documentation on 10/22/2024, 10/23/2024, 10/24/2024, and 10/29/2024, it was determined that the facility's Licensed Nursing Home Administrator (LNHA) failed to: a.) provide services necessary to prevent physical abuse for a resident (Resident #1), b.) follow the facility's abuse policy by allowing staff members to continue to work with other residents after an abuse allegation occurred, c.) conduct a timely and thorough investigation for a reported witnessed allegation of staff to resident physical abuse, d.) provide accurate and original witness statements to the surveyors for an abuse investigation e.) implement care plan (CP) interventions for a resident (Resident #1) with a known history of physically aggressive behaviors towards others and diagnoses of Traumatic Brain Injury, Impulse Disorder, and Schizoaffective Disorder. On 10/14/2024 at approximately 11:58 AM, the Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA#1) stated she observed Resident #1 on the floor in the hallway with CNA #2 and the Smoking Monitor (SM) hitting Resident #1, at which time she ran to get the Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN#1) who was already on her way to the hallway. LPN #1 stated she heard a loud bang and yelling in the hallway. LPN #1 responded to the hallway and saw Resident #1 laying on the floor in the hallway yelling please stop, get them off of me. LPN #1 stated she observed CNA #2 kicking Resident #1 and the SM hitting Resident #1 with his fist. LPN #1 told both staff members (CNA #2 and SM) to stop and to get off the resident. LPN#1 stated CNA #2 and the SM did not immediately stop and get off the resident. She had to repeat the request. LPN#1 stated the SM said, Its ok we are told to do this. LPN #1 stated she assisted Resident #1 off the floor to the nursing station and immediately reported the incident to the Assistant Director of Nursing (ADON). CNA #2 and the SM went down to the other side of the hallway and passed the lunch trays. The Social Worker (SW#1) stated the ADON got her to come to the unit. SW#1 stated Resident #1 was yelling They just beat the [profanity] out of me. SW#1 stated while at the nursing station, she observed the resident's back when Resident #1 lifted his/her tee shirt. SW #1 reported the observation to the ADON. SW#1 stated she was asked by LPN#1 to take Resident #1 to her office on the first floor. SW #1 stated Resident #1 complained of back pain. During an interview with the SW#1, she stated Resident #1 stated oh my back while attempting to pick up food from off the floor. The ADON stated Resident #1 told her that he/she fell, and an order was obtained from the Medical Director to send Resident #1 to the hospital for a fall. On 10/14/2024, Resident #1 was admitted to the hospital with diagnoses of splenic laceration, subcapsular hematoma, and an active bleed. The facility also failed to follow its job description titled Administrator. This placed all residents at risk for an Immediate Jeopardy (IJ) situation. This IJ was identified on 10/22/2024 at 8:50 PM and was reported to the Licensed Nursing Home Administrator (LNHA), the Director of Nursing (DON), and the ADON. The LNHA, DON, and the ADON were presented with the IJ template. The IJ began on 10/14/2024 and continued through 10/29/2024 when the facility submitted an acceptable Removal Plan. On 10/29/2024, the surveyors conducted an onsite revisit to verify the Removal Plan was implemented. The facility implemented the Removal Plan, which included the two staff members identified (CNA #2 and the SM) were terminated from the facility. Disciplinary action was initiated for the three employees (CNA #1, LPN#1, and SW#1) who witnessed the incident on 10/14/2024 and did not report it to the Abuse Coordinator. Education was provided to all administrative staff about the facility's abuse and investigation policy which included immediate steps taken when an abuse allegation was made and ensuring the safety of all residents. Education was provided to all staff on the importance of preventing abuse, ensuring resident safety, and the importance of following the facility's abuse policy to protect all residents. Education was provided to all staff on the importance of collecting all truthful statements in their original form, utilizing the SW to assist in obtaining resident statements, and assuring the original signed statements were all submitted to the Abuse Coordinator. Education on ensuring implementation of care plan interventions was provided to all the staff. This education included the location of care plans, how to read the care plans, the importance of following the care plans, and how to update the care plans. Audits were conducted that monitor compliance with the implementation, following of care plan interventions, and if updates to the care plan were required. Audits were initiated by the DON that monitor compliance with all staff education. The DON conducted staff assessments and testing to ensure that staff have a true understanding of the facility's abuse policy. The noncompliance remained on 10/29/24 as a level G for actual harm that is not an IJ based on the following: Resident #1 is no longer at the facility, CNA #2 and the SM no longer work at the facility, and all facility staff have been re-educated on the facility's abuse and investigation policy, importance of preventing abuse and ensuring resident safety, importance of collecting all truthful statements in their original form, utilizing the SW to assist in obtaining resident statements, and assuring the original signed statements were all submitted to the abuse coordinator. All facility staff have also been re-educated on ensuring implementation of care plan interventions. The facility began audits on compliance with all staff education and conducted staff assessments and testing to ensure that staff have a true understanding of the facility's abuse policy. This deficient practice was identified for 1 of 7 residents (Resident #1) and was evidenced by the following: According to the Facility's Reportable Event (FRE), a New Jersey Department of Health (NJDOH) document used by healthcare facilities to report incidents dated 10/15/2024, Resident #1 was upset while in his/her room and threw an overbed tray table at a staff member outside of Resident #1's room on 10/14/2024. While throwing of the overbed tray table, Resident #1 lost balance and fell to the floor. While on the floor, Resident #1 continued to be a danger to the staff and others. Staff attempted to subdue Resident #1 by using gentle resistance while on the floor. Resident #1 was sent to the hospital for further evaluation. While at the hospital, Resident #1 stated to hospital staff that he/she had been beaten up by two staff members. The police department notified the facility on 10/15/2024 of Resident #1's allegations. According to the FRE, a full investigation was initiated on 10/15/2024. Both staff members were suspended pending an investigation on 10/15/2024. According to the facility's document titled Summary of Investigation with a date reported of 10/15/2024 under Summary, Resident #1 sustained injuries when he/she fell on top of the overbed tray table while trying to continue an attack on the staff member. Resident #1 had a history of aggression towards others and staff were protecting residents and themselves while trying to keep Resident #1 from continuing aggression. The staff were concerned for everyone's safety and tried to keep Resident #1 down on the floor to avoid Resident #1 from hurting others. They were too aggressive while trying to keep Resident #1 down to prevent further aggression from Resident #1. According to the admission Record (AR), Resident #1 was admitted to the facility with diagnoses which included but were not limited to: Traumatic Brain Injury (a head injury causing damage to the brain), Impulse Disorder (an inability to control impulses and behaviors), and Schizoaffective Disorder (a chronic mental health condition that combines symptoms of psychosis with symptoms of mood disorders). According to the admission Minimum Data Set (MDS), an assessment tool dated 08/09/2024, Resident #1 had a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of 3 out of 15, which indicated the resident's cognition was severely impaired. The MDS further indicated Resident #1 was on antipsychotic medications and had no behaviors that were exhibited towards others. According to the Discharge MDS dated [DATE], Section A, a discharge assessment indicated return anticipated. Section E revealed that Resident #1 had physical and behavioral symptoms directed toward others. A review of Resident #1's Care Plan (CP) initiated on 8/25/2024 revealed under Focus: Resident #1 is the aggressor in a physical altercation with peer related to poor impulse control. Under Goal revealed Resident #1 will not harm others through the review date. Under Interventions initiated on 8/25/2024 revealed the following: When Resident #1 becomes agitated, intervene before agitation escalates. Guide away from source of distress. Engage calmly in conversation. If response is aggressive, staff to walk calmly away and approach later. A review of Resident #1's Progress notes (PNs) dated 10/14/2024 at 2:24 PM written by the ADON revealed Resident #1 became upset while in the room and threw an overbed tray table at a staff member outside the room door. During the throwing of the overbed tray table, Resident #1 lost his/her balance and fell to the floor. While on the floor, Resident #1 continued to be a danger to the staff. Staff attempted to subdue Resident #1 using gentle resistance while on the floor. Resident #1 was given time to calm down before being assisted to a standing position. Resident #1 was taken off the unit with Social Services (SS) to further calm down. The Physician was informed of Resident #1's behaviors. An order was secured to send Resident #1 to the hospital for a behavioral evaluation and x-ray of the right hip and ribs. A review of Resident #1's PNs dated 10/14/2024 at 9:35 PM revealed at 5:30 PM, Resident #1 was picked up by transport via stretcher and taken to the emergency room (ER). During an interview with the surveyors on 10/22/2024 at 1:04 PM, CNA #1 stated that on 10/14/2024 at 11:58 AM, she walked out of the dayroom, heard a commotion, and observed Resident #1 on the floor in the hallway between Resident #1's room and the dayroom on his/her back. She observed CNA#2 and the SM hitting resident with their fists. CNA #1 stated the camera could show you better. CNA #1 further stated she ran to get LPN#1, who responded to the incident. CNA #1 stated that CNA# 2 and the SM continued to work the rest of the shift on another unit. She stated that Resident #1 went to the hospital the same day the incident occurred but was unsure of the time. CNA #1 stated that Resident #1 can be aggressive at times but re-directable with a calm approach. CNA #1 stated she heard both CNA #2 and the SM tell LPN #1 that Resident #1 got upset because resident was told to wait to go out to smoke. During an interview with the surveyors on 10/22/2024 at 1:27 PM, LPN #1 stated she worked on 10/14/2024 and was assigned Resident #1. LPN #1 stated she was in the charting room speaking with the Speech Therapist (ST) and heard a loud bang and yelling. LPN #1 stated the ST and herself immediately got up and as she was coming out of the charting room door, she was met by CNA #1 who was coming to get her. LPN #1 stated she looked down the hallway where the yelling was coming from and observed Resident #1 laying in the hallway in front of his/her room. LPN #1 stated she heard Resident #1 yelling please stop, get them off of me. LPN #1 further stated that the ST was behind her and stated, Oh my God, what are they doing to him? LPN #1 stated she observed CNA #2 kicking Resident #1 and the SM punching Resident #1. LPN #1 stated Resident #1 was laying on his/her. LPN #1 stated she told CNA #2 and the SM to stop and get off the resident. CNA #2 and the SM did not immediately stop. She had to repeat the request. CNA #2 and the SM then stopped hitting the resident. LPN #1 further stated that the SM said, its ok, we are told to do this. When asked by the surveyor if the SM said who told him to this, the LPN said, No, he did not say who told him to do this. LPN #1 stated she assisted the resident off the floor to the nursing station and immediately reported the incident to the ADON. She stated that CNA #2 and the SM went down the other hallway and passed out the lunch trays. LPN #1 further stated I don't know what time, but CNA #2 and the SM were moved off the floor to the other units. LPN #1 stated Social Worker (SW#1) and the ADON came to the unit after the incident. SW#1 stayed with her and the resident at the nursing station. LPN#1 stated, I don't know where the ADON went. LPN #1 further stated Resident #1 complained of pain all over and asked her to call the police because he/she wanted to press charges. LPN #1 stated SW#1 lifted Resident #1's tee shirt, and they both observed red marks on the resident's back. She stated that SW#1 told the ADON that the resident had red marks on their back. LPN #1 stated she asked the ADON what are we doing with the resident. LPN#1 stated SW#1 took Resident #1 downstairs to her office. LPN #1 heard an overhead page for CNA #2 and the SM to report to the first floor, was unsure how long it was after the incident occurred, but it was not immediate. LPN#1 stated CNA #2 and the SM left the unit after the overhead page. LPN#1 stated she received a call from the DON asking her and CNA#1 to write a witness statement. LPN #1 stated she wrote her witness statement and brought both her and CNA #1's original witness statements to the DON's office. Upon her return to the unit, she received a phone call from the ADON stating that Resident #1 was going to the hospital. LPN#1 further stated that the ADON told her that Resident #1 and his/her roommate (Resident #4) were being moved to the seventh-floor unit. Resident #1 was not moved the seventh-floor unit because he/she was transferred to the hospital. She stated she received Resident #1's universal transfer form (UTF) already completed by the ADON. She took Resident #1's chart and the UTF to the seventh-floor unit and observed CNA #2 on that unit. LPN #1 stated she did not observe Resident #1 on the seventh-floor unit. She stated CNA #2 came to work on 10/15/2024, but the SM had called out. LPN #1 further stated that CNA #2 did not work on her unit on 10/15/2024. LPN #1 stated no administrative staff came to talk to me after the incident had occurred. She stated the process after an incident was for the nurse on the unit to complete the incident report, obtain witness statements from all staff on the unit, and complete an assessment of the resident(s) involved. She stated, they [Administration] did not make me fill it out [incident report]. During an interview with the surveyors on 10/22/2024 at 2:48 PM, CNA #3 stated that she was watching the residents in the dayroom around 12:00 PM on 10/14/2024 when she heard a commotion in the hallway. She came out from the dayroom and observed Resident #1 on the floor laying on his/her side. CNA #3 stated she observed the SM pinning down the resident on the floor and CNA #2 was standing there. CNA #3 further stated SW#1 and the ADON came and brought Resident #1 downstairs. She stated that when the lunch tray came to the unit, all the CNAs including CNA #2 and the SM passed out the lunch trays. CNA #3 stated she did not see CNA #2 and the SM on the unit after lunch but however, she saw CNA #2 and the SM when she clocked out at the end of her shift at 3:00 PM. CNA #3 stated CNA #2 was assigned as the monitor for Resident #1 on the day of the incident. She stated on the morning of 10/15/2024 she saw CNA #2 on the fifth-floor unit. During an interview with the surveyors on 10/22/2024 at 3:22 PM, the DON stated when an incident occurs the nurse assigned the resident is responsible for completing an incident report. The DON stated, I guess that day it was not filled out. The DON confirmed that no incident report was completed for Resident #1 on 10/14/2024. The DON stated the expectation was that the charge nurse should have filled out an incident report and gathered witness statements after the incident occurred. The DON further stated the next day either the ADON or herself would review the incident report and were responsible to ensure there was an incident report with witness statements. The DON further stated, We did not ask the nurse why an incident report was not completed. The DON confirmed there was no incident report or witness statements regarding 10/14/2024 incident involving Resident #1. The DON stated the expectation was to have an incident report and witness statements completed after an incident occurred. During an interview with the surveyors on 10/22/2024 at 3:22PM, the ADON stated as a team, we go over the incident reports in morning meeting. This has not happened in this case with Resident #1. During an interview with the surveyors on 10/22/2024 at 4:06 PM, SW #1 stated she met the ADON by the elevators on 10/14/2024, and the ADON told her that Resident #1 was upset and wanted her to go to talk with the resident. She stated when she got upstairs, she observed LPN #1 and Resident #1 at the nursing station. She further stated that the resident was yelling they just beat the [profanity] out of me. SW #1 stated Resident #1 pulled his/her tee shirt up and she observed red marks to the resident's back. She told the ADON about the red marks on the resident's back. SW #1 stated she was asked by LPN #1 to take the resident off the unit. SW#1 stated she took the resident to her office on the first floor, and LPN #1 brought the resident's lunch tray. She stated the resident appeared anxious, had excessive speech, and was agitated. SW #1 stated while Resident #1 was eating he/she dropped a piece of mashed potato on the floor, the resident attempted to pick up the mashed potato and stated, oh my back. She stated the resident was still in her office for approximately 45 minutes when she texted the LNHA to let her know the resident was still in her office. SW #1 stated she came to work the next day and the police were at the facility. SW#1 stated she did not speak with the police. SW #1 stated she did not recall why police were at the facility. SW#1 stated she did not know anything until she read an article online about two staff members at the facility that were detained, and a resident was in the hospital in critical condition. SW #1 further stated she was not asked to write a statement. SW #1 stated she did not speak to any staff or residents about the incident that occurred. SW #1 stated if an abuse allegation occurred, it was to be reported to the LNHA who was the Abuse Coordinator. SW #1 stated that if the LNHA was not there she would report the allegation to the DON or ADON. SW #1 further stated that she would await instruction from the LNHA. SW #1 stated the LNHA would have told her to interview the resident. SW #1 stated she would report the abuse allegation and then await further instruction from the LNHA. SW #1 stated she did not ask Resident #1 who beat him/her up. SW #1 further stated she had not spoken to any residents on CNA #2 and the SM's assignments. SW#1 stated the LNHA did not ask her to speak to any of the residents cared for on 10/14/2024 by CNA #2 and the SM as of 10/22/2024. SW#1 stated she did not speak to Resident #1 about the incident. During an interview with the surveyors on 10/22/2024 at 4:47 PM, the ADON stated on 10/14/2024 that I was told that Resident #1 was having some behaviors and took the over bed tray table and tried to hit the CNA. The ADON stated she did not know where the resident got the overbed tray table from and was unsure of the staff involved in the incident. She further stated that she was called to the unit by LPN #1. She stated LPN #1 told her that the resident tried to throw the overbed tray table at the aide, the resident and the overbed tray table went down. The surveyor asked the ADON if LPN#1 made her aware of the abuse allegation and she stated, LPN#1 did not say anything else. The ADON stated that when she got to the unit, she did not see anyone on the floor but saw the overbed table broken in half. The ADON further stated she saw Resident #1 and he appeared angry and tried to get the resident somewhere quiet. The ADON stated she asked Resident #1 what happened with the overbed tray table, and the resident stated they fell. The ADON stated the resident refused an assessment. The ADON stated she called the doctor and got an order to send Resident #1 to the hospital because resident was on the floor. The ADON stated the reason for Resident #1's transfer to the hospital was because resident complained of right leg pain, had agitation, and an x-ray was requested. The ADON stated she was unsure of what time Resident #1 went to the hospital. During an interview with the surveyors on 10/22/2024 at 5:01 PM, the DON stated that LPN #1 told her Resident #1 was acting out. The DON stated that when she came to work on 10/15/2024 there were two police officers and a detective at the facility. The DON stated she was asked if she knew what happened to the resident. The DON stated she was asked by the police if she had heard that Resident #1 had been beaten up the day before and the DON stated she told them No. The DON further stated the expectation was that staff should follow a resident's care plan. The DON further stated that a resident could be in danger if the care plan was not followed. The DON confirmed that Resident #1's care plan was not followed during the incident that occurred on 10/14/2024. During an interview with the surveyors on 10/22/2024 at 5:03 PM, the LNHA stated on 10/15/2024 police asked her if she knew Resident #1 had been beaten up. The LNHA stated she knew that the resident had thrown an overbed tray table, the overbed tray table got broken, and the resident had a fall. The LNHA stated she did not call the police because she thought it was a resident to staff incident. The LNHA further stated she normally called the police for a resident to resident, staff to resident, and resident to staff incident but did not for this incident. The LNHA further stated she would have called the police if the resident hit the staff or if the resident was a harm to self and others. The LNHA stated she would have considered a resident throwing an overbed tray table, a danger to resident's self and others. The LNHA stated the police should have been notified. The LNHA stated the police came to the facility on [DATE] and talked to the staff and were trying to determine if abuse had occurred. The LNHA stated she reviewed the camera surveillance on 10/15/2024 in the presence of the police and observed the overbed tray table come out of the resident's room. She also observed CNA#2 and the SM holding Resident #1 on the floor. When asked by the surveyor if the camera surveillance was reviewed on 10/14/2024, the LNHA stated no, I was told the resident threw an overbed tray table and had a fall. I didn't think to review the camera because it was reported as a regular fall. The LNHA stated after reviewing the camera surveillance, with the police, she was informed by them that they were arresting CNA #2. The LNHA further stated the SM was not at the facility on 10/15/2024. The LNHA stated she finalized her investigation, and that CNA #2 and the SM were trying to hold Resident #1 after he/she threw the overbed tray table. She stated a physical hold was not a part of how to deal with aggressive residents. The LNHA stated she would consider a physical hold as a restraint. The LNHA stated the facility did not have a policy on restraints. The LNHA further stated an incident report should have been completed for the fall and the incident. The LNHA stated she was told by staff that Resident #1 was on the floor and CNA#3 and the SM held Resident #1 down to prevent any further aggression. The LNHA further stated the expectation was to remove either the aggressor or other people from the situation whatever was safer. The LNHA agreed that Resident #1's care plan intervention was not followed for this incident. During an interview with the surveyors on 10/23/2024 at 12:48 PM, the LNHA stated she was the Abuse Coordinator. The LNHA stated once an abuse allegation was made, the staff was to report it to the SW and herself and they would start the investigation. She stated the nurse on the floor would collect the witness statements and the SW would interview and gather statements from the resident(s) involved. The LNHA stated there were no instances where the SW would not have collected resident statements when an abuse allegation occurred. She further stated, I cannot speak to why there were no statements gathered for the other residents for the incident on 10/14/2024. The LNHA stated, I know the SW talked to other residents after the incident. The LNHA further stated the expectation was that the SW should have talked to Resident #1 and other residents on CNA #2 and SM's assignments after the incident occurred. The LNHA stated that she agreed that some of the steps of the abuse and investigation policies were not followed the incident on 10/14/2024. The LNHA confirmed that SW#1 should have started an investigation and reported the incident to her on 10/14/2024. The LNHA stated I was not made aware of the marks seen by SW#1 and the ADON on 10/14/2024. All I knew was the resident fell. The LNHA stated the witness statements were written and collected on 10/15/2024. During an interview with the surveyors on 10/23/2024 at 1:11 PM, CNA #1 was shown her witness statement that the facility provided to the surveyors. CNA #1 stated Yes, I am confirming that my statement was altered. CNA #1 stated in her original statement she wrote that she had seen her co-workers hit on Resident #1 while resident was on the floor. CNA #1 further stated Yes, I am confirming that the witness statement you are showing me, does not have all the information I put in my original statement. During an interview with the surveyors on 10/23/2024 at 3:05 PM, the LNHA stated she was told the employees' written statements were left in the DON's mailbox. The LNHA stated I think the employees have the original statements and left the copies in the DON's mailbox. The LNHA stated the nurse would collect the statements and would put them in the mailbox. The LNHA stated The DON would be the first person to collect and look at the statements if they are put in her mailbox. The LNHA further stated, Yes, for the 10/14/2024 incident the witness statements were all put in the DON's mailbox. During an interview with the surveyors on 10/23/2024 at 3:23 PM, CNA #1 stated I wrote my statement on 10/14/2024 and gave the original copy to LPN#1. During an interview with the surveyors on 10/23/2024 at 3:25 PM, LPN #1 stated I took my original statement and CNA #1's statement as requested by the DON. I was going to make copies, but the copier was down. I took a screenshot of the original statements. During an interview with the surveyors on 10/23/2024 at 3:27 PM, the DON stated copies of written statements were in her mailbox on 10/15/2024. The DON further stated, I don't remember off the top of my head, who the statements were from. The DON stated she does not review the witness statements and the final investigation. The DON stated she has not reviewed the witness statements for the incident that occurred on 10/14/2024. The DON confirmed she took the witness statements regarding 10/14/2024 incident out of her mailbox on 10/15/2024. The DON stated, I don't know who would read the witness statements. Review of the facility document titled Job Description revealed under Job Title, Administrator. Under Duties and Responsibilities revealed 2. Ensure the development of, implementing and enforcing all policies and procedures. 3. Exercise full and complete authority relative to the employment and placing of all staff within the facility. Review of the facility policy titled Abuse Policy and Procedure updated 8/2014, revealed under Policy that This facility requires that any allegations of abuse be addressed immediately in accordance with all federal and state regulations. All allegations will be evaluated in a prompt and thorough manner. Under Procedure, 6. Any employee alleged to have participated in abusive activity will be removed from care of the involved resident immediately. 9. The RN supervisor will contact the Director of Nursing immediately upon suspicion or confirmation of abuse. If the Director of Nursing is unable to be contacted, the Administrator will be contacted. 10. The Administrator will be contacted regarding all cases of physical and verbal abuse .11. The supervisor/Nurse Manager/Director of Nursing/designee will interview all staff who have provided care. 13. Confused residents will be interviewed with a witness present. 16. Employee statement forms and an incident form will be filled out completely. An Incident Report form will include the following information: a. The name of the involved resident, b. the date and time the incident occurred, c. the circumstances surrounding the incident, d. where the incident took place, e. the name(s) of those participating in the act, f. physician and family notification, g. treatment rendered. 22. Employees who have had allegations of physical abusive treatment will be removed from direct resident care. NJAC 8:39-9.2(a)
SERIOUS (G) 📢 Someone Reported This

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

Actual Harm - a resident was hurt due to facility failures

PASARR Coordination (Tag F0644)

A resident was harmed · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Complaint#: NJ176503, NJ178530 Based on interviews and medical record review on 10/22/2024, 10/23/2024, 10/24/2024, and 10/29/20...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Complaint#: NJ176503, NJ178530 Based on interviews and medical record review on 10/22/2024, 10/23/2024, 10/24/2024, and 10/29/2024, it was determined that the facility failed to implement the recommendations from a resident's Pre-admission Screening and Resident Review (PASARR) level II determination. This deficient practice was identified for 1 of 2 residents reviewed for the PASARR (Resident #1), and was evidenced by the following: According to the admission Record (AR), Resident #1 was admitted to the facility on [DATE], with diagnoses which included but were not limited to: Traumatic Brain Injury (a head injury causing damage to the brain), Impulse Disorder (an inability to control impulses and behaviors), and Schizoaffective Disorder (a chronic mental health condition that combines symptoms of psychosis with symptoms of mood disorders). According to the admission Minimum Data Set (MDS), an assessment tool dated 08/09/2024, Resident #1 had a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of 3 out of 15, which indicated the resident's cognition was severely impaired. The MDS further indicated Resident #1 was on antipsychotic medications and had no behaviors that were exhibited towards others. A review of the PASARR Level II Determination Notification letter by the New Jersey Department of Human Services Division of Mental Health and Addiction Services dated 5/23/2024 revealed that Resident #1 had mental health treatment needs that could be met in a nursing facility. According to the notification, the recommendations made for the resident included the following: 1. Psychiatric consult upon admission to the nursing facility. 2. Routine follow up visits with the Primary Care Physician and Psychiatrist. 3. Medication Monitoring 4. Supportive Counseling 5. Routine Laboratory Testing 6. Formulate and implement a behavioral modification plan to address any behavioral disturbances. 7. Provide education to the client and family on mental illness and medication. 8. Develop a Crisis Intervention/Safety Plan with the client. A review of Resident #1's medical record revealed an initial assessment from the psychologist titled with a date of service of 08/27/2024 (25 days after resident's admission into the facility). Resident #1's medical record did not reveal any visits from the psychiatrist while in the facility. During an interview with the surveyors on 10/24/2024 at 1:32 PM, the Social Worker (SW#2) stated I put the PASARR results and recommendations on the resident's baseline care plan. SW#2 stated the interdisciplinary team (IDT) was responsible for ensuring the PASARR recommendations were implemented. SW#2 further stated, the resident's plan of care would not be comprehensive or complete if recommendations were not followed. During an interview with the surveyors on 10/24/2024 at 1:47 PM, SW#1 stated most of the PASARR recommendations such as a psychiatric consult was already a part of the admission process for a resident. SW #1 stated I think the psychiatric consults were scheduled when the psychiatrist comes to the building. SW #1 further stated she had seen the psychiatrist at least three times a month in the building. SW#1 stated she implemented a Performance Improvement Plan (PIP) for ensuring the PASARR recommendations were on a resident's chart and that recommendations were implemented. SW #1 further stated the PIP was started in March and ended in May. SW#1 further stated she was not aware of issues with the PASARR recommendations being implemented. SW#1 stated the IDT was responsible for implementing the PASARR recommendations. SW #1 further stated it could be a problem for all areas of a resident's care if the PASARR recommendations were not implemented. During an interview with the surveyors on 10/24/2024 at 3:37 PM in the presence of the Licensed Nursing Home Administrator (LNHA), the Director of Nursing (DON) stated Resident #1's PASARR recommendations were not followed because the resident was never seen by a psychiatrist since being admitted to the facility. The DON stated she could not speak to why Resident #1 was not seen by a psychiatrist. During an interview with the surveyors on 10/24/2024 at 3:37 PM in the presence of the DON, the LNHA stated the SW was responsible for putting the PASARR in the resident's electronic medical record. The LNHA stated the resident's care plan was updated based on the PASARR recommendations. The LNHA stated if the resident's care plans were not updated with the PASARR recommendations and were not implemented, the staff would be unable to properly care for the resident. The LNHA further stated she could not speak to why Resident #1 was not seen by a psychiatrist. The surveyors requested a facility policy on PASARR recommendations, and the facility was unable to provide a policy. NJAC 8:39-27.1 (a)
CONCERN (D) 📢 Someone Reported This

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

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

Deficiency F0657 (Tag F0657)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Complaint #: NJ178766, NJ178770 Based on interviews, medical record review, and review of other pertinent facility documents on ...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Complaint #: NJ178766, NJ178770 Based on interviews, medical record review, and review of other pertinent facility documents on 10/22/2024, 10/23/2024, and 10/24/2024, it was determined that the facility failed to update the care plan (CP) with interventions for 2 of 7 residents (Resident #3 & #4) for making an abuse allegation about staff to the local authorities. The facility also failed to follow its policy titled Care Plan. This deficient practice was evidenced by: According to the Facility Reportable Events (FRE), a New Jersey Department of Health (NJDOH) document used by healthcare facilities to report incidents dated 10/18/2024, with an event date of 10/17/2024 and a time of event of 12:30 P.M., pertaining to Resident #3: Local authorities came to the facility stating they were investigating an anonymous call stating, the resident was being abused by staff. An investigation was immediately started in the presence of the local authorities. A body check was completed with the local authorities present in the facility with skin alterations observed on the right side of the resident's body post a fall in the shower on Monday. According to the FRE dated 10/18/2024, with an event date of 10/17/2024 and a time of event of 12:30 P.M., pertaining to Resident #4: Local authorities came to the facility stating they were investigating an anonymous call stating the resident was being abused by staff. An investigation is immediately started in the presence of the local authorities. A body check is completed with the local authorities present in the facility with no skin alterations observed. Review of the Electronic Medical Records (EMRs) was as follows: 1.The surveyor reviewed Resident #3's medical record on 10/24/2024. The admission Record (AR) reflected Resident #3 was admitted to the facility with medical diagnosis which included but not limited to; Hyperlipidemia (too many lipids in the blood), Insomnia (persistent problems falling asleep), and Hypertension (when the pressure in your blood vessels is high). According to the Minimal Data Set (MDS) an assessment tool dated 07/09/2024, Resident #3 had severe cognitive impairment. The resident's CP initiated on 08/17/2023 with a Focus of Resident #3 makes false allegations about staff and or peers. 2. The surveyor reviewed Resident #4's medical record on 10/24/2024. According to the AR Resident #4 was admitted to the facility with medical diagnosis which included but was not limited to; Schizophrenia (a serious mental health condition that affects how people think, feel and behave), Type Two Diabetes Mellitus (a condition in which the body has trouble controlling blood sugar and using it for energy), and Gastro-Esophageal Reflux Disease (a condition is which stomach acid repeatedly flows back up into the tube connecting the mouth and stomach). According to the MDS dated [DATE], the resident had a severe cognitive impairment. The resident's CP initiated on 08/17/2023 with a Focus of Resident #4 makes false allegations about staff and or peers. Resident #3's and #4's CP included no new updates with interventions for making false allegations about staff and peers for the FRE dated 10/18/2024, with an event date of 10/17/2024 and a time of event of 12:30 P.M., During an interview on 10/24/2024 with the Assistant Director of Nursing (ADON), she stated the importance of the CP is how everyone is aware of how to care for residents. She further stated the CP should be updated and revised with interventions by any member of the Interdisciplinary Clinical Team (IDC Team). She said the CP should be updated quarterly, annually, and with any significant changes or events in the resident's status. When asked by the surveyor if the abuse allegation made by Resident #3 and #4 on 10/17/2024 was a significant event, the ADON said Yes, the CP should had been updated with new interventions. The ADON acknowledged the CP for Resident #3 and #4 was not updated and revised with new interventions after the 10/17/2024 abuse allegation. Review of the facility undated policy titled Care Plan, under Policy, reveals: Our facility develops a comprehensive care plan for each resident that includes measurable objectives and timetables to meet the resident's medical, nursing, and psychological needs. Under Policy Interpretation and Implementation #6. Care plans are revised as changes in the resident's condition dictate. Reviews are made at least quarterly. N.[NAME].C.: 8:39-11.2(d)(2)
Apr 2024 1 deficiency
CONCERN (D) 📢 Someone Reported This

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

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

Deficiency F0576 (Tag F0576)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Complaint #: NJ172203 Based on interviews, record review, and facility policy review, the facility failed to honor the rights to have in their possession a personal cell phone for 1 (Resident #1) of 3...

Read full inspector narrative →
Complaint #: NJ172203 Based on interviews, record review, and facility policy review, the facility failed to honor the rights to have in their possession a personal cell phone for 1 (Resident #1) of 3 sampled residents reviewed for resident rights. Findings included: The facility policy titled, Personal Property, revised in September 2012, revealed Residents are permitted to retain and use personal possessions and appropriate clothing, as space permits. A review of Resident #1's admission Record revealed the facility admitted the resident on 02/09/2024 with diagnoses that included heart failure, hyperlipidemia, and depression. A review of Resident #1's admission Minimum Data Set (MDS), with an Assessment Reference Date (ARD) of 02/16/2024, revealed the resident had a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of 8, which indicated the resident had moderate cognitive impairment. A review of Resident#1's care plan, initiated on 02/22/2024, revealed the resident had a potential for alteration in psychosocial well-being due to the resident called 911 instead of a nurse for chest pain. During an interview on 04/04/2024 at 12:33 PM, Resident #1 stated their cell phone was taken away from them because they used it to call 911. Resident #1 stated they did not like it, and now they must use the telephone located in the social services office or the nurses' station to call their family. During a telephone interview on 04/04/2024 at 1:30 PM, Resident #1's family member (FM) stated they bought Resident #1 a cell phone so the resident could communicate with them as they lived in another state. The FM acknowledged they did not ask the facility staff to take the resident's cell phone. The FM stated they were aware the resident called 911, so they asked the facility staff to try and address the resident's concerns. The FM stated they would like the facility to give the resident their cell phone back so they could communicate with each other. During an interview on 04/04/2024 at 11:56 AM, the Social Worker (SW) stated the resident called 911 a lot before they asked the nurses for help. The SW stated now the resident could use the telephone at the nurses' station. The SW acknowledged she took the resident's telephone, and it was now kept in the social services office because the resident called 911 many times during a day. A review of Resident #1's progress note written by the SW and dated 03/14/2024 at 2:41 PM, revealed the SW notified Resident #1's FM that the resident's cell phone was being held in the social services office. During an interview on 04/04/2024 at 12:16 PM, Certified Nurse Aide (CNA) #2 stated he usually assisted Resident #1 to use the telephone that was located at the nurses' station. CNA #2 stated he had not observed the resident with a cell phone in their room. During an interview on 04/04/2024 at 2:17 PM, the Director of Nursing (DON) stated Resident #1's cell phone was taken away because the resident dialed 911 and the emergency authority kept coming to the facility. According to the DON, the resident did not inform the staff of their concerns before they called 911. Per the DON, moving forward the staff would not take the resident's cell phone away from they, the staff would instead, educate the resident to report their concerns to the staff before they called 911. The DON acknowledged the facility did not have a policy related to the use of cell phones. During an interview on 04/04/2024 at 2:25 PM, the Administrator stated the facility would not take away the cell phone from Resident #1 but would continue to educate the resident to not dial 911 and notify the staff of their concerns. New Jersey Administrative Code § 8:39-5.1(a)
Feb 2024 11 deficiencies 1 Harm
SERIOUS (G)

Actual Harm - a resident was hurt due to facility failures

Free from Abuse/Neglect (Tag F0600)

A resident was harmed · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** NJAC 8:39-4.1(a)5 NJAC 8:39-33.2(c)12 Based on record review, interview and policy review, the facility failed to ensure residen...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** NJAC 8:39-4.1(a)5 NJAC 8:39-33.2(c)12 Based on record review, interview and policy review, the facility failed to ensure residents were free from physical abuse for two of seven residents (Resident (R) 191 and R79) reviewed for resident-to-resident abuse. R79 suffered a facial fracture due to physical abuse. The facility failed to ensure residents were free from sexual abuse for one of seven (R116) residents reviewed for sexual abuse. Findings include: 1. Review of R168's admission Record, located in the Profile tab of the electronic medical record (EMR) revealed admission to the facility on [DATE] and was re-admitted on [DATE] with diagnoses including restlessness and agitation, schizoaffective disorder, bipolar disorder, schizophrenia, anxiety disorder and dementia with behavioral disturbance. Review of R168's quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) under the MDS tab of the EMR, with an Assessment Reference Date (ARD) of 12/10/23, revealed a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS), score of three out of 15 which indicated severe cognitive impairment. Review of R168's Care Plan, located under the Care Plan tab of the EMR and dated 01/06/23, revealed The resident was at risk for potential alteration in mood and behavior related to a diagnosis of schizophrenia and dementia with behavior disturbance. Resident had an aggressive altercation with a peer and was the alleged aggressor. Interventions in place were R168 will be kept separate from R79 while in the common room, psychiatrist and psychologist evaluation as needed, psychiatrist to review and change psychotropic medications as needed, resident will change rooms/units upon return to facility, and resident will be offered a facility change. Review of R191's admission Record, located in the Profile tab of the EMR revealed admission to the facility on [DATE] and was re-admitted on [DATE] with diagnosis of schizophrenia. Review of R191's discharge MDS assessment under the MDS tab of the EMR, with an ARD of 05/20/23, revealed BIMS score of three out of 15 which indicated severe cognitive impairment. Review of R191's Care Plan, located under the Care Plan tab of the EMR and dated 03/25/21, revealed The resident was at risk for mood and behavior due to long psychiatric history, periods of increased anxiety and aggression and physical and verbal aggression. Interventions in place were remind resident of 12 step meeting, attempt to build a trusting relationship with resident, attempt to identify situations that may trigger anxiety, encourage relaxation techniques, monitor for nonverbal signs and symptoms of anxiety, be alert to impending violent behaviors, and increase psychomotor activity. Review of a Nurse's Note, in the EMR under the Note tab written by Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) 1 and dated 05/05/23 at 9:13 AM indicated, nurse was called to R168's room, R191 stated he punched me in the eye. R168 was observed sitting in a chair. The DON [Director of Nursing] and physician was made aware and 911 was called to report assault. An order was made to send resident to emergency room (ER) for evaluation. R 191 was removed from the room and R168 was placed on 1:1 [one to one] supervision until transport arrived. During an interview on 02/07/24 at 11:03 AM, LPN1 stated on 05/05/23 she heard something and went into R168's room and observed him sitting on the bed. R191, who was the roommate at the time told her This man was crazy and just punched me in my face. She said both residents were immediately separated, and the DON was made aware. 2. Review of R79's admission Record, located in the Profile tab of the EMR revealed admission to the facility on [DATE] and was re-admitted on [DATE] with diagnoses including schizoaffective disorder, secondary Parkinson's. Review of R79's quarterly MDS assessment under the MDS tab of the EMR, with an ARD of 11/11/23, revealed a BIMS score of nine out of 15 which indicated moderate cognitive impairment. Review of R79's Care Plan, located under the Care Plan tab of the EMR and dated 08/08/23, revealed, The resident was the receiver in an altercation with another peer. Further review revealed staff were to ensure that residents were kept separate from R168 while in common areas. Review of a Nurse's Note, in the EMR under the Notes tab by Registered Nurse (RN) 1 dated 08/07/23 at 3:37 PM indicated, R79 was punched in the back by R168. A skin assessment was completed with noted new bruising to his left mid back area. R79 stated the area was tender to touch but he refused any PRN (as needed) medication. The physician was made aware. 911 was called, R79 and R168 were separated and R168 was placed on 1:1 supervision until he was sent to the ER for evaluation. 3. Review of R53's admission Record, located in the Profile tab of the EMR revealed admission to the facility on [DATE] and was re-admitted on [DATE] with diagnoses including major depressive disorder and generalized anxiety disorder. Review of R53's quarterly MDS assessment under the MDS tab of the EMR, with an ARD of 12/03/23, revealed a BIMS, score of 10 out of 15 which indicated moderate cognitive impairment. Review of R53's Care Plan, located under the Care Plan tab of the EMR and dated 03/04/20, revealed The resident is at risk for mood and behavior due to log psych history, periods of increased agitation and anxiety, conflicts with roommates and verbal and physical aggression. Interventions in place were Caucasian caregiver when available, 2 people in room as needed, attempt to build a trusting relationship with resident, provide consistent caregiver routine, attempt to identify situations that may trigger anxiety, encourage relaxation techniques, monitor for nonverbal signs and symptoms of anxiety, be alert to impending violent behaviors, and increase psychomotor activity, decrease stimuli, and verbal de-escalation techniques. Review of a Nurse's Note, in the EMR under the Notes tab written by LPN8 dated 10/24/23 at 9:01 PM indicated, R79 came to nurses' station with an obvious injury to his face and stated that his roommate R53 hit him multiple times in his face. Spoke with R53 and asked him what happened and R53 stated R79 was making a lot of noise, and he could not sleep, so R53 hit R79. R53 was sent out for psychiatric evaluation and R79 was sent to ER. Review of a Nurse's Note, in the EMR under the Notes tab written by LPN8 dated 10/25/23 at 5:18 AM indicated, R79 returned to the facility around 5:00 am . New diagnosis of fracture of face bones and swelling in right upper eye orbital Review of a Nurse's Note, in the EMR under the Notes tab written by Social Services Director (SSD) dated 10/26/23 at 2:45 PM indicated, she spoke with R79 today about the incident he had with his roommate, R53. R79 said he was having trouble sleeping and does keep his overbed light on for reading. He had his curtain closed and did not mean to upset his former roommate. SSD explained to R79 he had every right to read at night. During an interview on 02/07/24 at 3:20 PM, RN1 stated that she was at the nurse's station on 10/24/23 when R79 walked up to her bleeding and told her R53 hit him but he did not know why. She said she walked back to the resident's room and spoke with R53 who told her I wanted to go sleep and I wanted to go to bed, and he wouldn't let me, so I hit him. RN1 did remember R79 had some facial injuries and some bleeding. Both residents were sent out to the emergency room and when they were readmitted , R53 was placed on another unit. 4. Review of the Investigative Report, provided by the facility, revealed, [R190] was alert and oriented time three and self ambulates with a wheelchair. [R116] was alert and oriented times one and to her immediate environment Summary/Conclusion: [R190] entered room [ROOM NUMBER] without permission and climbed into the bed of [R116]. [R190] was fully clothed at the time he entered her bed. [R116] demanded the resident get out of her bed and room. Review of the admission Record found under the Profile tab of the EMR revealed R116 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with a diagnosis of Schizoaffective, bipolar, depression, and anxiety. Review of the quarterly MDS found under the MDS tab of the EMR, with an ARD of 12/04/23 indicated the resident scored a 99 on her BIMS indicating severe cognitive impairment. Record review of the admission Record in the EMR under the Profile tab revealed R190 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] and discharged immediately after the above incident on 01/30/24 with a diagnosis of dementia, diabetes, mood affective disorder, and low back pain. Review of the quarterly MDS found under the MDS tab of the EMR, with an ARD of 08/21/23 indicated the BIMS score of 11 out of 15 which indicated moderate cognitive impairment. Review of the Progress Note, in the EMR under the Notes tab documented by the SSD dated 01/30/24 at 8:55 AM, titled, Communication with Resident indicated, On 01/24/24, [R190] approached this SSD and asked .if he could visit any of the female residents at that end of the hall? SSD explained that he was not able to visit with any residents in their room as it was a resident's right to privacy issue. All visits must be in the common area dayroom. [R190] expressed an understanding and the conversation ended. Review of the Progress Note in the EMR under the Notes tab dated 01/30/24 at 10:04 AM, revealed the R190 was observed by staff to be in R116's room in her bed, fully clothed. The female resident did not want R190 in her room at the time he was in the room. Staff ensured the resident exited the female resident's room and back to his room. The resident was educated this behavior is not acceptable and immediately placed on 1:1 supervision. A call was placed to the doctor's office to inform of the resident's behavior and sent to hospital for evaluation and has not returned to the facility. Interview with Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA)7 on 02/07/24 at 12:05 PM, CNA7 stated that she saw R190 lying in the bed with R116. He had her in the bed like they were spooning. CNA7 stated she went to go get help and when she returned, R190 had rolled on the floor. Two CNAs helped R190 up and got him out of the room. CNA7 stated she had never seen R190 in R116's room prior to the incident. Interview with Assistant Director of Nursing (ADON) and the Administrator on 02/07/24 at 12:12 AM revealed she had to do a full investigation. The ADON and the Administrator stated they interviewed the CNA who found the resident. The SSD interviewed the residents, and the Administrator interviewed the staff. The Administrator stated they did not interview the SSD because she was not a part of the accusation. When asked about the SSD having knowledge of the resident wanting to visit female residents' rooms prior to the incident, the Administrator stated, every morning we have a morning meeting with all department, in which the SSD attends. The Administrator stated she did not recall anything prior that was brought to our attention about R190 wanting to visit resident's room during the morning meetings. During an interview on 02/08/24 at 11:53 AM, the DON stated that she did not know why there were no specific changes to interventions that were identified and implemented after each of the incidents that occurred. The DON agreed there should have been. The DON said she sees now there should have been something done after the residents were readmitted following the incidents to ensure continued safety for all the residents. During an interview on 02/08/24 at 3:21 PM, the Administrator stated how the facility handled preventing resident-to-resident abuse and identifying new interventions depending on the level of aggression during an incident. They would tell staff on that floor to just keep an eye on the resident but that was not documented and there was no 1:1 supervision. Review of the undated facility's policy titled [Name of Facility] /Abridged Abuse Policy for Annual Review revealed the goal was to keep all residents of [Name of Facility] free from abuse.
CONCERN (D)

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

Resident Rights (Tag F0550)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, record review, interview and policy review, the facility failed to provide care and services in a manner t...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, record review, interview and policy review, the facility failed to provide care and services in a manner that maintained and promoted dignity for two of three sampled residents (Resident (R157 and R88) reviewed for dignity in a sample of 35 residents. Specifically, staff stood while assisting residents with their meals. This failure placed residents at risk for diminished self-worth, self-esteem, and feelings of embarrassment. Findings include: 1 Review of R88's admission Record found in the electronic medical record (EMR) under the Profile tab documented R88 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] and had diagnoses that included adjustment disorder and major depression. Review of the quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) with an Assessment Reference Date (ARD) of 10/06/23 documented R88 had a Brief Interview of Mental Status (BIMS) score of five out of 15 indicating severe cognitive impairment and required maximal assistance with eating. Review of the Care Plan found in the EMR under the Care Plan tab dated 12/30/23 documented: Pt is at risk for aspiration pneumonia. Pt will have 1:1 [one to one] feeding supervision/assistance by staff member during times of oral consumption to provide prompting to perform safe swallowing strategies and due to motoric deficits. During an interview on 02/08/24 at 10:00 AM, the Director of Nurses (DON) said R88 was at risk for aspiration and the staff were to assist/supervise R88 while eating the meal. During an observation on 02/05/24 at 12:44 PM, R88 was seated in the dining room and Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA) 10 was standing on the right side of R88 and was feeding him lunch. After giving R88 some food, CNA10 monitored other residents and then came back and continued to feed R88 while standing. 2. Review of R22's admission Record found in the EMR under the Profile tab documented R22 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] had diagnoses that included Alzheimer's disease and dementia. Review of the quarterly MDS found in the EMR under the MDS tab with an ARD of 10/09/23 documented: R22 had a BIMS score of three out of 15, indicating severe cognitive impairment. During an observation on 02/06/24 at 1:00 PM of the lunch meal revealed R22 was seated at table in the dining room and was eating his lunch independently. At 1:05 PM, CNA10 was standing across from R22, on the other side of the table, reached across the table and gave R22 a few bites of food with his fork. CNA10 then came and stood to the right of R22 and continued to feed R22 using his fork. During an interview on 04/06/24 at 1:06 PM, the Registered Dietician (RD) was observing residents in the fourth-floor dining room and confirmed CNA10 was standing while feeding R22. She stated that staff were to sit when feeding residents and do not stand and lean across a table to feed a resident. During an interview with CNA10 on 04/06/26 at 1:12 PM, he confirmed he was standing while feeding R88 on 02/05/24 and 02/06/24 and R22 on 02/06/24. CNA10 said that staff were to sit when feeding residents. During an interview on 02/06/24 at 4:20 PM, the DON said the staff were to feed one resident at a time and sit when feeding residents to maintain the resident's dignity. Review of the facility's policy titled Quality of Life/Dignity dated 12/2021 documented: Each resident shall be cared for in a manner that promotes and enhances quality of life, dignity, respect, and individuality .sit at the resident's eye level and assist with feeding. NJAC 8:39-4.1(a)12
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0583 (Tag F0583)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

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

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview, record review, document review and policy review, the facility failed to ensure one resident (Resident (R) 46) of 35 sampled residents were maintained in a manner to ensure resident privacy, in that the computer screen on the medication cart was left open revealing R46's medications. This failure placed residents at risk of loss of the right to personal privacy and confidentiality of medical information. Findings include: Review of R46's admission Record located in the Electronic Medical Record (EMR) under the Profile tab documented R46 was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. During an observation on 02/04/24, at 3:55 PM, the computer screen was on the top of the fourth-floor medication cart left open and was displaying R46's medications. The cart was locked and there were no staff member at the medication cart. During an interview on 02/05/24 at 3:58 PM, Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) 3 acknowledged the computer screen had displayed R46's name and medications while she was away from the medication cart giving R46 his insulin. LPN3 stated she was not sure how to turn the computer screen to hidden mode. LPN3 stated the expectation was for the computer screen not to show any resident information when a nurse was not at the medication cart for privacy reasons to prevent anyone from viewing a resident's information. During an observation on 02/05/24, at 4:02 PM, the computer screen on top of the fourth-floor unit medication cart was left open, displaying R46's medications. During interview with LPN3 on 02/05/24 at 4:06 PM, she confirmed the computer screen was left open revealing R46's name and medications displayed on the screen while away from the medication cart giving R46's medications. Review of the facility's policy titled, Confidentiality of Information dated 04/2014 documented, Our facility shall treat all resident information confidentially and shall access protected health information only as necessary. The facility will safeguard all resident records . Review of LPN3's Employee Confidentiality and Non-Disclosure Agreement provided by the Director of Nurses (DON) on 02/08/24 that was signed by LPN3 and dated 08/10/23 included the following information: Not to leave your computer terminal or workstation unattended without logging off or using your system's screen saver function before leaving your work area or securing hardcopy information so that it may not be disclosed to unauthorized persons. During an interview on 02/05/24 at 4:24 PM, the Assistant Director of Nurses (ADON) said all nursing staff were educated on resident confidentiality of records, including ensuring the computer screen was not open with resident information when the nurse was not at the medication cart. She stated when the nurse was not at the medication cart, it was an expectation to log out of the computer screen to show the screen is hidden for privacy reasons to prevent anyone not authorized to see the resident's information. The ADON said when the computer screen was open to the resident's Medication Administration Record (MAR) in the EMR, a person could see the resident's name and their medications, which is a Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) violation. She stated all staff signed the Non-Disclosure Agreement during orientation. NJAC 8:39-4.1(a)18
CONCERN (D)

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

PASARR Coordination (Tag F0644)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review, staff interview and policy review, the facility failed to ensure that a new Preadmission Screening and R...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review, staff interview and policy review, the facility failed to ensure that a new Preadmission Screening and Resident Review (PASARR) Level I assessment was submitted after a new mental illness diagnosis for one (Resident (R)168) out of 3 residents reviewed for PASARR. Findings include: Review of R168's admission Record, located in the Profile tab of the electronic medical record (EMR) revealed she was admitted to the facility on [DATE] and was re-admitted on [DATE] with diagnoses including cerebral infarction, restlessness and agitation, schizoaffective disorder, bipolar disorder, schizophrenia, anxiety disorder and dementia with behavioral disturbance. Review of R168's quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment under the MDS tab of the EMR, with an Assessment Reference Date (ARD) of 12/10/23 and the Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS), score of three out of 15 which indicated severe cognitive impairment. Review of R168's Initial Assessment PASARR located under the Resident Documents tab in the EMR and dated 12/16/21 did not indicate any mental illness diagnosis. Further review revealed the only mental illness diagnosis listed was dementia. Review of Section V Mental Illness Primary Dementia Exclusion revealed it was not completed. No other PASARR Level I was completed after the initial assessment was completed on 12/16/21. Review of R168's Diagnosis List, located under the Medical Diagnosis tab of the EMR revealed a diagnoses of bipolar disorder and schizoaffective disorder dated 01/16/24, and schizophrenia, anxiety disorder and dementia dated 01/18/23. Dementia was not listed as a primary diagnosis. During an interview on 02/08/24 at 10:18 AM the Social Services Director (SSD) stated that admissions would notify her when a resident was going to be admitted and she would request the PASARR level I. She said that she would review the PASARR level I to ensure that it was accurate. She said whenever a resident had a new mental illness diagnosis, that a new PASARR level I would need to be completed. She said that when a resident declined and was sent to the hospital's behavioral unit, before the resident was readmitted , there should be a PASARR level II completed. She stated that she was unaware that R168 had several additional mental illnesses or that he had been sent out for behavioral health services within the last 12 months. She said there was no system in place to ensure any new mental illness diagnosis was reported to SSD so they could complete a new Level I. The SSD agreed that another PASARR level I should have been completed and that R168 needed a PASARR level II completed. During an interview on 02/08/24 at 2:55 PM the Director of Nursing (DON) stated that she did not have anything to do with PASARR process and she was not aware of the process, or the requirements related to it. During an interview on 02/08/24 at 3:21 PM, the Administrator said all the PASARRs came with the admission package, and the facility would not accept a resident if there wasn't a completed PASARR. She stated if the residents did not have one completed then the SSD would complete a PASARR level I. She thought that all residents PASARRs were reviewed annually during care conferences, but she was unsure if there was a process to track and monitor those. Review of the facility's policy titled Pre-admission Screening Resident Review (PASARR), revised November 1, 2014, revealed, To ensure that all Facility applicants are screened for mental illness [MI] and or intellectual disability [ID] prior to admission and to ensure this assessment effort is coordinated with the appropriate state agencies if indicated. Preadmission Screening and Resident Review (PASARR) is a federal requirement to help ensure that individuals who have a mental disorder or intellectual disabilities are not inappropriately placed in nursing homes for long term care. The facility must notify the state designated mental health or intellectual disability authority promptly when a resident with MI or ID experiences a significant change in mental or physical status. NJAC 8:39-40.3(d)
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0678 (Tag F0678)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review, interview and policy review, the facility failed to ensure medical records included accurate advance dir...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review, interview and policy review, the facility failed to ensure medical records included accurate advance directives for one (Resident (R) R88) of three residents reviewed for advance directives, of a total sample of 35 residents. Findings include: Review of the admission Record found in the Electronic Medical Record (EMR) under the Profile tab documented R88 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] and had diagnoses that included adjustment disorder and major depression. Review of the quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment found in the EMR under the MDS tab with an Assessment Reference Date (ARD) of [DATE] documented R88 had a Brief Interview of Mental Status (BIMS) score of five out of 15, indicating severe cognitive impairment. Review of R88's Physician Order for Sustaining Treatment (POLST) located in the EMR under the Miscellaneous tab dated [DATE] revealed, Attempt resuscitation/CPR .Do not intubate . Review of the Physician Orders located in the EMR under the Orders tab revealed R88 did not have a physician order for full code. Review of the facility's policy titled Advance Directive dated [DATE], provided by the Director of Nurses (DON) documented, the physician will write an order on the Physician Order sheet specific to the Resident/Medical Proxy's wishes stated in the Resident's Advance Directive . During an interview on [DATE] at 5:20 PM, the DON said the Social Service Director (SSD) verified each resident's code status and the nurses were responsible for obtaining a physician order for each resident's code status. She confirmed there was no physician order for full code in R88's EMR. NJAC 8:39-14.2(b)
CONCERN (D)

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

Respiratory Care (Tag F0695)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observations, interviews, record review, and facility policy review, the facility failed to maintain the cleanliness of...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observations, interviews, record review, and facility policy review, the facility failed to maintain the cleanliness of the oxygen concentrators for two out of two residents (Resident (R) 38 and R12) of 35 sample residents. Findings include: 1. Observation on 02/05/24 at 12:05 PM, revealed R38's oxygen concentrators was dirty with debris. Review of R38's admission Record located under the Profile tab of the electronic medical record (EMR) revealed the resident was admitted to on 11/19/22 with diagnosis of pneumonia. Review of the Physician Orders under the Orders tab of the EMR revealed the resident had an order dated 03/23/23 for Oxygen via nasal cannula @ [at] 4 L/min [liters per minute] continuously every shift for SOB [shortness of breath]. 2. Observation on 02/06/24 at 12:18 PM revealed R12's oxygen concentrator filter and machine were dirty with debris. Further observation on 02/08/24 at 9:41 AM, the outside of R12's oxygen concentrator machine was dirty with debris. Record review of the admission Record found under the Profile tab of the EMR revealed R12 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with a diagnosis of viral pneumonia. Review of the Physician Order under Orders tab of the EMR revealed the resident had an order for Apply O2 [oxygen] @ 2L/min via nasal cannula continuously every shift. During an interview on 02/08/24 at 9:46 AM, Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) 6 stated the oxygen concentrators are cleaned by the housekeeping staff. During an interview on 02/08/24 at 9:58 AM, the housekeeper stated the concentrators are cleaned once a month or when they are dirty. She provided a calendar of the cleaning schedule. Review of the cleaning schedule revealed R12's room was not signed as completed. The housekeeper stated she was not there that day and if she does not work the rooms do not get cleaned. Review of the facility's policy titled, Cleaning and Disinfection of Resident Care Equipment revised 03/20/20, indicated, I. The following categories are used to distinguish the level of sterilization/disinfection necessary for items used in resident care .B. Semi-critical items consist of items that come in contact with mucous membranes or non-intact skin (e.g. respiratory therapy equipment) . NJAC 8:39-19.4(k)
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0700 (Tag F0700)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview, record review, and facility policy review, the facility failed to attempt to use appropriate al...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview, record review, and facility policy review, the facility failed to attempt to use appropriate alternatives prior to installing a side rail and failed to complete quarterly assessments for the continued use and safety of the side rail for one of one resident reviewed for side rails out of 35 sampled residents (Resident (R) 80). Findings include: Review of the facility's policy titled Side Rails, revised 10/01/17, revealed Purpose To determine the appropriateness of bed rail use for individual residents. Procedure I. The Assessment of whether to use bed rails should include an evaluation of the alternatives to the use of bed rail that were attempted and how these alternatives failed to meet the resident's assessed needs. II. If side rails are to be used, the assessment form, Side Rail Utilization Assessment, by a licensed nurse and/or the IDT . i. Before installing a side rail, the Facility must: a. Assess the risk resident for risk of entrapment from side rails; and b. Ensure the bed's dimensions are appropriate for the resident's size and weight. The manufacturer's recommendations and specifications for installing and maintaining bed rails will be followed . IV. Ongoing Monitoring and Supervision A. After installation of side rails, the IDT will document the review of the use of side rails at a minimum of quarterly. Re-evaluations should include a discussion of any adverse effects of side rails and attempts to eliminate the need for the side rail if it is being used as a restraint Review of R80's admission Record, located in the electronic medical record (EMR) under the Profile tab, revealed the resident was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnosis of cerebral infarction (stroke). Review of R80's annual Minimum Data Set (MDS) with an Assessment Reference Date (ARD) of 08/23/23, located in the EMR under the MDS tab, revealed a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of three out of 15 which indicated the resident was severely cognitively impaired. Continued review of the MDS revealed R80 required total assistance of two persons with bed mobility and transfers. Review of R80's Multidisciplinary Therapy Screen, dated 09/18/22 provided by the Therapy department, revealed may benefit from a half side rail to be placed on the side of transfer or away from the wall to promote bed mobility independence and pressure relief. Review of R80's Bed Rail Safety Information and Consent Form, dated 09/22/22, revealed the resident has read the risks of bed rails and was given a copy of A Guide to Bed Safety Pamphlet and understand the serious risks associated with using side rails; however, is making an informed consent decision for the use of side rails for safety and mobility signed by the resident's Power of Attorney (POA). Review of R80's Physician's Orders, dated 09/22/22, located in the EMR under the Orders tab, revealed an order for 1 [one] Right ½ side rail to bed for transfers and bed mobility. Review of R80's Care Plan, dated 09/22/22, located in the EMR under the Care Plan tab, revealed under the problem of activities of daily living (ADL) self-care performance deficit bed mobility was an intervention that resident uses one right half side rail to maximize independence with turning and repositioning in bed. Observations on 02/05/24 at 1:40 PM and 02/06/24 at 4:45 PM revealed R80 was lying in the bed with ½ length size side rails up on the right side of the head of the bed. During an interview on 02/08/24 at 8:39 AM, the Director of Nursing (DON) stated the interdisciplinary team (IDT) recommended side rails and determined the continued use of the side rails. Therapy staff evaluated the resident for use of the side rails. A consent for the side rails was completed by the resident/resident representative prior to installation of the side rails. An order was obtained for the use of the side rails for positioning. A care plan was developed for the use of the side rail. Maintenance installed the side rail and conducted quarterly side rail installation assessments. The DON confirmed the side rail assessments were not completed on a quarterly basis and attempts to use appropriate alternatives to side rails were not performed prior to the therapy evaluation for side rails. During an interview on 02/08/24 at 9:21 AM, the Director of Therapy acknowledged alternatives to side rails were not attempted prior to the side rail evaluation for use of them as an enabler by the therapy department. The Director of Therapy stated the residents were trialed using the side rails as an enabler then they were installed after determined to benefit the resident. During an interview on 02/08/24 at 12:24 PM, Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN)1 confirmed R80 used the side rail to reposition in bed and was not aware of any alternatives to side rails were attempted prior to referred to therapy for use of them. LPN1 stated that side rail assessments were not completed by nursing staff. During an interview on 02/08/24 at 3:57 PM, the Administrator verified the use of ongoing need for the side rails are discussed in the IDT meetings, but an assessment form has not been completed documenting the attempts tried to discontinue them, safety of the use of them, and ongoing need to use them. The Administrator stated that side rails were not used for a long time at the facility and when they started using them again last year for mobility as recommended by the therapy department, they forgot to implement the completion of assessments for the continued use of side rails by the nursing staff. NJAC 8:39-27.1(a)
CONCERN (D)

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

Infection Control (Tag F0880)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interviews, record review, policy review and manufacturer's guidelines review, the facility failed to prev...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interviews, record review, policy review and manufacturer's guidelines review, the facility failed to prevent the potential spread of infection and cross-contamination between residents in that the nurses did not disinfected the glucometer after completing R76's accu chek per the facility's policy prior to storage of the glucometer and the nurse failed to sanitize the top of the medication cart and residents' beside table after placing the unclean glucometer directly on the two surfaces for two residents (Resident (R) 76 and R4) of three residents in the sample of 35. In addition, one of one Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA10) staff failed to sanitize their hands between direct contact with residents, R22 and R88. Findings include: 1 Review of R76's admission Record found in the Electronic Medical Record (EMR) under the Profile tab documented R76 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] and had a diagnosis of type 2 Diabetes Mellitus. During an observation on 02/05/23 at 4:08 PM, Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) 3 brought the glucometer to R76's room and placed the glucometer directly on R76's bedside table. When she completed the accu chek, she came out of the room and placed the glucometer directly on the medication cart. After a few minutes, LPN3 cleaned the glucometer with one alcohol wipe and placed the glucometer in the medication drawer. LPN3 did not disinfect R76's overbed table and the top of the medication cart. LPN3 proceeded to another resident's room (room [ROOM NUMBER]) to dispense medications. During an interview on 02/05/24 at 4:20 PM, LPN3 stated she was educated to use either alcohol wipes or purple top Sani wipes to clean the glucometer. She stated she did not use a barrier on the overbed table or top of the medication cart, placed the glucometer directly on both surfaces, and did not clean the surfaces afterward. 2. Review of R4's admission Record found in the EMR under the Admissions tab documented R4 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] and had a diagnosis of type 2 Diabetes Mellitus. During an observation on 02/05/24 at 4:30 PM, Registered Nurse (RN)1 placed the glucometer directly on R4's bedside table. After completing R4's accu chek, RN1 placed the glucometer directly on the medication cart. RN1 cleaned the glucometer with a Sani wipe, placed it in the medication drawer once dry, however, did not clean the top of R4's bedside table and medication cart, locked the medication cart, and continued down the hallway. During an interview on 02/05/24 at 4:35 PM, RN1 confirmed she did not clean R4's bedside table and the top of the medication cart after placing the glucometer directly on those surfaces. Review of the facility's policy titled Cleaning and Disinfection of Glucometers dated 09/2010 documented The following recommendations provide the guidance for the cleaning and decontamination of glucometers that may be contaminated with blood and body fluids .Any blood glucose meter used by more than one person will be cleaned and disinfected as stated in this policy Disinfect the exterior surfaces following the manufactures directions using a cloth/wipe with either an EPA-registered detergent/germicide with an tuberculocidal and HBV/HCV/HIV label claim .Alcohol should never be used .and is not an EPA-registered detergent/disinfectant . Review of the manufacturer's guidelines titled, EvenCare Blood Glucose Monitoring System User's Guide dated 2003 documented the EvenCare G3 Meter, should be cleaned and disinfected between each patient .Disinfect your meter with one of the approved disinfectant detergent or germicidal wipes. Allow the surface of the meter to remain wet at room temperature for the contact time listed on the wipe's directions for use. Wipe all external areas of the meter including both front and back surfaces until visibly wet . Review of the Sani wipe instructions used by the facility for cleaning/disinfecting equipment documented the wipes were EPA approved with the following instructions: Sani-Cloth (Purple top wipes) - allow treated surface to remain wet for one minute. Let air dry. During an interview on 02/06/24 at 4:20 PM, the Director of Nurses (DON) said staff were to always use a barrier when placing a glucometer on any surface such as on a resident's room bedside table and on the medication cart. She stated if the nurse forgot to place a barrier under the glucometer, the area was to be cleaned with a Sani wipe. The DON said the nurses were to use a Sani wipe to disinfect a glucometer and were never to use alcohol wipes to clean the glucometer as the alcohol wipes were not effective to prevent potential blood borne infections. 3. Review of R88's admission Record found in the Electronic Medical Record (EMR) under the Profile tab documented R27 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] and had diagnoses that included adjustment disorder and major depression. The quarterly MDS found in R88's EMR under the MDS tab with an ARD of 10/06/23 documented R88 had a BIMS score of five out of 15, indicating severe cognitive impairment. Review of R22's admission Record found in the EMR under the Profile tab documented R22 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] had diagnoses that included Alzheimer's disease and dementia. During a review of the quarterly MDS found in R22's EMR under the MDS tab with an ARD of 10/09/23 documented R22 had a BIMS score of three out of 15, indicating severe cognitive impairment and required set up assistance with meals. During an observation on 02/06/24 at 1:05 PM, CNA10 was standing across from R22, reached across the table, and gave him a few bites of food with his fork. He then came and stood to the right of R22 and continued to feed R22 his meal using his fork. On 02/06/24 at 1:08 PM, CNA10 stood to the right of R88, who was sitting next to R22, fed him the last three bites of his meal using R88's spoon, and assisted him with his juice. CNA10 did not sanitize his hands prior to feeding R88. During an interview with CNA10 on 04/06/26 at 1:12 PM, he confirmed that he did not sanitize his hands after feeding R22 and prior to feeding R88. Review of the policy titled Infection Control Overview dated 11/2008 documented: Healthcare providers are recommended to perform hand hygiene at certain points to disrupt the transmission of bacteria to patients .Hand hygiene is recommended between patients before patient contact .: During an interview on 02/06/24 at 4:20 PM, the DON said staff were to sanitize their hands prior to interacting or feeding another resident. She said staff were to sanitize their hands between each resident contact. NJAC 8:39-19.4(l)(n)
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

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review, interview and policy review, the facility failed to ensure allegations of physical and sexual abuse and ...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review, interview and policy review, the facility failed to ensure allegations of physical and sexual abuse and injury of unknown origin were reported to the State Survey Agency (SSA) timely for three of seven residents (Resident (R)191, R79 and R116) reviewed for physical and sexual abuse and one of one resident (R79) reviewed for injury of unknown origin. Findings include: 1. Review of R168's admission Record, located in the Profile tab of the electronic medical record (EMR) revealed she was admitted to the facility on [DATE] and was re-admitted on [DATE] with diagnoses including restlessness and agitation, schizoaffective disorder, bipolar disorder, schizophrenia, anxiety disorder and dementia with behavioral disturbance. Review of R191's admission Record, located in the Profile tab of the EMR revealed she was admitted to the facility on [DATE] and was re-admitted on [DATE] with diagnosis including schizophrenia. Review of a Nurse's Note in the EMR under the Notes tab written by Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) 1 dated 05/05/23 at 9:13 AM indicated a nurse was called to R168's room. R191 stated he punched me in the eye. R168 was observed sitting in a chair. The Director of Nursing (DON) and physician were made aware. During an interview on 02/07/24 at 11:03 AM, LPN1 stated that the DON was made aware of the incident on 05/05/24 at 9:13AM. Review of the facility's Reportable Event provided by the DON revealed the incident occurred on 05/05/23 at 8:49 AM. However, the incident was not reported to New Jersey Department of Health (NJDOH) until 05/10/23 at 8:50 AM. 2. Review of a Nurse's Note, in the EMR under the Notes tab written by Registered Nurse (RN) 1 and dated 08/07/23 at 3:37 PM indicated, R79 was punched in the back by R168. Review of the facility's Reportable Event provided by the DON revealed the incident occurred on 08/07/23 at 2:30 PM. However, the incident was not reported to NJDOH until 08/09/23 at 1:43 PM. 3. Review of R53's admission Record, located in the Profile tab of the EMR revealed R53 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] and was re-admitted on [DATE] with diagnoses including major depressive disorder, generalized anxiety disorder, insomnia due to other mental disorder. Review of a Nurse's Note, in the EMR under the Notes tab written by LPN8 dated 10/24/23 at 9:01 PM indicated, R79 came to nurses' station with an obvious injury to his face and stated that his roommate R53 hit him multiple times in his face. Review of the facility's Reportable Event provided by the DON revealed the incident occurred on 10/24/23 at 9:01 PM. However, the DON could not provide any documentation that the incident was reported to NJDOH. 4. Review of the facility's document titled Reportable Event Record/Event provided by the facility, revealed an Event occurred on 01/30/24 at 7:05 PM where, R190 entered [R116's room without permission and climbed into the bed with R116. R190 was fully clothed at the time he entered the room and climbed into the bed of R116. R116 demanded the resident get out of the bed and the room. Review of the Intake Information document provided by the DON revealed the facility reported the incident on 02/01/24 at 9:12 AM. 5. Review of R79's admission Record, located in the Profile tab of the EMR revealed she was admitted to the facility on [DATE] and was re-admitted on [DATE] with diagnosis of schizoaffective disorder, Review of a Nurse's Note, in the EMR under the Notes tab written by RN4 dated 12/29/23 at 7:55 PM indicated that RN4 was informed by one of the Certified Nursing Assistants (CNAs) that the R79 was actively bleeding. He was found lying on his bed with a large lateral wound on his right leg. The resident cannot tell us exactly what happened. The resident was sent to the emergency room for further intervention and evaluation. During an interview on 02/08/24 at 8:42 AM, RN9 stated that R79's roommate came out of the room and reported to a CNA who reported to RN9 that R79 was lying on the bed bleeding from the right leg. RN9 stated that R79 was not able to state how the injury occurred. RN9 stated that he reported it to the DON and sent R79 to the hospital. Review of the facility's Reportable Events provided by the DON revealed the injury of unknown origin was never reported to NJDOH. During an interview on 02/08/24 at 11:53 AM the DON confirmed that she did not report R79's injury of unknown origin to NJDOH, because R79 was able to tell her what occurred. The DON stated that she no documentation of the conversation with R79 and did not know when the conversation occurred. The DON was shown RN9's nurses note dated 12/29/23 which indicated R79 was unable to tell how the injury occurred. The DON had no response once the nurses note was reviewed. During an interview on 02/08/24 at 3:21 PM, the Administrator said the facility must report any concerns or incidents to the state agency within two hours and they had five days to submit the final report. The Administrator stated the incidents that occurred on 05/05/23 and 08/07/23 were both reported in time but there was no documentation to prove that. She said she thinks the incident that occurred on 10/24/23 was reported but she would have to look. They did not report the injury that R79 sustained on 12/29/23 because she said the DON said the resident was able to tell staff what occurred. However, there was no documentation of that conversation. The Administrator provided no further documentation prior to the survey team's exit from the facility. Review of the undated facility's policy titled, Crystal Lake Health Care and Rehabilitation Center/Abridged Abuse Policy for Annual Review revealed, Allegations of abuse can be reported by anyone with knowledge of an incident, including ' residents, employees, family members, responsible parties, and visitors. Regarding employees, all staff members are required to immediately report any form of suspected abuse, as well as any sign of an injury to a resident, regardless of whether the cause is known. Whenever possible, allegations should be reported to a representative of the social services department. NJAC 8:39-9.4(f)
CONCERN (E)

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

Investigate Abuse (Tag F0610)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review, interview and policy review, the facility failed to ensure resident-to- resident abuse and injury of unk...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review, interview and policy review, the facility failed to ensure resident-to- resident abuse and injury of unknown origin were investigated thoroughly for two of seven residents reviewed for resident-to-resident abuse (Resident (R)191 and R79) and for one of one injury of unknown origin (R79). Findings include: 1. Review of R168's admission Record, located in the Profile tab of the electronic medical record (EMR) revealed she was admitted to the facility on [DATE] and was re-admitted on [DATE] with diagnoses including cerebral infarction, restlessness and agitation, schizoaffective disorder, bipolar disorder, schizophrenia, anxiety disorder and dementia with behavioral disturbance. Review of R191's admission Record, located in the Profile tab of the EMR revealed she was admitted to the facility on [DATE] and was re-admitted on [DATE] with diagnosis of schizophrenia. Review of the facility's Reportable Event provided by Director of Nursing (DON) revealed the incident occurred on 05/05/23 at 8:49 AM. Further review revealed there was no documentation of an investigation. There were no skin assessments or statements by staff or residents. Review of a Nurse's Note, in the EMR under the Notes tab written by Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) 1 dated 05/05/23 at 9:13 AM indicated, nurse was called to R168 room and R191 stated, he punched me in the eye. R168 was observed sitting in a chair. The DON and physician was made aware and 911 was called to report assault. Order to send resident to emergency room (ER) for evaluation. During an interview on 02/07/24 at 11:03 AM, LPN1 stated on 05/05/23 she went into R168's room and observed him sitting on the bed. R191, who was the roommate at the time told her This man was crazy and just punched me in my face. The DON was made aware of the incident. 2. Review of R79's admission Record, located in the Profile tab of the EMR revealed she was admitted to the facility on [DATE] and was re-admitted on [DATE] with diagnoses including schizoaffective disorder and Parkinson disease. Review of the facility's Reportable Event provided by the DON revealed the incident occurred on 08/07/23 at 2:30 PM. Further review revealed there was no documentation of an investigation. There were no skin assessments or statements by staff or residents. Review of a Nurse's Note, in the EMR under the Notes tab written by Registered Nurse (RN) 1 dated 08/07/23 at 3:37 PM indicated that R79 was punched in the back by R168 3. Review of R53's admission Record, located in the Profile tab of the EMR revealed she was admitted to the facility on [DATE] and was re-admitted on [DATE] with diagnoses including major depressive disorder, generalized anxiety disorder, insomnia due to other mental disorder, Review of R53's quarterly MDS assessment under the MDS tab of the EMR, with an ARD of 12/03/23, revealed a BIMS score of 10 out of 15 which indicated moderate cognitive impairment. Review of the facility's Reportable Event provided by the DON revealed the incident occurred on 10/24/23 at 9:01 PM. Further review revealed there was no documentation of an investigation. There were no skin assessments or statements by staff or residents. Review of a Nurse's Note, in the EMR under the Notes tab written by LPN8 dated 10/24/23 at 9:01 PM indicated, R79 came to nurses' station with an obvious injury to his face and stated that his roommate R53. hit him multiple times in his face. 4. Review of the facility Reportable Events provided by DON revealed the injury of unknown origin was not investigated. There was no documentation of an investigation. Review of a Nurse's Note, in the EMR under the Notes tab written by RN4 dated 12/29/23 at 7:55 PM indicated that RN4 was informed by one of the Certified Nursing Assistants (CNAs) that the R79 was actively bleeding and was found lying on his bed with a large lateral wound on his right leg. The resident cannot tell us exactly what happened. During an interview on 02/08/24 at 11:53 AM, the DON stated that the Administrator would delegate to each staff person their role during the investigation. She said during an investigation skin assessment should have been completed along with written statements from staff. Staff should talk to everyone who could be a witness, including direct care staff and any other staff that were around. She was unsure who would get the residents' statements. The DON was unsure where all the documentation for the investigations into all three of the incidents was located. The DON confirmed that there should have been statements by all staff and other residents at the times of each of the incidents. She stated that R79's injury that occurred on 12/29/23 was not investigated. During an interview on 02/08/24 at 3:21 PM, the Administrator stated that she assists with all of the facility's investigations. The Administrator stated that Social Services Director (SSD) would interview the residents involved and other residents on the unit at the time the incident occurred, and that all staff, whoever was working at the time, would also be interviewed. The Administrator stated whenever there was an injury of unknown origin staff should go back 72 hours and talk to all the staff that provided care or interacted with that resident. She stated that body assessments would be completed for non-cognitive residents. The Administrator stated she was unsure if there were resident or staff statements or any additional documentation of an investigation into all three incidents. She said she did look at all the documentation before completing the investigation's final summary, but she was unable to answer why there was nothing additional. Review of the undated facility's policy titled Crystal Lake Health Care and Rehabilitation Center/Abridged Abuse Policy for Annual Review revealed, .once a report is received, the administrative team will conduct a thorough investigation in a timely matter, while ensuring safety of all residents involved . NJAC 8:39-9.4(f)
CONCERN (E)

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

Deficiency F0638 (Tag F0638)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview, record review, and the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) Long-Term Care Facility Resident Ass...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview, record review, and the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) Long-Term Care Facility Resident Assessment Instrument (RAI) 3.0 User's Manual, the facility failed to complete the quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment in a timely manner for 14 of 35 sampled residents (Resident (R) 11, R12, R24, R38, R47, R53, R76, R80, R85, R99, R116, R145, R157 and R171). Findings include: Review of the CMS's RAI 3.0 User's Manual Version 1.18.11, dated 10/01/23, revealed . Chapter 2: Assessment for the RAI . 05. Quarterly Assessment (A0310A = 02) The Quarterly assessment is an OBRA non-comprehensive assessment for a resident that must be completed at least every 92 days following the previous OBRA assessment of any type. It is used to track a resident's status between comprehensive assessments to ensure critical indicators of gradual change in a resident's status are monitored. As such, not all MDS items appear on the Quarterly assessment. The ARD (A2300) must be not more than 92 days after the ARD of the most recent OBRA assessment of any type 1. Review of R80's admission Record, located in the EMR under the Profile tab, revealed the resident was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses that included schizoaffective disorders (mental health condition) and cerebral infarction (stroke). Review of R80's MDS located in the EMR under the MDS tab revealed an annual MDS was submitted with an ARD of 08/23/23. However, the quarterly MDS with an ARD of 11/23/23 was not submitted until 02/07/23, 76 days late. 2. Review of R99's admission Record, located in the EMR under the Profile tab, revealed the resident was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnosis of metabolic encephalopathy (damage or disease that affects the brain). Review of R99's MDS located in the EMR under the MDS tab revealed a quarterly MDS was submitted with an ARD of 08/14/23. However, the quarterly MDS with an ARD of 11/14/23 was not submitted until 02/07/23, 85 days late. 3. Review of 145's admission Record, located in the EMR under the Profile tab, revealed the resident was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnosis of acute respiratory failure with hypoxia (not enough oxygen in the blood). Review of R145's MDS located in the EMR under the MDS tab revealed a quarterly MDS was submitted with an ARD of 08/10/23. However, the quarterly MDS with an ARD of 11/10/23 was not submitted until 02/07/23, 88 days late. 4. Review of R171's admission Record, located in the EMR under the Profile tab, revealed the resident was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnosis of other fracture of head and neck of left femur. Review of R171's MDS located in the EMR under the MDS tab revealed a quarterly MDS was submitted with an ARD of 08/10/23. However, the quarterly MDS with an ARD of 11/10/23 was not submitted until 02/07/23, 88 days late. 5. Review of R24's admission Record, located in the EMR under the Profile tab, revealed the resident was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses that included schizoaffective disorders (mental health condition). Review of R24's MDS revealed a quarterly MDS was submitted with ARD of 08/10/23. However, the quarterly MDS with an ARD of 11/10/23 was not submitted unit 02/07/23, 88 days late. 6. Review of R47's admission Record, located in the EMR under the Profile tab, revealed the resident was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses that included schizoaffective disorders (mental health condition). Review of R47's MDS admission Record, tab revealed a quarterly MDS was submitted with ARD of 08/10/23. However, quarterly MDS with an of 11/20/23 was not submitted until 02/07/23, 88 days late. 7. Review of R38's admission Record, located in the Profile tab of the EMR revealed R38 was admitted to the facility on readmitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnosis of pneumonia, schizophrenia, and anemia. Review of R38's MDS located in the EMR under the MDS tab revealed a quarterly MDS an ARD of 08/29/23 was not completed until 10/15/23, 47 days later. 8. Review of R12's admission Record, located in the Profile tab of the EMR revealed R12 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with a diagnosis of multiple sclerosis. Review of R12's MDS located in the EMR under the MDS tab revealed quarterly MDS with an ARD of 11/19/23 was not completed until 02/04/24, 77 days later. 9. Review of R116's admission Record, located in the Profile tab of the EMR revealed R116 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with a diagnosis of schizophrenia. Review of R116's MDS located in the EMR under the MDS tab revealed a quarterly MDS with an ARD of 12/04/23 was not completed until 02/06/24, 62 days later. 10. Review of R157's admission Record, located in the Profile tab of the EMR revealed R157 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses of dementia and schizophrenia (mental health disorder). Review of R157's MDS) located in the MDS tab of the EMR revealed an annual MDS: was submitted with an ARD of 09/09/23. However, the quarterly MDS with an ARD of 12/10/23 was not submitted unit 2/07/23, 59 days late. 11. Review of R11's admission Record located in the Profile tab of the EMR revealed R11 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses of diabetes mellitus and schizophrenia. Review of R11's MDS located in the MDS tab of the EMR revealed a quarterly MDS was submitted with an ARD of 09/22/23. However, the quarterly MDS with an ARD of 12/13/23 was not submitted until 02/06/24, 55 days late. 12. Review of R76's admission Record located in the Profile tab of the EMR revealed R76 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses of Parkinson's disease (progressive disease of the nervous system) and diabetes mellitus. Review of R76's MDS located in the MDS tab of the EMR revealed the admission MDS was submitted on 09/12/23. However, the quarterly MDS with an ARD of 12/13/23 was not submitted until 01/01/24, 19 days late. 13. Review of R85's admission Record located in the Profile tab of the EMR revealed R85 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses of diabetes mellitus and schizophrenia. Review of R85's MDS located in the MDS tab of the EMR revealed the quarterly MDS was submitted with an ARD of 10/01/23. However, the quarterly MDS with an ARD of 01/01/24 was not submitted until 02/08/24, 38 days late. 14. Review of R53's admission Record located in the Profile tab of the EMR revealed R53 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses of diabetes mellitus and depression. Review R53's MDS located in the MDS tab of the EMR revealed a quarterly MDS was submitted with an ARD of 09/02/23. However, the quarterly MDS with an ARD of 12/03/23 was not submitted until 01/01/24, 29 days late. During an interview on 02/08/24 at 11:38 AM, the Director of Nursing (DON) confirmed she served as the MDS Coordinator and that the MDS assessments should be submitted no later than 92 days after the ARD of the last comprehensive assessment according to the RAI User's Manual. The DON stated she completed MDS assessments in December 2023 but forgot to submit them. NJAC 8:39-11.2(h)
Aug 2023 4 deficiencies
CONCERN (D) 📢 Someone Reported This

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

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

Notification of Changes (Tag F0580)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Complaint # NJ 151371 Based on interview, record review, and policy review, the facility failed to notify one (Resident (R) 12)'...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Complaint # NJ 151371 Based on interview, record review, and policy review, the facility failed to notify one (Resident (R) 12)'s representative, out of a survey sample of 17, when the resident sustained a change in her condition and had to be transported to a local hospital. Findings include: Review of a policy provided by the facility titled Notification of Change of Condition: Responsible Party/Guardian, dated 09/21/21 indicated .The responsible party or guardian is to be notified of changes in condition or occurrences to ensure that the resident's responsible party or guardian is notified of changes and/or occurrences and action and pertinent information are documented. When any one of the following instances occurs, the resident's responsible party or guardian will be notified.There is a significant change in the resident's physical, mental or psychosocial status, weight loss. Review of R12's electronic medical record (EMR) titled admission Record located under the Profile tab indicated the resident was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. Review of R12's EMR titled nursing Progress Notes dated 01/05/22 indicated the resident had a change in her condition, unresponsive, and left sided weakness. The physician was notified and ordered the immediate transport of the resident to the local emergency room for evaluation and treatment. On 01/06/22 the nursing Progress Notes indicated the resident had been admitted to the hospital for renal insufficiency. There was no evidence the resident's representative was notified of the resident's status change and subsequent hospitalization. Review of R12's EMR titled quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) with an Assessment Reference Date (ARD) of 05/26/23 indicated the resident had a Brief Interview of Mental Status (BIMS) score of 10 out of 15 which revealed the resident was moderately impaired cognitively. An attempt was made to contact R12's representative but it was unsuccessful. During an interview on 08/16/23 at 4:58 PM, the Assistant Director of Nursing (ADON) stated if a resident sustained a change in condition, the physician would need to be notified then the resident's representative, especially if the resident was to then be transported to the hospital. During an interview on 08/18/23 at 10:59 AM, the Director of Nursing (DON) confirmed there was no notification to the resident representative for R12 and her change of the condition, documented in the resident's clinical record. NJAC : 8:39-13.1 (c)
CONCERN (D) 📢 Someone Reported This

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

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

Assessment Accuracy (Tag F0641)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, record review, staff interview, and review of the Resident Assessment Instrument (RAI) Manual, the facilit...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, record review, staff interview, and review of the Resident Assessment Instrument (RAI) Manual, the facility failed to ensure one (Resident (R) 17) out of 17 sampled residents had an accurate Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment. Failure to code the MDS correctly could potentially lead to inaccurate federal reimbursements and inaccurate assessment and care planning of the resident. Findings include: Review R17's electronic medical record (EMR) titled admission Record located under the Profile tab indicated the resident was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. Review of R17's EMR titled annual MDS with an Assessment Reference Date (ARD) of 04/08/23 indicated the resident had a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS score of three out of 15 which revealed the resident was severely cognitively impaired. The assessment indicated the resident had no obvious broken teeth. During an interview on 08/16/23 at 1:44 PM, R17 stated he lost weight and when asked about dental care the resident opened his mouth and showed his teeth. The resident stated that he had nubs for his front teeth. Observed yellowed, and heavily chipped front teeth. During an interview on 08/17/23 at 2:36 AM, the Director of Nursing (DON) confirmed R17 had teeth that were broken and expected the MDS to accurately reflect the current status of the resident. Review of the RAI Manual, dated 10/01/19, indicated, . It is important to note here that information obtained should cover the same observation period as specified by the Minimum Data Set (MDS) items on the assessment and should be validated for accuracy (what the resident's actual status was during that observation period) by the IDT (Interdisciplinary Team) completing the assessment. NJAC : 8:39-11.1
CONCERN (D) 📢 Someone Reported This

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

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

Pharmacy Services (Tag F0755)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Complaint # NJ 155008 Based on interviews, record reviews, and facility policy review, the facility failed to ensure that narcot...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Complaint # NJ 155008 Based on interviews, record reviews, and facility policy review, the facility failed to ensure that narcotic pain medication was ordered and available in a timely manner for one resident (Resident (R) 7) out of 17 sampled residents. Findings include: Review of the facility policy titled, 4.0 Schedule II Controlled Substance Medication, revised 09/2020 stated, . B. If a medication shortage is noted during normal pharmacy hours: a. A licensed nurse notifies the pharmacy and speaks to a registered pharmacist to determine the status of the order. If not ordered, place the order or re-order to be sent with the next scheduled delivery. 2. If the next available delivery results in a delay or missed dose in the customer's medication schedule . If ordered medication is not available in the emergency stock supply, notify the pharmacist that an emergency delivery is requested .C. If a medication shortage is noted after normal pharmacy hours: . 2. If the ordered medication is unavailable in the emergency stock supply, a licensed nurse calls the pharmacy's emergency answering service and requests to speak with the registered pharmacist on call to determine a plan of action which may include: a. Emergency/stat delivery b. Use of emergency (back-up) pharmacy D. If an emergency delivery is not feasible, a licensed nurse contact the attending physician to obtain orders or directions which may include: 1. Holding the dose/doses 2. Use of an alternative medication available from the emergency stock supply 3. Change in order . Policy r/t Reorders for controlled medications stated 1. The facility will be able to request partial fillings of the Schedule II medications until the original prescription is completed. Once all the available partial fills have been used, one of the following must be provided for additional quantities to be filled: a. A new hard copy prescription from the prescribing physician either left at the facility or faxed directly from his/her office. B. a signed and dated order that has not yet been utilized by Geriscript. 2. Geriscript pharmacy will assist the facility in contacting the physician to obtain a new written order. 3. If the facility needs the medication delivered that evening or as a stat and there is not a valid signed order available at the facility, the facility must contact the physician to have him/her either fax a written prescription to Geriscript Pharmacy or have him/her contact Geriscript Pharmacy and speak directly with a pharmacist to authorize an emergency dispensing. If Geriscript Pharmacy does not receive a fax or phone call from the prescribing physician, the medication will not be provided Review of R7's admission Record located in the Electronic Medical Record (EMR) under the Profile tab indicated the resident was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with a primary diagnosis of amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (weakened muscles and impacts physical function). The resident was discharged on 08/19/22. Review of R7's quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) with an Assessment Reference Date (ARD) of 07/21/22 indicated the resident had a Brief Interview of Mental Status (BIMS) score of six out of 15 which indicated the resident was severely cognitively impaired. Additionally, the MDS indicated he received daily opioids for pain management. Review of R7's Orders located in the EMR under the Orders tab revealed orders for methadone hydrochloride (HCl) concentrate 10 milligram (mg) per milliliter (ml), give four ml by mouth every eight hours (6:00 AM, 2:00 PM, and 10:00 PM) for pain management, dated 04/15/22-08/19/22. Review of R7's Declining Inventory Sheets, provided by the facility, indicated R7 did not have any methadone HCl for administration and/or did not receive the medication on 05/08/22-05/10/22, 05/24/22-05/25/22, 07/23/22-07/24/22, 08/04/22, and 08/10/22-08/11/22. During an interview on 08/17/23 at 1:04 PM with R7's family member stated the facility ran out of methadone multiple times before the medication was supposed to run out and that R7 missed multiple days of his methadone doses due to the facility not ordering the medication in a timely manner. During an interview on 08/18/23 at 1:00 PM with the Assistant Director of Nurses (ADON) stated that any new narcotic orders should be entered by the nurse into the EMR and then faxed to the pharmacy. If a medication was not available for same day delivery, then the nurse was expected to notify the physician of the unavailable medication, obtain an order to hold the medication, or orders for an alternative medication. Additionally, a progress note should be entered in the EMR. The ADON confirmed that methadone HCl was not available in the emergency medication supply (Omnicel). During an interview on 08/18/23 at 2:43 PM with the Director of Nursing (DON) stated that she was not aware that R7's methadone was not available for administration on multiple dates. The DON confirmed that R7 had standing orders for routine doses of methadone HCl three times per day and that he was not receptive to receiving alternative medications. Additionally, the DON stated she was aware that upon admission, he missed one to two doses because there was a problem with the accuracy of the prescription submitted to the pharmacy. The DON stated she was not aware of R7 missing any other days of scheduled methadone HCL and that her expectation was for the nurses to request a refill of all medications prior to running out of the current supply. NJAC: 8:39-29.2 (d)
CONCERN (D) 📢 Someone Reported This

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

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

Medical Records (Tag F0842)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Complaint # NJ 155008 Based on record review, interviews, and policy review, the facility failed to ensure that clinical records...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Complaint # NJ 155008 Based on record review, interviews, and policy review, the facility failed to ensure that clinical records related to the administration of narcotic medication was complete and contained accurate documentation for one resident (Resident (R) 7) out of 17 sampled residents. Findings include: Review of the facility policy titled, 4.0 Schedule II Controlled Substance Medication, revised 09/2020 stated, . 3. A declining inventory sheet will be provided with each dispensed prescription for controlled dangerous medications. The form will contain the following information: customer name, medication name, medication strength, dosage form, name of prescribing physician, amount dispensed, prescription number and date dispensed .5. When a CDS (controlled dangerous substance) is administered, in addition to following proper procedure for the charting of medications, the nurse must document on the declining inventory sheet the date of administration, the quantity administered, the amount of medication remaining and his/her initials. 6. An inventory count of all CDS medications stored on each nursing unit will be performed at each change of each shift by both the incoming and outgoing nurse. Both nurses are responsible for the count and must sign the inventory count form .J. Waste of controlled dangerous substance 1. In the event a CDS medication is wasted such as spillage, refusal by a patient or a damaged item, the dose must be destroyed in accordance with facility policy. 2. The nurse must date and sign the declining inventory sheet in the appropriate location to indicate the waste/destruction. 3. The destruction of the wasted dose must be witnessed, cosigned, and dated by another nurse on the declining inventory form immediately . Review of the facility policy titled, 1.0 Medication Dispensing System, revised 09/2020 stated, . K. After medication administration: 1. Document necessary medication administration/treatment information (e.g., when medications are administered, ., refused medications and reason, prn (as needed) medications, etc.) . Review of R7's admission Record located in the electronic medical record (EMR) under the Profile tab indicated the resident was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with a primary diagnosis of amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (weakened muscles and impacts physical function). The resident was discharged on 08/19/22. Review of R7's quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) with an Assessment Reference Date (ARD) of 07/21/22 indicated the resident had a Brief Interview of Mental Status (BIMS) score of six out of 15 which indicated the resident was severely cognitively impaired. Additionally, the MDS indicated he received daily opioids for pain management. Review of R7's Orders located in the EMR under the Orders tab revealed orders for methadone hydrochloride (HCl) concentrate 10 milligram (mg) per milliliter (ml), give four ml by mouth every eight hours (6:00 AM, 2:00 PM, and 10:00 PM) for pain management, dated 04/15/22-08/19/22. Review of R7's Treatment Administration Record (TAR), dated 04/2022, revealed that methadone HCl was administered on 04/20/22 at 6:00 AM, 04/23/22 at 10:00 PM, and 04/25/22 at 2:00 PM and the narcotic was not signed out on the Declining Inventory Sheet for those dates and times. Review of R7's TAR, dated 05/2022 and located in the EMR under the Orders tab revealed that methadone HCl was administered on 05/12/22 at 2:00 PM, 05/18/22 at 6:00 AM, 05/20/22 at 6:00 AM, 05/26/22 at 10:00 PM, 05/27/22 at 6:00 AM and the narcotic was not signed out on the Declining Inventory Sheet for those dates and times. Additionally, doses were signed off in the EMR as administered on 05/24/22 at 6:00 AM and 05/24/22 at 2:00 PM and no Declining Inventory Sheet was available. Review of R7's TAR, dated 06/2022 and located in the EMR under the Orders tab revealed that methadone HCl 4ml was administered on 06/25/22 at 10:00 PM and the narcotic was not signed out on the Declining Inventory Sheet for that date and time. Review of R7's TAR, dated 07/2022 and located in the EMR under the Orders tab revealed that methadone HCl 4ml was administered on 07/05/22 at 6:00 AM, 07/09/22 at 2:00 PM and the narcotic was not signed out on the Declining Inventory Sheet for that date and time. Additionally, on 07/23/22 at 2:00 PM the TAR indicated a dose of methadone HCl 4ml was administered and there was no Declining Inventory Sheet. Narcotic drug records indicated that no methadone was available on that date and time. Review of R7's TAR, dated 08/2022 and located in the EMR under the Orders tab revealed that methadone HCl 4ml was administered on 08/19/22 at 6:00 AM and the narcotic was not signed out on the Declining Inventory Sheet for that date and time. Review of R7's Declining Inventory Sheet, provided by the facility, dated 04/27/22-05/07/22 had incorrect dose deduction calculations that were off by four ml. Review of R7's Declining Inventory Sheet, provided by the facility, dated 05/10/22-05/21/22 revealed methadone HCl four ml was administered on 05/16/22 at 6:00 AM and the dose was not signed out in the EMR for that date and time. Additionally, on 05/21/22 methadone HCL 8 ml was noted to have been wasted without any explanation or nursing signatures. Review of R7's Declining Inventory Sheet, provided by the facility, dated 05/26/22-06/12/22 revealed methadone HCl four ml was administered on 05/28/22 at 9:00 AM, and no physician's order was in place for the extra dose. Additionally, methadone HCl administered on 06/07/22 at 10:00 PM was not signed out on the Declining Inventory Sheet until 06/09/22, and a dose on 06/08/22 at 6:00 AM was not signed out until 06/09/22. Review of R7's Declining Inventory Sheet, provided by the facility, dated 06/08/22-06/27/22 revealed methadone HCL four ml was signed out on 06/12/22 at 6:00 AM and the same dose was signed out on the Declining Inventory Sheet dated 05/26/22-06/12/22 and deducted from the running total on the two different logs. Review of R7's Declining Inventory Sheet, provided by the facility, dated 06/23/22-07/07/22 revealed an extra dose of methadone HCl four ml was given on 07/07/22 as it was documented the resident received doses at 6:00 AM, 1:00 PM, 3:00 PM, and 10:00 PM. There was no physician's order for the additional dose. Review of R7's Declining Inventory Sheet, provided by the facility, dated 07/08/22-07/23/22 revealed methadone HCl four ml was administered on 07/14/22 at 6:00 AM and was not documented on the TAR located in the EMR under the Orders tab. Additionally, on 07/10/22 methadone HCl 4ml was administered at 6:00 AM, 2:00 PM, 6:00 PM, and 10:00 PM. No physician's order was located for the additional dose administered. Review of R7's Declining Inventory Sheet, provided by the facility, dated 07/25/22-07/29/22 revealed methadone HCl 6ml was administered on 07/25/22 at 6:00 AM. No physician's order was located for the additional two ml of medication administered. Review of R7's Declining Inventory Sheet, provided by the facility, dated 07/29/22-08/03/22 revealed methadone HCl four ml was administered on 08/02/22 at 6:00 AM was not signed out on the Declining Inventory Sheet until 08/03/22. Review of R7's Declining Inventory Sheet, provided by the facility, dated 08/04/22-08/07/22 revealed methadone HCl four ml was administered on 08/05/22 at 10:00 PM and was not documented on the TAR located in the EMR under the Orders tab. During an interview on 08/18/23 at 2:43 PM, the Director of Nursing (DON) indicated that her expectation was for nurses to administer the medication to the resident and then document in the TAR located in the EMR under the Orders tab. The medication should also be signed off on the Declining Inventory Sheet as well if the medication was a narcotic. Upon review of the documentation reviewed on the Declining Inventory Sheets and in the EMR, the DON confirmed that she was unaware of the documentation inconsistencies. NJAC: 8:39-35.2 (d) (9) 8:39-27.1
Oct 2021 12 deficiencies
CONCERN (D)

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

Safe Environment (Tag F0584)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation Interview and review of other facility documentation, it was determined that the facility failed to a. main...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation Interview and review of other facility documentation, it was determined that the facility failed to a. maintain a clean and sanitary environment. This deficient practice was identified for 3 of 5 units and was evidenced by the following: 1. During the initial tour of the 5th floor on 10/25/21 at 11:48 AM the surveyor observed the following: 2. the floor along where the floor meets the baseboard was soiled brown colored marks and stained for most all of the unit hallway 3. windows by the elevator had smudges 4. the hallway floors had dried stains on both sides of the unit. 5. Resident room doors had chipped paint and gouges in the wood 6. There was peeling wallpaper in room [ROOM NUMBER] and 518. 7. At the end of the low hallway the floor had black marks on floor, stains rust in color, dark substance at the corner of the baseboards, along with trash. 8. Mechanical lift wheels had buildup of hair wrapped around the wheels During an interview with the surveyor on 10/26/21 at 09:06 AM the housekeeper #1 assigned to the 5th floor said she cleans resident room every day and mop the halls daily. She also said she does not have time to buff the hallways. During an interview with the surveyor on 10/26/21 at 9:25 AM, the Manager of Housekeeping (MH) who said there is one housekeeper per unit, and they are responsible to clean resident rooms, day room, nurses' stations, and chart rooms daily. The MH went on to say he has to be honest and hasn't stripped or waxed the hallways in about a year. 2. During an interview with the surveyor on 10/27/21 at 9:56 AM, housekeeper #2 assigned to the 3rd floor said that she cleans every resident room during her shift. She stated is responsible for cleaning the entire unit including the hallways and nursing areas. She also added that she is the only housekeeper for the 3rd floor. During a tour of the 3rd floor unit on 10/27/21 at 10:07 AM, the surveyor observed the following: 1. a bathroom shared by rooms [ROOM NUMBERS] with an adjustable raised toilet seat with a safety frame that was positioned over the toilet. The raised toilet seat had brown substance covering the toilet seat, 2. a brown substance on the shower curtain 3. a brown substance smeared on the doorway leading into room [ROOM NUMBER]. 3. On 10/27/21 at 10:32 AM, The surveyor on a tour of the 7th floor observed the following: 1. The floor tiles outside of room [ROOM NUMBER], the were cracked and had accumulated debris at the baseboards. 2. The vestibule area, adjacent to the pipe on the 7th floor southside by the emergency exit door had accumulated dust and built up of unidentifiable debris. 3. The floor in front of the emergency exit doors on the southside of the 7th floor was visibly soiled with accumulated dust and unidentifiable debris. On 10/28/21 at 11:25 AM, housekeeper #2 stated her responsibilities were to clean the hallway, mop the floors and elevator area, wipe the tables and chairs in the dayroom, and clean the bathrooms. She further stated we have no porters now, so I cover their jobs as well. They don't even buff the floors anymore. 4. On 10/27/21 at 10:29 AM, Resident #138 complained to surveyor that the wall inside of the smoking area was filthy and disgusting, that people would spit on the wall and it was all black. On 10/27/21 at 2:12 PM, the surveyor observed the second-floor smoking balcony. The surveyor observed the benches in the smoking area had brown stains and with noticeably worn areas. The surveyor also observed the half wall opposite the smoking benches had dark brown and black splatters up and down the wall. During an interview with the surveyor on 10/27/21 at 2:14 PM, the smoking monitor stated that housekeeping was responsible for keeping the smoking area clean. He stated he was responsible for sweeping and emptying the ash trays. When asked what the black marks were from, he responded he believed the marks were from the smoke and nicotine build-up, and that even if you wiped the walls they wouldn't come clean. He further stated that either maintenance or housekeeping would every once in a while come and wipe the walls. During an interview with the surveyor on 10/28/21 at 12:00 PM, the Housekeeping Manager stated that the smoking monitor has a broom and dust pan to clean the smoking area. He was not sure who cleaned the splatters on the wall and that housekeeping doesn't go up there and clean that area. On 10/27/21 at 12:16 PM, the Housekeeping Manager and Activities Director accompanied the surveyor to the smoking balcony on the second floor. The Activities Director who was responsible for the smoking program at the facility, stated the area was supposed to be power washed by maintenance at night. It should have been done in August. The Housekeeping Manager again stated it was not housekeeping's responsibility. The Directors both agreed the wall should not look the way it did and acknowledged there was black unidentifiable splashes all over the walls. They further agreed the area should be monitored for cleanliness. The Activities Director stated monitoring should be interdisciplinary, but ultimately the responsibility resided with her, and stated the area was power washed quarterly. She further stated this area needs to be addressed, and she would have someone clean it today, and that no one had notified her there was an issue. The Activities Director and the Housekeeping Manager acknowledged the benches in the smoking area also had brown stains and were worn in multiple places. The Housekeeping Manager stated the seats are cleaned daily with paper towels and [NAME] cleaner by the smoking monitor. The Activities Director then stated she would have the benches power washed as well, that she wouldn't want to sit on these benches in the state they were currently in. During an interview with the surveyor on 10/26/21 at 9:25 AM, the Manager of Housekeeping (MH) who said there is one housekeeper per unit, and they are responsible to clean resident rooms, day room, nurses' stations, and chart rooms daily. The MH went on to say he has to be honest and hasn't stripped or waxed the hallways in about a year. A review of first and second floor housekeeper as well as 3rd floor, 4th floor, 5th floor, 6th floor and 7th floor housekeeper assignments did not indicate what if anything should be done in the hallways. NJAC 8:39-31.4(a)
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

Based on interview, review of medical record and review of other facility documentation, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure that a comprehensive care plan was completed and accurate ...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on interview, review of medical record and review of other facility documentation, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure that a comprehensive care plan was completed and accurate for 1 of 37 sampled residents, (Resident # 736). This deficient practice was evidenced by the following: Resident # 736 was admitted to the facility with diagnosis of Bipolar Disorder and Major Depressive Disorder. On 10/26/21 at 09:58 AM, during an interview with the surveyor, Resident # 736 informed that they had leg pain since being admitted to this facility. Resident #736 said the nurse provides Tylenol for the pain. A review of a nursing progress note dated 10/5/21, revealed Resident # 736 was transferred to the facility alert, oriented, and able to make needs known to the facility. On 10/26/21 at 10:46 AM, the surveyor reviewed Resident # 736's electronic medical records, which revealed a care plan initiated on 10/6/21 and had a focus of nutritional problem or potential nutritional problems related to bipolar disorder and major depressive disorder. There was no further documentation to indicate Resident # 736 had any other care plan in place for any other documented needs. During an interview with the surveyor on 10/28/21 at 09:32 AM, the facility Licensed Practical Nurse # 6 (LPN # 6) reviewed Resident #736's medical record and confirmed the resident was care planned for diet, nutrition only with no other care plan addressing other resident needs. LPN # 6 stated regarding care plan, that the resident's pain would not be in the care plan unless there is a goal or continuous treatment for it. Something like this is immediate action. During an interview with the surveyor in the presence of a second surveyor on 10/28/21 at 11:24 AM, the Assistant Director of Nursing (ADON) who is also the acting Minimum Data Set (MDS) Coordinator stated that resident care plans are created by all members of the Interdisciplinary Team (IDT) which is includes nursing, dietary, social services, and therapy to address all the needs of the resident. The ADON confirmed that all focused needs on the care plan at the time of this interview were initiated on 10/28/21, with only a nutritional care plan having been initiated on 10/6/21. The facility was unable to provide a comprehensive care plan policy. NJAC 8:39- 11.2(e)-(i); 27.1(a)(d)
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** 3. The surveyor observed Resident #135, lying in bed, with the bed in the lowest position, during the following dates and times:...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** 3. The surveyor observed Resident #135, lying in bed, with the bed in the lowest position, during the following dates and times: 10/25/21 at 11:20 AM, 10/26/21 at 8:30 AM, and 10/27/21 at 8:53 AM. The surveyor obtained and reviewed a copy of the resident's admission Record, which revealed diagnoses that included, but were not limited Parkinson's Disease (a movement disorder), major depressive disorder, unspecified kidney failure, and schizophrenia (a psychotic disorder). The surveyor requested, obtained, and reviewed a copy of an incident report, related to an unwitnessed fall that occurred on 07/28/21, for Resident #135. According to the Fall Incident Report Check List on the report, it is necessary to conduct Neuro checks if fall was not witnessed. Further review of the report revealed neuro checks were conducted for a period beginning on 07/27/21 at 1:30 AM, approximately 15 minutes after the fall, continued for the next four hours, and then stopped. A review of the report also revealed that it was dated as 01/27/21 in some areas and 07/27/21 at other areas. During an interview with the surveyor on 10/28/21 at 9:53 AM, the Licensed Practical Nurse - Unit Manager (LPN-UM) confirmed that Resident #135 fell on [DATE] in the early morning. She stated there was no fall on 01/27/21 and did not know why the referenced fall report was sometimes dated 01/27/21 and at other times dated 07/27/21. She also described the processes involved for resident care after a fall occurs. The post-fall caring process included observing a resident every shift for three days to ensure that he/she is okay. She further stated that this included neuro checks for three days. The LPN-UM reviewed Resident #135's 07/27/21 Neurological Assessment Flow Sheet (neuro check sheet) in the presence of the surveyor and confirmed that neuro checks were implemented but could not provide a reason for why they were not completed. Review of the neuro check sheet, at this time, revealed that neuro checks were not completed on 07/27/21 at 9:15 AM, 1:15 PM, 5:15 PM, 9:15 PM and on 07/28/21 at 1: 15 AM. The LPN-UM indicated that perhaps there was additional documentation located somewhere else and she would try to locate it. Later during the same day, the LPN-UM was able to provide the surveyor a copy of additional neuro checks, which included a period from 07/28/21 at 11:00 PM, 07/29/21, and into to morning of 07/30/21. According to the documentation, there were no neuro checks conducted from 07/27/21 at 5:15 AM onward. The additional neuro check document revealed that neuro checks were completed at 11:00 PM and 3:00 AM of an undisclosed date. There were no neuro checks documented for 07/28/21. The surveyor attempted telephone interview with the Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN #2), who completed Resident #135's 07/27/21 incident report. LPN #2 did not follow up with surveyor. During a follow-up interview with the surveyor on 10/28/21 at 1:52 PM, the LPN-UM confirmed that Resident #135's fall was not witnessed by staff. She further stated that as a result, this type of fall would be considered unwitnessed and require neuro checks for three to four days. In addition, the LPN-UM also confirmed that neuro checks were listed as a necessary task on the document titled, Fall Incident Report Checklist and should have been thoroughly completed. The LPN-UM acknowledged there was an absence of consistent neuro checks but could not provide further information related to the missing documentation. During an interview with the surveyor on 10/28/21 at 2:25 PM, the DON stated that neuro checks should occur for the first 72 hours after a fall. The surveyor questioned the importance of completing the neuro check sheet after an unwitnessed fall. The DON stated that an absence of such monitoring would be a problem since staff would not know to what extent the head may have been involved with injuries. The DON also stated that sometimes residents who fall are sent to the hospital for evaluation and this may be the reason for the absence of neuro checks. At this time, the Licensed Nursing Home Administrator (LNHA) stated that there is nothing indicating that Resident #135 was hospitalized after the fall on 07/27/21. The LNHA provided the surveyor with additional documentation on Resident #135, on the morning of 10/29/21. The new document revealed that additional neuro checks were conducted for the absent times on 07/27/21 and into the early morning of 07/28/21. In addition, there were discrepancies between the neurological report copied by the surveyor on 10/28/21 and the copy provided by facility staff on 10/29/21. According to a comparison of the two copies, two different staff members were conducting neurological assessments on Resident #135 at that same exact dates and times, on 07/27/21 from 1:30 AM through the same date at 5:15 AM. In addition, Resident had different blood pressures, pulse rates, and respiratory rates at the same times, during multiple times, on the morning of 07/27/21. During an interview with the surveyor on 10/29/21 at 1:30 PM, the DON confirmed Resident #135 was not hospitalized after the fall on 07/27/21. The DON stated there were no additional neurological assessments that could be furnished during the time periods in question, for which neuro checks were absent. She stated she searched and could not find any additional documentation anywhere. The LNHA stated that facility staff could not account for the discrepancy of dates listed on the fall report, involving 01/27/21 and 07/27/21, and that no determination could be made regarding this apparent error. The DON stated one assigned nurse would be responsible for conducting neuro checks after a fall occurred. The DON could not provide further detail as to why there was documentation related to neuro checks, completed by two different nurses for the same resident, during some of the exact same dates and times on 07/27/21. The DON could not provide a rationale for why Resident #135 had varying vital signs (blood pressure, pulse, and respiratory rate) at some of the same exact times on 07/27/21. The LNHA stated there were no other policies related to completion of neurological assessments. A policy titled, Pyramid Healthcare Management Events Documentation revealed that neurological assessments were to be uploaded into a resident's chart, but this electronic (computerized) record-keeping was not in effect at the time of the referenced incident, as confirmed by the LNHA during the survey entrance conference on 10/25/21. NJAC 8:39-29.2(d) Based on observation, interview, record review and review of facility documents, it was determined that the facility failed to a.) monitor resident behaviors with the administration of a psychotropic medication (a medication used to treat mental disorders) and b.) transcribe a handwritten physician order into the Electronic Medical Record (EMR) for 1 of 5 residents (Resident #123) reviewed for unnecessary medications and c.) failed to complete neurological assessments after a resident fell in accordance with professional standards for 1 of 6 residents (Resident #135) reviewed for accidents. This deficient practice was identified as follows: Reference: New Jersey Statutes, Annotated Title 45, Chapter 11. Nursing Board. The Nurse Practice Act for the state of New Jersey states: The practice of nursing as a registered professional nurse is defined as diagnosing and treating human responses to actual or potential physical and emotional health problems, through such services as case finding, health teaching, health counseling and provision of care supportive to or restorative of life and wellbeing, and executing medical regimes as prescribed by a licensed or otherwise legally authorized physician or dentist. Reference: New Jersey Statutes, Annotated Title 45, Chapter 11. Nursing Board. The Nurse Practice Act for the state of New Jersey states: The practice of nursing as a licensed practical nurse is defined as performing tasks and responsibilities within the framework of case finding, reinforcing the patient and family teaching program through health teaching, health counseling and provision of supportive and restorative care, under the direction of a registered nurse or licensed or otherwise legally authorized physician or dentist. 1. According to the admission Record, Resident #123, was admitted with diagnoses, which included but were not limited to, schizophrenia (a disorder that affects a person's ability to think, feel and behave clearly), major depressive disorder and anxiety disorder. On 10/26/21 at 12:54 PM, 10/27/21 at 9:23 AM and 10/28/21 at 11:39 AM, the surveyor observed Resident #123 lying supine in bed with the head of bed elevated. A review of the handwritten July 2021 Physician's Orders (POS) revealed an order dated 07/22/21 at 12:00 PM, to start Abilify (an antipsychotic medication) 15 mg (milligrams) daily for schizophrenia and to start Buspar (an antianxiety medication) 10 mg three times daily for anxiety. The July 2021 POS further revealed an order dated 07/29/21 at 1:00 PM to discontinue Abilify 15 mg and to start Abilify 20 mg daily. The medical record reflected an incomplete Psychotropic Medication Change (PMC) form (a form used to monitor resident behaviors with a psychotropic medication change) dated 07/22/21 for the medication Buspar 10 mg for Resident #123. The medical record did not reflect a PMC form dated 7/22/21 for the medication Abilify 15 mg for Resident #123. The medical record further reflected an incomplete PMC form dated 07/29/21 for the medication Abilify 20 mg daily for Resident #123. The surveyor observed that each PMC form included the name of the medication, the resident's name, and the date/time the medication change started. The nurse would document and initial the resident's change in behaviors on each shift (7-3, 3-11 and 11-7) for 14 days by checking No change in beh. [behavior] or documenting in the progress notes for Change * See documentation. At the bottom of the PMC form the nurse would indicate her Full Signature/Title and Initials. The surveyor reviewed the 07/22/21 Buspar 10 mg PMC form for Resident #123 which reflected that two nurses signed the Full Signature/Title and Initials, and that behavior monitoring was not completed for the following shifts: Day 1: 7-3, 3-11, 11-7 Day 2: 7-3, 11-7 Day 3: 3-11, 11-7 Day 4: 3-11, 11-7 Day 5: 3-11, 11-7 Day 6: 3-11, 11-7 Day 7: 3-11, 11-7 Day 8: 3-11, 11-7 Day 9: 11-7 Day 10: 3-11, 11-7 Day 11: 7-3, 3-11, 11-7 Day 12: 3-11, 11-7 Day 13: 11-7 Day 14: 11-7 The surveyor reviewed the 07/29/21 Abilify 20 mg PMC form for Resident #123 which reflected that one nurse signed the Full Signature/Title and Initials, and that behavior monitoring was not completed for the following shifts: Day 1: 7-3, 3-11, 11-7 Day 2: 3-11, 11-7 Day 3: 11-7 Day 4: 3-11, 11-7 Day 5: 7-3, 3-11, 11-7 Day 6: 3-11, 11-7 Day 7: 11-7 Day 8: 11-7 Day 9: 7-3 Day 10: 7-3, 3-11, 11-7 Day 11: 3-11, 11-7 Day 12: 3-11 Day 13: 11-7 Day 14: 11-7 During an interview with the surveyor on 10/27/21 at 1:49 PM, the Licensed Practical Nurse #5 (LPN) reviewed the orders dated 07/22/21 for Buspar 10 mg and Abilify 15 mg, the order dated 07/29/21 for Abilify 20 mg and the corresponding PMC forms with the surveyor. LPN #5 verified that a PMC form was started for Buspar 10 mg and Abilify 20 mg. LPN #5 further verified that a PMC form was not initiated for the Abilify 10 mg. LPN #5 stated that with each new psychotropic medication change, a PMC form would be completed by the nurse on each shift for 14 days. The nurse on each shift would either check no change in behavior or if there was a change, the nurse would document in the progress notes. LPN #5 further stated that each nurse would initial the PMC form next to their daily shift and the nurse would also sign their full signature/title and initials at the bottom of the page. LPN #5 verified that the PMC forms for Buspar 10 mg and Abilify 20 mg were incomplete and that she could not locate the 07/22/21 PMC form for Abilify 15 mg. During an interview with the surveyor on 10/28/21 at 1:55 PM, the Director of Nursing (DON) stated her expectations were for every change in a resident's psychotropic medication, the nurse should monitor the resident's behaviors. A review of the facility's Antipsychotic Medication Use policy, dated January 2021, reflected the staff will monitor resident behaviors. 2. The surveyor reviewed the 10/2021 handwritten POS for Resident #123. The 10/2021 POS revealed an order dated 10/11/21 for Ativan (an antianxiety medication) 0.5 mg every six hours as needed for 14 days for anxiety. A review of the EMR did not reveal an order dated 10/11/21 for Ativan 0.5 mg. A review of the 10/2021 Medication Administration Record did not reveal an order dated 10/11/21 for Ativan 0.5 mg. During an interview with the surveyor on 10/27/21 at 10:58 AM, LPN #5 reviewed the handwritten 10/11/21 POS order, the EMR orders and the 10/2021 Medication Administration Record (MAR) for the 10/11/21 Ativan order in the presence of the surveyor. LPN #5 verified that the handwritten Ativan order was on the POS dated 10/11/21. She further verified that the order was not in the EMR or in the 10/21 MAR. During an interview with the surveyor on 10/29/21 at 11:35 AM, the DON reviewed the 10/11/21 Ativan order with the surveyor. The DON verified that the Ativan 0.5 mg handwritten order dated 10/11/21 was not sent to the pharmacy. When asked to confirm whether the referenced order was transcribed into the EMR and the MAR, the DON stated that she would review it and follow up with the surveyor. During a follow up interview with the surveyor on 10/29/21 at 1:18 PM, the DON failed to clarify any matters related to the 10/11/21 Ativan order and further revealed that an order for Prozac 40 mg capsule dated 10/04/21 for Resident #123 was not addressed.
CONCERN (D)

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

Accident Prevention (Tag F0689)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on observation, interview, record review and review of other facility documentation, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure all laundry room doors with laundry chutes were securely...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, interview, record review and review of other facility documentation, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure all laundry room doors with laundry chutes were securely locked to prevent accidents. This deficient practice was identified for 1 of 5 laundry room doors (7th floor) observed and was evidenced by the following: On 10/27/21 at 10:29 AM, Resident #138 told surveyor #1 to check out the laundry room door, that it was not locked. At that time the surveyor approached the door and was able to turn the handle without resistance and enter the room where a laundry chute was located and latched closed. At 10:37 AM, Licensed Practical Nurse #7 (LPN #7) who worked for an outside agency, and had worked at the facility for a month, stated the laundry room door should automatically lock. LPN #7 further stated the laundry door should be locked for safety, because there is a laundry chute in there. At 10:38 AM, Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA #1) stated to surveyor #1 the lock to the laundry room was broken, and inside there was the laundry chute, and it should be locked at all times. CNA #1 stated it should be locked because a resident could hide in there or they could open the chute. At 10:39 AM, the surveyor interviewed the Licensed Practical Nurse, Unit Manager (LPN/UM) who stated the door should be locked at all times and would immediately call maintenance to fix the door. At 11:20 AM, the maintenance technician came to the 7th floor carrying a box and stated the nurse manager had called him to say the door was not locking and asked him to replace the lock. At that same time, surveyor #2 inspected the 6th floor laundry room door which was locked and the knob was unable to be opened without inputting the code. At 11:25 AM, surveyor #2 inspected the 4th floor laundry room door which was locked, and the handle was unable to be opened without inputting the code. At 11:26 AM, surveyor #1 again interviewed CNA #1 who stated the laundry room was where the CNAs and nurses threw soiled linen down the laundry chute. CNA #1 stated he noticed the lock didn't work yesterday (10/26/21), that it was working on Friday (10/21/21) and he had not worked over the weekend. He further stated he had not told anyone yesterday because it was busy and he had forgotten. He stated he should have reported the lock was not working by recording it in the maintenance book and also telling the charge nurse. CNA #1 stated maintenance came around daily to do rounds and check the maintenance log book. At 11:28 AM, surveyor #4 went to the 5th floor and checked the laundry chute door, which was found to be locked. Surveyor #4 then checked the door to the laundry chute on the 3rd floor and the laundry chute was found to be locked. At 11:30 AM, CNA #2, stated to surveyor #1, she used the laundry room that morning for soiled linen, and that CNA #1 had just told her the lock was broken, and that she had not noticed because she always punched the code in first then turned the knob. She had not noticed anything wrong when she used it this morning. At that same time, surveyor #3 reviewed the 7th floor maintenance log and it did not have any notations for a need to repair a broken lock as far back as 10/1/21. On 10/28/21 at 11:20 AM, surveyor #1 observed CNA #3 ask LPN #8 for the key to the laundry room door. The surveyor observed CNA #3 unlock the soiled laundry room door and place soiled laundry down the chute. The lock on the door had been changed from a combination lock to a keyed lock. CNA #3 stated the LPN/UM had told us this morning we were using a key to lock the door to soiled linens because the old lock was broken. She further stated she hadn't noticed in the past that there was a problem with the lock. She stated she had worked on Tuesday (10/26/21) and the lock was not broken. At 11:28 AM, surveyor #1 interviewed the LPN/UM who stated the lock on the soiled linen door was fixed yesterday and that maintenance swapped out the combination lock for a key lock. The key for the new lock would be kept on a key ring and the southside nurse would be responsible for it. At 10/28/21 at 12:03 PM, surveyor #1 interviewed the Director of Maintenance (DOM). The DOM stated yesterday on the 7th floor they reported to us the lock got broken to the chute room door. That's where we throw the laundry down the chute. The DOM acknowledged that room was to be locked at all times for safety reasons and the chute only has a latch so the door must be locked. That's the only floor that has a chute room, the others the chute is right when you open the door. As soon as we were notified, we went up to the 7th floor and repaired the lock. The DOM went on to say the facility process was when repairs were needed, if the repair was an emergency repair they would call maintenance. If it was not an emergency the repair was entered on the floor's maintenance log. The log gets checked for each floor, by the maintenance staff, when they do hourly rounds. The DOM further stated he did not know if the 7th floor's maintenance log had an indication to fix the lock, but on that morning's, maintenance rounds and wander guard check his staff had reported all the chute doors were locked. On 10/28/21 the survey team met with the Regional Director of Clinical Operations, the Director of Nursing (DON), the Assistant Director of Nursing (ADON) and the Licensed Nursing Home Administrator (LNHA). At 2:15 PM, the LNHA stated No, the door to the laundry chute shouldn't be open and accessible, that none of the laundry doors or housekeeping doors should be left unlocked, that it could be a potential danger if a resident were to access that area. At 2:16 PM, the Regional Director of clinical Operations stated the facility did not have a policy in regard to the locking of laundry room doors. NJAC 8:39-27.1(a)
CONCERN (D)

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

Respiratory Care (Tag F0695)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on observation, interview, record review and review of other facility documentation, it was determined that the facility failed to a) obtain a physician's order to administer oxygen therapy in a...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, interview, record review and review of other facility documentation, it was determined that the facility failed to a) obtain a physician's order to administer oxygen therapy in accordance with professional standards of practice and b) change oxygen tubing to prevent the spread of infection for 2 of 2 residents reviewed for respiratory care, (Resident # 37 and Resident # 175). This deficient practice was evidenced by the following: 1. During the initial tour of the 5th floor unit on 10/25/21 at 09:58 AM, Resident # 37 was observed lying in bed with the head of the bed elevated. Resident # 37 had nasal oxygen in use at 2 liters (L) per minute. The tubing was undated. According to the admission Record, Resident #37 was admitted to the facility with diagnoses including but not limited to; Cerebral Infarction (stroke). A review of the Order Summary Report (OSR) with date range of 10/1/21-10/31/21 did not include a physician order for the use of oxygen or when to change the tubing. A review of a Progress Note dated 10/14/21 indicated O2 (oxygen) via nasal cannula continued. A review of Resident # 37's care plan did not include the use of oxygen. 2. During the initial tour of the 5th floor unit on 10/25/21 at 10:01 AM, Resident # 175 was observed lying in bed with the head of the bed elevated with nasal oxygen in use at 2 liters per minute. The tubing was undated. According to the admission Record Resident # 175 was admitted to the facility with diagnoses including but not limited to: Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD) (disease of the lungs making it difficult to breathe). A review of OSR for August 2021, September 2021, and October 2021, did not include a physician order for the use of oxygen or when to change the tubing. A review of a care plan reveled focus area of Respiratory with interventions including but not limited to, Oxygen therapy per MD order. During an interview with the surveyor on 10/27/21 at 10:31 AM, Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN #4), who was the assigned nurse, said when a resident admitted with oxygen, we get an order from physician for standing order for oxygen. LPN # 4 confirmed we do need a physician order for oxygen. She went on to say that they should change tubing and humidification bottle at least weekly. LPN #4 said Yes this is what policy is and normally done on 3-11 shift. LPN #4 reviewed the OSR for Resident # 37 and Resident # 175 in the presence of the surveyor and she said it doesn't look like he/she has one on here. Yes, he/she is on oxygen. During an interview with the survey on 10/28/21 at 09:16 AM, the Director of Nursing (DON) said yes, we are required to have a physician order for oxygen. The DON went on to say tubing's are changed every Wednesday on 11-7 shift and it should be tagged on tubing itself with the date. A review of a facility policy titled Oxygen Administration with a revised date of October 2010, revealed under the Preparation section 1. Verify that there is a physician's order for this procedure. The policy did not include documentation as to when to change the oxygen tubing. NJAC 8:39-27.1(a)
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0761 (Tag F0761)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on observation, interview, and review of facility documentation, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure two, multi-use medications were dated with an opened date. This deficient pr...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, interview, and review of facility documentation, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure two, multi-use medications were dated with an opened date. This deficient practice was identified for 1 of 6 medication carts (fourth floor south medication cart) that were reviewed as part of the Medication Storage Task and was evidenced by the following: On 10/26/21 at 12:43 PM, the surveyor observed an opened vial of Humulin N (medication given to help control blood sugar levels) prescribed to Resident #114. The vial label did not reveal an opened date. LPN #2 confirmed there was no opened date on the vial. On the same date and time, the surveyor observed an opened Basaglar injection pen (an injection device with a needle that delivers insulin into the body) prescribed to Resident #740. The injection pen label did not reveal an opened date. LPN #2 confirmed there was no opened date on the injection pen. A review of Resident #114's Medication Review Report revealed a physician's order for Insulin NPH Suspension (Humulin N) 100unit/mL. A review of Resident #114's Medication Administration Record revealed that he/she received 22 units of Humulin N on October 25th, 2021 at 7:30 AM. A review of Resident #740's Medication Review Report revealed a physician's order for Basaglar KwikPen Solution Pen-Injector 100unit/mL. A review of Resident #740's Medication Administration Record revealed that he/she received 45units of Basaglar on October 26th, 2021 at 09:00 AM. On 10/28/21 at 2:30 PM, during an interview with the surveyor, the Assistant Director of Nursing (ADON) and the Director of Nursing (DON) confirmed multi-dose vials and insulin pens should be dated with an opened date. On 10/29/21 at 11:38, during an interview with the surveyor, the ADON explained that multi-dose medications should be labeled with the opened date because the medication expires after a certain amount of time. A review of the facility policy titled, 7.0 Insulin Pen Labeling & Packaging with an effective date of 10/01/2018 and a revision date of the same did not address open dates. N.J.A.C. 8:39-29.4
CONCERN (D)

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

Garbage Disposal (Tag F0814)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on observation, interview, and review of other facility documentation, it was determined that the facility failed to provide a sanitary environment for residents, staff, and the public by failin...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, interview, and review of other facility documentation, it was determined that the facility failed to provide a sanitary environment for residents, staff, and the public by failing to keep the garbage container area free of garbage and debris. This deficient practice was evidenced by the following: On 10/26/2021 from 9:36 AM to 9:43 AM the surveyor, accompanied by the Food Service Director (FSD), observed the facility's designated trash disposal area. The surveyor observed a trash compactor unit (closed unit) that the FSD stated was Utilized by the kitchen for waste. On the ground surrounding the compactor the surveyor observed clear plastic cups, Styrofoam cups, clear plastic bags, empty number 10 cans (can used in food service that hold approximately 109 oz of food product), an empty 1-gallon plastic jug of Italian dressing, plastic lids used for beverage cups, plastic spoons, used dish rags and other unidentifiable debris. When interviewed as to who was responsible for the maintenance of the designated garbage area the FSD responded, I am responsible for the maintenance of the garbage area. I usually check it every morning, but I forgot today. During an interview with the facility Administrator on 10/26/2021 at 2:12 PM, the facility administrator told the surveyor that she did not have a policy and procedure that would cover who is responsible for maintenance of the facilities garbage area. The administrator stated, Housekeeping, maintenance and the dietary department are responsible for the maintenance of the garbage area, but I don't have a policy for that. NJAC 8:39-19.3(c)
CONCERN (D)

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

Medical Records (Tag F0842)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

2. Resident # 736 was admitted to the facility with diagnosis of Bipolar Disorder and Major Depressive Disorder. A review of Resident # 736's electronic and paper medical records revealed that a compr...

Read full inspector narrative →
2. Resident # 736 was admitted to the facility with diagnosis of Bipolar Disorder and Major Depressive Disorder. A review of Resident # 736's electronic and paper medical records revealed that a comprehensive nursing admission assessment was not completed. There was no further documentation to indicate Resident # 736's status upon admission to the facility. During an interview with the surveyor on 10/28/21 at 09:20 AM, the Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN # 6) said the nursing admission assessment should be completed for every resident upon admission within 24 hours. During an interview with the surveyor in the presence of a second surveyor on 10/28/21 at 11:24 AM, the Assistant Director of Nursing (ADON) who is also the acting Minimum Data Set Coordinator confirmed that Resident # 736 did not have a comprehensive nursing admission assessment completed upon admission. During an interview with the surveyor on 10/28/21 at 09:16 AM, the Director of Nursing (DON) said that admission assessments should be done when the resident comes into the facility. The nurse should start the assessments and depending on the time of arrival may be overlap of shifts. She further stated the assessment should be completed within 24 hours. A review of an undated facility policy titled Daily Clinical Meeting revealed the daily clinical meeting is a review of the residents' clinical status events admissions . The policy further indicated during the daily clinical meeting; the following occurs: Review of all admissions while utilizing the admission check off list. The policy also revealed The Director of Nursing responsibility: Review of all admissions in their entirety which includes documentation, assessments, as well as reviewing the medication reconciliation form. NJAC 8:39-35.2(d)(5) Based on interview, review of medical record and other facility documentation, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure that the medical record was maintained with complete and accurate medical information for 2 of 35 sampled residents, (Resident #37 and Resident # 736). This deficient practice was evidenced by the following: 1. Resident # 37 was admitted to the facility with diagnoses of Parkinson's Disease and cerebral infarction. A review of review of the Nursing admission Screening/History dated 10/9/21 revealed the only portion filled out was the weight dated 9/7/21, pulse dated 9/22/21, blood pressure dated 9/22/21, blood glucose 217 dated 9/22/21. There was no further documentation to indicate Resident # 37's status upon admission to the facility.
CONCERN (F)

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

Food Safety (Tag F0812)

Could have caused harm · This affected most or all residents

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview, and review of other facility documentation, it was determined that the facility failed to handl...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview, and review of other facility documentation, it was determined that the facility failed to handle potentially hazardous foods and maintain sanitation in a safe and consistent manner to prevent food borne illness. This deficient practice was evidenced by the following: On 10/26/2021 from 8:42 AM to 10:12 AM, the surveyor, accompanied by the Food Service Director (FSD) observed the following in the kitchen: 1. On an upper shelf in the dry storage area a container of dill weed was dated 5/16/20. On interview the FSD stated, They are good for one year. The FSD threw the container of dill weed in the trash. 2. (2) cans of Mandarin Oranges on a multi-tiered mobile storage rack had significant dents on the lower seams of the can. The FSD removed the cans to the designated dented can area. On interview the FSD stated, The dietary aides who receive the cans are responsible for removing the dented cans to the designated dented can area. 3. On an upper shelf of the dry pot storage rack a stack of 7 deep, quarter pans were observed to be wet to the touch with a watery like substance. The pans were observed to be wet nesting (a term used in the food service industry when wet dishes or pots and pans are stacked, preventing them from drying, and creating conditions that are ripe for microorganisms to grow. FDA guidelines mandate that wares should be air dried.). On interview the FSD stated, They should be completely air dried before being stacked. 4. A cleaned, and sanitized meat slicer was on top of a prep table. The surveyor placed their finger on the slicer wheelbase and an unidentifiable brown, sticky substance was observed on the surveyor's index finger. The surveyor interviewed the dietary assistant (DA) who stated that she had not used the meat slicer this morning. The FSD on interview stated, I'm going to use it to slice lunch meat for lunch. The surveyor questioned the FSD if the meat slicer had been used this AM. The FSD responded, No, but I'm going to. The meat slicer was not bagged and was exposed. 5. A red bucket on a shelf under the coffee machine was identified by the FSD as containing sanitizer solution to sanitize soiled work areas (Santec Resolve Eight quaternary ammonium disinfectant and sanitizer was in use). The FSD utilized a Hydrion QT-40 test strip (utilized to measure the concentration of Quaternary Sanitizers). The FSD submerged a test strip in the bucket for 10 seconds per manufacturer's instructions. The FSD removed the test strip from the sanitizing solution and compared it to the color chart on the test strip dispenser. The test strip revealed a sanitizer level of approximately 100 ppm (parts per million). The FSD performed a second test of the quaternary sanitizing solution utilizing the Hydrion QT-40 test strip and dipping the test strip in the sanitizing solution for 10 seconds, per manufacturer recommendations. The second test strip showed a ppm of less than 100 ppm. Manufacturer recommends 200 ppm - 400 ppm active quat for effective sanitizing of work surfaces. 6. A stock table (a type of worktable used in foodservice) located between the steamer and the candy stove was covered with unidentified debris on the legs of the table. The surveyor used their index finger to wipe the debris and a tan, gummy substance remained on the surveyor's index finger. In addition, the legs of the candy stove were covered with unidentified brown/tan debris. Fan #1 was observed to be in operation and was observed to have black, gummy unidentifiable debris on the wire cage, as well as the fan motor and fan blades. On interview the FSD stated, Maintenance cleans it monthly, I guess. 7. An electrical junction box above the designated hand washing sink was observed to be covered with unidentifiable tan/brown debris that was sticky to the touch. When interviewed the FSD stated, Ultimately, I am responsible for cleaning of the kitchen. 8. A wall mounted knife storage box in the cook's prep area contained 2 wooden handled knives. When interviewed the FSD stated, Those are bread knives. I wasn't aware that they shouldn't be used. I'll throw them away. 9. Fan #3 above the clean exit area of the dish was observed to have unidentified black dust and debris on the fan cage and fan motor. The fan was actively in use. 10. The tops of the ice machines were covered with unidentifiable, whitish, tan debris that was flaky to the touch. The debris had the potential to fall into the ice box when the door was opened to access ice and possibly contaminate the ice supply. This was observed for 2 of 2 ice machines. On interview the FSD stated, That's from the water supply, we changed filters, but I don't know what to do. The surveyor observed the Ice Machine Cleaning -2021 sheet attached to the ice machine which revealed that the machine had last been cleaned on 10/20/2021. On 10/26/2021 from 11:19 to 11:49 AM the surveyor, accompanied by the Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN#1) observed the following on the 3rd floor pantry: 1. A frozen bagel/breakfast sandwich in a clear plastic wrapper had no dates. The interior of the freezer had an ice buildup on the freezer bottom. In addition to the ice buildup there was a reddish substance that was mixed into the ice buildup, as well as splattered all over the interior of the freezer door. 2. On the refrigerator door a piece of what appeared to be cheddar cheese, was wrapped in manufacturer's plastic, and had no dates. An opened container of Hi Cal high calorie Oral Supplement (33.8 Fl oz (1.05 QT) 1 L) was opened and had a date of 10/21. Manufacturer's instructions ([NAME] Nutrition) revealed the following is recommended: Once opened, reclose, label with time and date, refrigerate, cover and use within 48 hours. 3. In the refrigerator a clear zip lock bag contained what appeared to be diced watermelon. The bag had no dates, name, or room number. A plastic WAWA bag contained a Styrofoam soup type bowl with a plastic lid and another sealed food container of an undetermined food type. The bag had no dates and no name. A white plastic bag contained a Tupperware style container with a clear plastic lid. The container appeared to be a garden salad with some hard-boiled eggs. The bag and container had no dates or names. In addition, the lower shelf of the refrigerator was covered with an unidentifiable tan/yellow substance/debris. 4. The surveyor reviewed the October 2021 Food Temperature Log for the 3rd floor pantry. The log revealed that staff failed to record the refrigerator temperature for the following dates/shifts: 10/1/2021: 11 AM, 3 PM, 7 PM 10/2/2021: 7 AM/11 AM, 3 PM/7 PM 10/3/2021: 7 AM/11 AM, 3 PM/7 PM, 11 PM/3 AM 10/4/2021: 7 AM/11 AM, 3 PM/7 PM 10/5/2021: 7 AM/11 AM 10/6/2021: 7 AM/11 AM, 3 PM/7 PM, 11 PM/3 AM 10/7/2021: 7 AM/11 AM, 3 PM/7 PM 10/8/2021: 7 AM/11 AM, 3 PM/7 PM 10/9/2021: 7 AM/11 AM, 3 PM/7 PM 10/10/2021: 7 AM/11 AM, 3PM/7 PM 10/11/2021: 7 AM/11 AM, 3 PM/7 PM, 11 PM/3 AM 10/12/2021: 7 AM/11 AM, 3 PM/7 PM, 11 PM/3 AM 10/13/2021: 7 AM/11 AM, 3 PM/7 PM, 11 PM/3 AM 10/14/2021: 7 AM/11 AM, 3 PM/7 PM, 11 PM/3 AM 10/15/2021: 7 AM/11 AM, 3 PM/7 PM 10/16/2021: 3 PM/7 PM 10/17/2021: 3 PM/7 PM 10/18/2021: 7 AM/11 AM, 3 PM/7 PM 10/19/2021: 7 AM/11 AM, 3 PM/7 PM, 11 PM/3 AM 10/20/2021: 7 AM/11 AM, 3 PM/7 PM, 11 PM/3 AM 10/21/2021: 7 AM/11 AM, 3 PM/7 PM, 11 PM/3 AM 10/22/2021: 11 AM 10/23/2021: 7 AM/11 AM, 3 PM/7 PM, 10/24/2021: 7 AM/11 AM, 3 PM/7 PM 10/25/2021: 3 PM/7 PM, 11 PM/3 AM 10/26/2021: 7 AM 5. The surveyor interviewed the LPN#1. On interview LPN#1 stated, I honestly don't know who is responsible for cleaning the refrigerator. The nursing staff is responsible for the monitoring of the refrigerator temperature. Nursing, CNA's and pretty much everybody who works on the unit is responsible for monitoring the refrigerator. The watermelon and salad belong to staff. Upon observation of the freezer the LPN responded, Well that's disgusting. 6. On 10/26/21 at 12:22 PM LPN#1 revealed the following to the surveyor That was staff food in the pantry refrigerator that you found. The surveyor questioned whether staff food is to be kept in the resident refrigerator and should it also be labeled and dated. The LPN stated, To be honest I have no idea. On 10/26/2021 from 1:23 to 12: 35 PM the surveyor, accompanied by LPN#2 observed the following on the 4th floor pantry: 1. An opened container of Hi Cal High Calorie Oral Supplement (33.8 Fl oz (1.05 QT) 1 L) was opened and contained approximately 2/3 of formula left in the bottle. The had an open date of 10/15/2021. When interviewed the nurse stated, They are good for 24 hours after opening. The LPN threw the HI Cal in the trash in the presence of the surveyor. 2. The surveyor reviewed the October 2021 Food Refrigerator Log for the 4th floor pantry. The log revealed that facility staff failed to record refrigerator temperatures on the following dates/shifts: 10/1/2021: 7-3 and 3-11 10/2/2021: 7-3, 3-11 and 11-7 10/3/2021: 7-3, 3-11 and 11-7 10/4/2021: 7-3, 3-11 and 11-7 10/5/2021: 7-3 10/6/2021: 7-3, 3-11 and 11-7 10/7/2021: 7-3 10/8/2021: 7-3, 3-11 and 11-7 10/9/2021: 3-11 and 11-7 10/10/2021: 3-11 and 11-7 10/11/2021: 7-3 and 3-11 10/12/2021: 7-3, 3-11 and 11-7 10/13/2021: 7-3, 3-11 and 11-7 10/14/2021: 7-3, 3-11 and 11-7 10/15/2021: 7-3, 3-11 and 11-7 10/16/2021: 7-3, 3-11 and 11-7 10/17/2021: 7-3 and 3-11 10/18/2021: 7-3 and 3-11 10/19/2021: 7-3 and 3-11 10/20/2021: 7-3, 3-11 and 11-7 10/21/2021: 7-3, 3-11 and 11-7 10/22/2021: 7-3, 3-11 and 11-7 10/23/2021: 7-3, 3-11 and 11-7 10/24/2021: 7-3, 3-11 and 11-7 10/25/2021: 7-3 and 3-11 10/26/2021: 7-3 On 10/27/2021 from 9:37 to 9:53 AM the surveyor, accompanied by the LPN#3 observed the following on the 5th floor pantry 1. In the freezer a Hot Pocket (An American brand of microwaveable turnovers generally containing one or more types of cheese, meat, or vegetables) was in the manufacturer's plastic wrapping. The Hot Pocket had no dates, name, or room number. A silver sealed plastic bag contained an unidentified food product. The bag had no dates, name, or room number. A gray plastic bag contained three individual zip lock type bags of unidentified food product. The bags had no dates, name, or room numbers. In addition, the inside of the freezer had an unidentified brown stain on the bottom of the freezer approximately 2-3 inches in diameter. 2. The surveyor reviewed the [DATE] Food Refrigerator Log for the 5th floor pantry. The log revealed that facility staff failed to record refrigerator temperatures for the following dates/shifts: 10/1/2021 to 10/25/2021: 7-3, 3-11 and 11-7 shifts 10/26/2021: 7-3 On 10/27/2021 from 11:31 AM to 12:01 PM the surveyor, accompanied by the FSD observed the following in the kitchen: 1. During tray line preparation the cook was observed to wear a hair net. The hair net only partially covered the cook's hair leaving the front of the hair partially exposed. The cook's hair was observed to extend approximately 4 inches out the front of the hair net and was resting on the cook's forehead at eyebrow level. The hair was exposed and not covered by the hair net. The surveyor reviewed the facility policy titled FOOD BROUGHT IN FROM OUTSIDE, effective date 1/16/18. The following was revealed under the heading PROCEDURE: 3. Foods and beverages brought in from outside sources that require refrigeration or freezing will be labeled with the resident's name, date, and stored in common areas or residents' personal refrigerators for resident use. 6. All refrigerator and freezer units will have internal thermometers to monitor for safe food storage temperatures. Refrigerators should be kept at 41 degrees or below and freezers cold enough to keep foods frozen solid. Assigned staff will monitor temperatures in resident/employee use units and Employee Dining Room. Assigned staff will monitor units in resident rooms, in the volunteer/nursing office, and in the activity room. If temperatures are out of range, notify maintenance immediately. Dispose of refrigerated foods if they are above 41 degrees and freezer foods if no longer frozen solid to the touch. 7. Dietary staff will also be responsible to check resident/employee use units in, and Employee Dining Room for food that is outdated, unlabeled, or not stored properly and discard. Housekeeping will do the same in all units in resident rooms, in the volunteer/nursing office, and in the activity room. Housekeeping will be responsible to check resident rooms through housekeeping processes for food and beverage items for safe and sanitary storage and handling. The surveyor reviewed the facility policy titled Dry Storage Areas, 2010 [NAME] & Associates, Inc. The following was revealed under Procedure: 7. Leaking or severely dented cans and spoiled foods should be disposed of promptly to prevent contamination of other foods. The surveyor reviewed the facility provided checklist titled Sanitation Schedule Check Of (sic) List 7-3 Kitchen Cleaner, dated 8/21/2011. The checklist revealed that the 7-3 kitchen cleaner is responsible for the cleaning of Kitchen small appliances - coffee urn/steamer/robot coupe and blender machine/slicer. The surveyor reviewed the facility policy titled Labeling and Dating System Protocol, revised 11/12/19. The protocol revealed that All Dried Spices (opened or un-opened) 1 year. A review of a facility provided Inspection, dated 5/21/21 revealed under General Kitchen Sanitation that Fans & Vents Clean, free of dust received a zero (0) response which indicated No. A review of a facility policy with revision date 7/2021 titled Staff Hygiene revealed under the Procedure section: 1. Hair will be worn off of the shoulders and constrained in an approved hair net. N.J.A.C. 18:39-17.2(g)
MINOR (B)

Minor Issue - procedural, no safety impact

Comprehensive Assessments (Tag F0636)

Minor procedural issue · This affected multiple residents

Resident #736 was admitted with diagnoses which included but was not limited to bipolar disorder and major depressive disorder. On 10/28/2021, the surveyor reviewed the EMR for resident #736. The EMR ...

Read full inspector narrative →
Resident #736 was admitted with diagnoses which included but was not limited to bipolar disorder and major depressive disorder. On 10/28/2021, the surveyor reviewed the EMR for resident #736. The EMR revealed an entry date of 10/05/2021 for Resident #736. As of 10/28/2021, the admission MDS was in progress and had not been completed. On 10/28/2021 at 9:02 a.m., the surveyor interviewed the Assistant Director of Nursing who is the acting Minimum Data Set Coordinator (MDS Coordinator). The MDS Coordinator stated that the MDSs should be completed within 14 days of the ARD. She acknowledged that the comprehensive MDSs were late and should have been completed within 14 days of the ARD. The surveyor reviewed the MDS 3.0 RAI Manual dated October 1, 2019. The Manual revealed on Page 2-16 that the Annual MDS assessment has a completion date No Later Than the ARD +14 calendar days. NJAC 8:39 - 11.2 Based on interview and record review, it was determined that the facility failed to complete the Comprehensive Minimum Data Set assessment in a timely manner for 8 residents. This deficient practice was identified for Residents #11, #10, #17, #54, #6, #13, #27, and #736, 8 of 78 residents reviewed for comprehensive assessments and was evidenced by the following: Resident #11 was admitted with diagnoses that included but was not limited to mild cognitive impairment and schizoaffective disorder. On 10/26/2021, the surveyor reviewed the electronic medical record (EMR) for resident #11. The Comprehensive Minimum Data Set (MDS), an assessment tool completed on admission and annually, revealed an Assessment Reference Date (ARD), a date used as the last day of a look-back period, of 9/4/2021. The EMR revealed that the Annual MDS for Resident #11 had not been completed and was in progress. As of 10/26/2021, the Annual MDS was 31 days late. Resident #10 was admitted with diagnoses that included but was not limited to schizophrenia and seizures. On 10/26/2021, the surveyor reviewed the EMR for resident #10. The Annual MDS revealed an ARD of 9/4/2021. The EMR revealed that the Annual MDS for Resident #10 had not been completed and was in progress. As of 10/26/2021, the Annual MDS was 31 days late. Resident #17 was admitted with diagnoses which included but was not limited to unspecified intellectual disabilities and hyperlipidemia. On 10/26/2021, the surveyor reviewed the EMR for resident #17. The MDS revealed an ARD of 9/14/2021. The EMR revealed that the Annual MDS for Resident #17 had not been completed and was in progress. As of 10/26/2021, the Annual MDS was 30 days late. Resident #54 was admitted with diagnoses which included but was not limited to major depressive disorder and hypothyroidism. On 10/28/2021, the surveyor reviewed the EMR for resident #54. The Annual MDS revealed an ARD of 10/4/2021. The EMR revealed that the Annual MDS for Resident #54 had not been completed and was in progress. As of 10/28/2021, the Annual MDS was 10 days late. Resident #6 was admitted with diagnoses which included but was not limited to hypertension and schizoaffective disorder. On 10/28/2021, the surveyor reviewed the EMR for resident #6. The Annual MDS revealed an ARD of 9/4/2021. The EMR revealed that the Annual MDS for Resident #6 had not been completed and was in progress. As of 10/28/2021, the Annual MDS was 32 days late. Resident #13 was admitted with diagnoses which included but was not limited to major depressive disorder and schizoaffective disorder. On 10/28/2021, the surveyor reviewed the EMR for resident #13. The Annual MDS revealed an ARD of 9/13/2021. The EMR revealed that the Annual MDS for Resident #13 had not been completed and was in progress. As of 10/28/2021, the Annual MDS was 31 days late. Resident #27 was admitted with diagnoses which included but was not limited to diabetes and schizoaffective disorder. On 10/28/2021, the surveyor reviewed the EMR for resident #27. The Annual MDS revealed an ARD of 9/20/2021. The EMR revealed that the Annual MDS for Resident #27 had not been completed and was in progress. As of 10/28/2021, the Annual MDS was 24 days late.
MINOR (B)

Minor Issue - procedural, no safety impact

Deficiency F0638 (Tag F0638)

Minor procedural issue · This affected multiple residents

Based on interview and record review, it was determined that the facility failed to complete the Quarterly Minimum Data Set assessment in a timely manner for 27 residents. This deficient practice was ...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on interview and record review, it was determined that the facility failed to complete the Quarterly Minimum Data Set assessment in a timely manner for 27 residents. This deficient practice was identified for Residents #32, #3, #9, #25, #22, #18, #31, #14, #23, #28, #7, #2, #37, #4, #5, #8, #12, #15, #16, #19, #20, #21, #24, #29, #30, and #144, 26 of 78 residents reviewed for quarterly assessments and was evidenced by the following: Resident #32 was admitted with diagnoses that included but was not limited to schizophrenia and anemia. On 10/26/2021, the surveyor reviewed the electronic medical record (EMR) for resident #32. The Quarterly Minimum Data Set (QMDS), an assessment tool completed every 3 months, revealed an Assessment Reference Date (ARD), a date used as the last day of a look-back period, of 9/23/2021. The EMR revealed that the Quarterly MDS for Resident #32 had not been completed and was in progress. As of 10/26/2021, the Quarterly MDS was 21 days late. Resident #3 was admitted with diagnoses that included but was not limited to Parkinson's Disease and anxiety. On 10/26/2021, the surveyor reviewed the EMR for Resident #3. The QMDS revealed an ARD of 09/04/2021. The EMR revealed that the QMDS for Resident #3 had not been completed and was in progress. As of 10/26/2021, the QMDS was 31 days late. Resident #9 was admitted with diagnoses which included but was not limited to schizoaffective disorder and anemia. On 10/26/2021, the surveyor reviewed the EMR for Resident #9. The QMDS an ARD of 09/12/2021. The EMR revealed that the QMDS for Resident #9 had not been completed and was in progress. As of 10/26/2021, the QMDS was 31 days late. Resident #25 was admitted with diagnoses which included but was not limited to schizoaffective disorder and Vitamin D deficiency. On 10/26/2021, the surveyor reviewed EMR for Resident #25. The QMDS revealed an ARD of 09/19/2021. The EMR revealed that the QMDS for Resident #25 had not been completed and was in progress. As of 10/26/2021, the QMDS was 24 days late. Resident #22 was admitted with diagnoses which included but was not limited to schizophrenia and hyperlipidemia. On 10/26/2021, the surveyor reviewed the EMR for Resident #22. The QMDS revealed an ARD of 09/19/2021. The EMR revealed that the QMDS for Resident #22 had not been completed and was in progress. As of 10/26/2021, the QMDS was 25 days late. Resident #18 was admitted with diagnoses which included but was not limited to hyperlipidemia and Vitamin D deficiency. On 10/26/2021, the surveyor reviewed EMR for Resident #18. The QMDS revealed an ARD of 09/19/2021. The EMR revealed that the QMDS for Resident #18 had not been completed and was in progress. As of 10/26/2021, the Quarterly MDS was 25 days late. Resident #31 was admitted with diagnoses which included but was not limited to paranoid schizophrenia and sleep disorder. On 10/26/2021, the surveyor reviewed the EMR for Resident #31. The QMDS revealed an ARD of 09/23/2021. The EMR revealed that the QMDS for Resident #31 had not been completed and was in progress. As of 10/26/2021, the QMDS was 21 days late. Resident #14 was admitted with diagnoses which included but was not limited to schizophrenia and dementia. On 10/26/2021, the surveyor reviewed the EMR for Resident #14. The QMDS revealed an ARD of 09/05/2021. The EMR revealed that the QMDS for Resident #14 had not been completed and was in progress. As of 10/26/2021, the QMDS was 31 days late. Resident #23 was admitted with diagnoses which included but was not limited to dementia and basal cell carcinoma. On 10/26/2021, the surveyor reviewed the EMR for Resident #23. The QMDS revealed an ARD of 09/19/2021. The EMR revealed that the QMDS for Resident #23 had not been completed and was in progress. As of 10/26/2021, the QMDS was 25 days late. Resident #28 was admitted with diagnoses which included but was not limited to diabetes mellitus and benign prostatic hyperplasia. On 10/26/2021, the surveyor reviewed the EMR for Resident #28. The QMDS revealed an ARD of 09/20/2021. The EMR revealed that the QMDS for Resident #28 had not been completed and was in progress. As of 10/26/2021, the QMDS was 24 days late. Resident #7 was admitted with diagnoses which included but was not limited to type 2 diabetes mellitus and anemia. On 10/26/2021, the surveyor reviewed the EMR for Resident #7. The QMDS revealed an ARD of 09/04/2021. The EMR revealed that the QMDS for Resident #7 had not been completed and was in progress. As of 10/26/2021, the QMDS was 31 days late. Resident #2 was admitted with diagnoses which included but was not limited to schizoaffective disorder and human immunodeficiency virus. On 10/26/2021, the surveyor reviewed the EMR for Resident #2. The QMDS revealed an ARD of 09/02/2021. The EMR revealed that the QMDS for Resident #2 had not been completed and was in progress. As of 10/26/2021, the QMDS was 29 days late. Resident #37 was admitted with diagnoses which included but was not limited to Parkinson's Disease and sepsis. On 10/28/2021, the surveyor reviewed the EMR for Resident #37. The QMDS revealed an ARD of 09/27/2021. The EMR revealed that the QMDS for Resident #37 had not been completed and was in progress. As of 10/28/2021, the QMDS was 17 days late. Resident #4 was admitted with diagnoses which included but was not limited to disorganized schizophrenia and bipolar disorder. On 10/28/2021, the surveyor reviewed the EMR for Resident #4. The QMDS revealed an ARD of 09/04/2021. The EMR revealed that the QMDS for Resident #4 was completed on 10/28/21. The QMDS was completed 40 days late. Resident #5 was admitted with diagnoses which included but was not limited to dementia with behavioral disturbance and mood disorder. On 10/28/2021, the surveyor reviewed the EMR for Resident #5. The QMDS revealed an ARD of 09/12/2021. The EMR revealed that the QMDS for Resident #5 had not been completed and was in progress. As of 10/28/2021, the QMDS was 32 days late. Resident #8 was admitted with diagnoses which included but was not limited to dementia with anxiety disorder and bipolar disorder. On 10/28/2021, the surveyor reviewed the EMR for Resident #8. The QMDS revealed an ARD of 09/12/2021. The EMR revealed that the QMDS for Resident #8 had not been completed and was in progress. As of 10/28/2021, the QMDS was 32 days late. Resident #12 was admitted with diagnoses which included but was not limited to dementia with diabetes and hypertension. On 10/28/2021, the surveyor reviewed the EMR for Resident #12. The QMDS revealed an ARD of 09/13/2021. The EMR revealed that the QMDS for Resident #12 had not been completed and was in progress. As of 10/28/2021, the QMDS was 31 days late. Resident #15 was admitted with diagnoses which included but was not limited to dementia with paranoid schizophrenia and major depressive disorder. On 10/28/2021, the surveyor reviewed the EMR for Resident #15. The QMDS revealed an ARD of 09/05/2021. The EMR revealed that the QMDS for Resident #15 had not been completed and was in progress. As of 10/28/2021, the QMDS was 39 days late. Resident #16 was admitted with diagnoses which included but was not limited to dementia with muscle weakness and major depressive disorder. On 10/28/2021, the surveyor reviewed the EMR for Resident #16. The QMDS revealed an ARD of 09/14/2021. The EMR revealed that the QMDS for Resident #16 had not been completed and was in progress. As of 10/28/2021, the QMDS was 30 days late. Resident #19 was admitted with diagnoses which included but was not limited to dementia with schizoaffective disorder and diabetes. On 10/28/2021, the surveyor reviewed the EMR for Resident #19. The QMDS revealed an ARD of 09/19/2021. The EMR revealed that the QMDS for Resident #19 had not been completed and was in progress. As of 10/28/2021, the QMDS was 25 days late. Resident #20 was admitted with diagnoses which included but was not limited to dementia with schizophrenia and kidney failure. On 10/28/2021, the surveyor reviewed the EMR for Resident #20. The QMDS revealed an ARD of 09/19/2021. The EMR revealed that the QMDS for Resident #20 had not been completed and was in progress. As of 10/28/2021, the QMDS was 25 days late. Resident #21 was admitted with diagnoses which included but was not limited to dementia with schizophrenia and anxiety. On 10/28/2021, the surveyor reviewed the EMR for Resident #21. The QMDS revealed an ARD of 09/19/2021. The EMR revealed that the QMDS for Resident #21 had not been completed and was in progress. As of 10/28/2021, the QMDS was 25 days late. Resident #24 was admitted with diagnoses which included but was not limited to dementia with paranoid schizophrenia and hypertension. On 10/28/2021, the surveyor reviewed the EMR for Resident #24. The QMDS revealed an ARD of 09/19/2021. The EMR revealed that the QMDS for Resident #24 had not been completed and was in progress. As of 10/28/2021, the QMDS was 25 days late. Resident #29 was admitted with diagnoses which included but was not limited to dementia with paranoid schizophrenia and hypertension. On 10/28/2021, the surveyor reviewed the EMR for Resident #29. The QMDS revealed an ARD of 09/20/2021. The EMR revealed that the QMDS for Resident #29 had not been completed and was in progress. As of 10/28/2021, the QMDS was 24 days late. Resident #30 was admitted with diagnoses which included but was not limited to dementia with schizophrenia and vitamin deficiency. On 10/28/2021, the surveyor reviewed the EMR for Resident #30. The QMDS revealed an ARD of 09/21/2021. The EMR revealed that the QMDS for Resident #30 had not been completed and was in progress. As of 10/28/2021, the QMDS was 23 days late. Resident #144 was admitted with diagnoses which included but was not limited to dementia with paranoid schizophrenia and anxiety disorder. On 10/28/2021, the surveyor reviewed the EMR for Resident #144. The QMDS revealed an ARD of 08/21/2021. The EMR revealed that the QMDS for Resident #144 was completed on 09/14/21. The QMDS was completed 10 days late. On 10/28/2021 at 9:02 a.m., the surveyor interviewed the Assistant Director of Nursing who is the acting Minimum Data Set Coordinator (MDS). The MDS Coordinator stated that the Quarterly MDSs should be completed within 14 days of the ARD. She acknowledged that the Quarterly MDSs of were late and should have completed within 14 days of the ARD. The surveyor reviewed the MDS 3.0 RAI Manual dated October 1, 2019. The Manual revealed on Page 2-17 that the Quarterly MDS assessment has a completion date No Later Than the ARD +14 calendar days. NJAC 8:39 - 11.2
MINOR (B)

Minor Issue - procedural, no safety impact

Assessment Accuracy (Tag F0641)

Minor procedural issue · This affected multiple residents

2. On 10/26/21 at 9:36 AM, Resident #84 was observed lying in bed watching television. Resident #84's legs were contracted towards his/her chest and his/her bilateral hands were tightly closed and tur...

Read full inspector narrative →
2. On 10/26/21 at 9:36 AM, Resident #84 was observed lying in bed watching television. Resident #84's legs were contracted towards his/her chest and his/her bilateral hands were tightly closed and turned in. The resident demonstrated how he/she attempts to grasp a soda can stating that he/she does this to help keep her hands exercised. According to the admission Record, Resident #84 was admitted to the facility with diagnoses including but not limited to; Paranoid Schizophrenia, Unspecified Dementia without Behavioral Disturbance. A review of Resident #84's MDS, an assessment tool dated 07/19/21, revealed under section G0400- (Functional Status), that Resident #84 had impairment of both sides of the lower extremities and no impairment to the upper extremities. The MDS also revealed in section O-(Special Treatments and Programs), that Resident #84 did not receive any restorative nursing programs that included range of motion exercises, splint, or brace assistance. A review of the Physician Order Sheet (POS) dated 10/29/21 revealed no order for services related to the resident's contractures (a condition of shortening and hardening of muscles, tendons, and other tissue often leading to deformity and rigidity of joints). On 10/27/21 at 12:28 PM, the surveyor reviewed the MDS with the ADON/acting MDS coordinator. The MDS coordinator acknowledged that the MDS did not accurately identify Resident #84's functional abilities and diagnosis of upper extremity contractures. The MDS coordinator further said that Resident #84 should have been identified as requiring total care, and he/she should have had some form of a splint to benefit his/her range of motion. NJAC 8:39-11.2(e)(1) Based on observation, interview, review of the medical record and other facility documentation, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure that an accurate Minimum Data Set (MDS), an assessment tool, was completed. This deficient practice was identified for 2 of 37 residents reviewed for MDS's (Residents # 89 and Resident # 84) and was evidenced by the following: 1. During the initial tour of the 5th floor unit on 10/25/21 at 09:55 AM, Resident #89 was observed lying in bed with a blue splint on her left hand. The resident said she has had contracture left hand for at least a month. She also said she exercises her own hand. According to the admission Record, Resident # 89 was admitted to the facility with diagnosis including but not limited to: Multiple Sclerosis. A review of the Order Summary Report (OSR) dated 10/4/21, revealed an order for Left hand grip splint at all times except for hygiene every shift. The OSR dated 10/4/21 further revealed an order for Towel roll left hand at all times except for hygiene for contracture management every shift A review of the Quarterly Minimum Data set (MDS), an assessment tool dated 7/25/21, under section G-4-A. coded as zero (0) for upper extremity indicating No impairment. During an interview with the surveyor on 10/28/21 at 11:29 AM, the Assistant Director of Nursing (ADON) /acting MDS coordinator said the quarterly MDS was not coded correctly under G0400 (functional status) and section O (Special Treatments and Programs) should also have had a splint or brace coded.
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?"
  • "What safeguards are in place to prevent abuse and neglect?"
  • "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: Federal abuse finding, 8 life-threatening violation(s), Special Focus Facility, 2 harm violation(s), $391,336 in fines, Payment denial on record. Review inspection reports carefully.
  • • 54 deficiencies on record, including 8 critical (life-threatening) violations. These warrant careful review before choosing this facility.
  • • $391,336 in fines. Extremely high, among the most fined facilities in New Jersey. Major compliance failures.
  • • Grade F (0/100). Below average facility with significant concerns.
Bottom line: This facility has a substantiated abuse finding. Extreme caution advised. Explore alternatives.

About This Facility

What is Crystal Lake Healthcare And Rehabilitation's CMS Rating?

CRYSTAL LAKE HEALTHCARE AND REHABILITATION does not currently have a CMS star rating on record.

How is Crystal Lake Healthcare And Rehabilitation Staffed?

Staff turnover is 68%, which is 22 percentage points above the New Jersey average of 46%. High turnover can affect care consistency as new staff learn residents' individual needs. RN turnover specifically is 62%, which is notably high. RNs provide skilled clinical oversight, so turnover in this role can affect medical care quality.

What Have Inspectors Found at Crystal Lake Healthcare And Rehabilitation?

State health inspectors documented 54 deficiencies at CRYSTAL LAKE HEALTHCARE AND REHABILITATION during 2021 to 2025. These included: 8 Immediate Jeopardy (the most serious level, indicating potential for serious harm or death), 2 that caused actual resident harm, 41 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 Crystal Lake Healthcare And Rehabilitation?

CRYSTAL LAKE HEALTHCARE AND REHABILITATION is owned by a for-profit company. For-profit facilities operate as businesses with obligations to shareholders or private owners. The facility operates independently rather than as part of a larger chain. With 235 certified beds and approximately 192 residents (about 82% occupancy), it is a large facility located in BAYVILLE, New Jersey.

How Does Crystal Lake Healthcare And Rehabilitation Compare to Other New Jersey Nursing Homes?

Compared to the 100 nursing homes in New Jersey, CRYSTAL LAKE HEALTHCARE AND REHABILITATION's staff turnover (68%) is significantly higher than the state average of 46%.

What Should Families Ask When Visiting Crystal Lake Healthcare And Rehabilitation?

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?" "What safeguards and monitoring systems are in place to protect residents from abuse or neglect?" "How do you ensure continuity of care given staff turnover, and what is your staff retention strategy?" "Can I visit during a mealtime to observe dining assistance and food quality?" These questions are particularly relevant given the facility's Immediate Jeopardy citations, the substantiated abuse finding on record, and the facility's high staff turnover rate.

Is Crystal Lake Healthcare And Rehabilitation Safe?

Based on CMS inspection data, CRYSTAL LAKE HEALTHCARE AND REHABILITATION has documented safety concerns. The facility has 1 substantiated abuse finding (meaning confirmed case of resident harm by staff or other residents). Inspectors have issued 8 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 0-star overall rating and ranks #100 of 100 nursing homes in New Jersey. Families considering this facility should ask detailed questions about what corrective actions have been taken since these incidents.

Do Nurses at Crystal Lake Healthcare And Rehabilitation Stick Around?

Staff turnover at CRYSTAL LAKE HEALTHCARE AND REHABILITATION is high. At 68%, the facility is 22 percentage points above the New Jersey average of 46%. Registered Nurse turnover is particularly concerning at 62%. RNs handle complex medical decisions and coordinate care — frequent RN changes can directly impact care quality. High turnover means new staff may not know residents' individual needs, medications, or preferences. It can also be disorienting for residents, especially those with dementia who rely on familiar faces. Families should ask: What is causing the turnover? What retention programs are in place? How do you ensure care continuity during staff transitions?

Was Crystal Lake Healthcare And Rehabilitation Ever Fined?

CRYSTAL LAKE HEALTHCARE AND REHABILITATION has been fined $391,336 across 3 penalty actions. This is 10.6x the New Jersey average of $36,992. Fines at this level are uncommon and typically indicate a pattern of serious deficiencies, repeated violations, or failure to correct problems promptly. CMS reserves penalties of this magnitude for facilities that pose significant, documented risk to resident health or safety. Families should request specific documentation of what issues led to these fines and what systemic changes have been implemented.

Is Crystal Lake Healthcare And Rehabilitation on Any Federal Watch List?

CRYSTAL LAKE HEALTHCARE AND REHABILITATION is currently on the Special Focus Facility (SFF) watch list. This federal program identifies the roughly 1% of nursing homes nationally with the most serious and persistent quality problems. SFF facilities receive inspections roughly twice as often as typical nursing homes. Factors in this facility's record include 8 Immediate Jeopardy findings, a substantiated abuse finding, and $391,336 in federal fines. Facilities that fail to improve face escalating consequences, potentially including termination from Medicare and Medicaid. Families considering this facility should ask for documentation of recent improvements and what specific changes have been made since the designation.