CRITICAL
(J)
Immediate Jeopardy (IJ) - the most serious Medicare violation
Deficiency F0678
(Tag F0678)
Someone could have died · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Reference:
The American Heart Association (AHA) 2010 . guidelines every five years for CPR and Emergency Cardiovascular Care (EC...
Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Reference:
The American Heart Association (AHA) 2010 . guidelines every five years for CPR and Emergency Cardiovascular Care (ECC). These guidelines reflect global resuscitation science and treatment recommendations . In the guidelines, AHA has established evidenced-based decision-making guidelines for initiating CPR when cardiac or respiratory arrest occurs in or out of the hospital. AHA urges all potential rescuers to initiate CPR unless: 1) a valid Do Not Resuscitate (DNR) order is in place; 2) obvious clinical signs of clinical death (e.g., rigor mortis, dependent lividity, decapitation, transection, or decomposition) are present; or 3) initiating CPR could cause injury or peril to the rescuer. AHA guidelines for CPR provide the standard for the American Red Cross, state EMS agencies, healthcare providers, and the general public.
Based on interview, review of facility records, and other pertinent facility documents on [DATE], it was determined that the facility failed to initiate life saving measures for a resident who was found unresponsive and was designated by the facility as a full code (Initiate Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation if the heart stops and respirations cease), as well as failed to follow the facility policy titled; Cardio Pulmonary Resuscitation. This deficient practice was identified for 1 of 3 residents for closed records review (Resident #122), when on [DATE] at 3:40 PM, Resident #122 was found by the Registered Nurse (RN #1) with no pulse or respirations. RN #1 failed to initiate CPR and pronounced the resident dead at 3:40 PM, without attempting to resuscitate the resident. This was not in accordance with the resident's wishes as documented in the medical record, as stated by the resident's physician, or according to the facility's policy. In addition, there was no documentation in the medical record to explain RN #1's decision to not attempt resuscitation. The facility's failure to honor the code status of a resident and initiate life saving measures (CPR) posed a serious and immediate threat to the safety and well being of Resident #122 and all other residents in the facility who were designated as full code status. This resulted in an Immediate Jeopardy (IJ) determination. The Licensed Nursing Home Administrator (LNHA) and the Director of Nursing (DON) were notified of the IJ and provided the IJ template on [DATE] at 1:29 PM. The IJ began on [DATE] at 3:40 PM when Resident #122 was found unresponsive by the Registered Nurse (RN #1) assigned to the resident and continued until [DATE] at 2:38 PM when the facility provided an acceptable removal plan. The removal plan was verified on-site on [DATE], during survey.
The evidence was as follows:
On [DATE] at 9:00 AM the surveyor reviewed the Electronic and Hard copy medical records of Resident #122 which revealed the following:
The nurses admission note was dated [DATE] 5:31 AM. The note read At 0100 AM receive a [AGE] year old [male] patient from [an acute care hospital] via ambulance on a stretcher accompanied by 2 MT [medical technician] staff, with a DX [diagnosis] OF S/P [status post] Fall, left hip fracture. s/p IM [intramedullary-inside of a bone] nailing wound vac.[vacuum]. Pt is awake alert and oriented x3 (with no cognitive deficits) denied pain at this time breathing even and easy unlabored, abdomen bowel sounds present in all quadrants with bulging hernia skin warm to touch with multiple bruises to both upper extremities surgical incision with 24 staples all intact with mild oozing, closed blister near the incision pitting edema to bilateral feet. Dry dressing applied to the surgical site APN [Advanced Practice Nurse] made aware of the admission and verified all the medication orders carried out and faxed to the pharmacy Covid rapid test done Negative. PPD [a test to evaluate exposure of a person to tuberculosis] Given To The Left Forearm . Patient cleaned and made comfortable.
A review of the note by the APN dated [DATE] at 12:21 PM, revealed Resident #122 was admitted with diagnoses that included; Dementia, Hypertension, Anemia, Neuropathy, Hip Fracture, Subtrochanteric fracture of the left femur, Localized Edema, and Atrial Fibrillation. The note also included the code status of the resident. Under Code Status it read: Resuscitation status-ordered-[DATE] 1:56:00 EDT-Full Code.
A review of the nurses note by RN #1 dated [DATE] 6:38 PM, read: Patient found in a supine position with NC [nasal cannula] in place, wound vac [vacuum assisted device to help close a wound] functioning, bed lowered, HOB [head of bed] up, no response to name or stimulus, no respiration, no pulse, no S1S2 on auscultation [sounds heard when listening to the heart]. Patient pronounce [sic] by this nurse at 3:40 pm. [The physician] informed immediately and ordered to inform the family. She was also going to follow up with a call to the family . This note was electronically signed by RN #1 at 7:40 PM.
On [DATE] at 9:31 AM, the surveyor interviewed the Director of Nursing (DON) who stated that Resident #122 had been a full code. The [NAME] President of Operations and the LNHA were also present. The surveyor asked the DON what she remembered about the death of Resident #122. The DON stated I learned that the resident had expired the day after it happened, I spoke with the nurse involved, because when I read the note it looked like nothing had been done. The nurse involved said when he saw the resident earlier in the shift it looked like the resident was asleep, he checked the resident later and it appeared that the resident was far gone so he called the family. The surveyor asked the DON what she would expect the nurse to do if they came upon a resident who was unresponsive and a full code. The DON stated I would expect that they would call an emergency. There is someone assigned to arrive to the unit when there is an emergency. The surveyor asked the DON what she would expect the nurse to do if they found the resident unresponsive. The DON stated To start CPR and start the code [Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation]. The nurse said the resident looked far gone so he called the family he called the family and said your loved one just died. We did an in-service (education) and explained that CPR should have been initiated for a resident who was a full code and found unresponsive.
The DON provided an in-service sign in sheet dated [DATE], (the DON said the year 2022 was an error). The topic was Code Status/CPR. Under Summary it read; If a resident is found unresponsive and upon assessment needs to be coded, Licensed Nurse needs to check first if resident has an advance directive. If resident is full code, CPR should be started immediately and 911 should be alerted. There were 11 signatures on the sign in sheet to indicate they attended the in-service. RN #1 was not one of the 11 people that signed to indicate they attended the in-service. The surveyor asked the DON why they did not provide the in-service training to all of the staff. The DON said they didn't have time.
The DON also provided a form that she identified as an in-service that was conducted the day after the incident but it did not document the in-service that she conducted with RN #1. The DON stated that RN #1 was called in to the facility the morning the current survey was being conducted ([DATE]) and asked RN #1 to sign that he had been spoken to the day after he failed to initiate CPR for Resident #122. The topic was listed as Protocol on code status. Under Agenda it read: In-service with [RN #1]. The Nurse (RN#1) stated that resident was far gone when he assessed resident and had expired. No HR [heart rate], RR [respiratory rate], O2 Sat [oxygen level measured in the blood], Skin was cold, Notified family resident had expired and pronounced resident. Protocol on code status and how to address was reviewed with [RN #1]. Start CPR no matter how far gone unless family indicates beforehand that they did not want CPR. Always better to get a witness to family statement. It was signed by RN #1 and dated [DATE].
On [DATE] at 10:37 AM, the surveyor interviewed RN #1 who stated Doing rounds the patient was in bed and looked okay at around 3:20-3:30 [pm]. I did a quick sweep through. Then during the second round about 3:40 pm, the patient wasn't responding, the patient was cold, the feet were cold, the patient had no respirations, pulse, was not responding to their name. I called the doctor and asked if I should start CPR. I told her the patient was cold, looked like [the resident] was dead for a while. The doctor said no do not start CPR. Then I called the family. The family did not want to come in. The surveyor asked RN #1 if he was aware the resident was a full code. RN #1 stated Yes, I checked. I've been a nurse for 23 years. This patient was [AGE] years old, the patient was fragile, the patient was dead cold. It wasn't that I neglected that part of the CPR but the patient was really gone. The surveyor asked why he did not initiate CPR. RN #1 stated. The patient's history and the patient was already gone. I would have started CPR, there is a procedure that you would follow but I called the doctor and told her the resident was gone and cold. It looked like the resident was dead for a while, the feet were purple, the patient was cold, the eyes were shut, there was no carotid pulse, O2 (oxygen) saturation was zero. The resident had changed, the color, the resident was cold, not responding, what caught my attention the patient was cold. The surveyor asked RN #1 if he felt he honored the resident's wishes to be a full code. RN #1 stated No I didn't do that. I was thinking the resident was [AGE] years old, frail, do we want to crack the ribs, I called the doctor. Moving forward I would start CPR right away. I wouldn't care about the age I would just do it.
RN #1 also stated that the failure to initiate resuscitative measures was due to the fact that the resident was [AGE] years old and frail, and additionally stated the resident was cold and it looked as if the resident had been dead for a while. RN #1 did not report any of the following as a reason for not initiating Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation; rigor mortis, dependent lividity, decapitation, transection, or decomposition, which are the conditions under which a health care professional would not initiate Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation according to the American Heart Association. In addition, there was no documentation in the medical record to explain RN #1's decision to not attempt resuscitation.
On [DATE] at 11:00 AM, the surveyor reviewed the certification card of RN #1 from the American Heart Association which verified that RN #1 was certified as a Basic Life Support Provider. The issue date was [DATE], and the renewal date was 3/2023.
On [DATE] at 12:32 PM, the surveyor interviewed the Physician who stated He [RN #1] called me and said [the resident] expired not unresponsive, I don't remember what time, in the afternoon, he told me [the resident] expired, after the resident expired I called the family and they said [the resident] said that [the resident] didn't want to live anymore. In the past I had the conversation with the family about [the resident's] code status and they said they didn't want any aggressive measures but they did want [the resident] to be a full code. I wasn't in the building so I could not assess for myself, if I was in the building then I would assess but I was not there and the nurse said the resident was expired. You can't perform CPR on a dead person.
On [DATE] at 12:45 PM, the surveyor reviewed the facility's policy and procedure titled Cardio Pulmonary Resuscitation date implemented [DATE], and date reviewed/revised [DATE]/21. Under Policy it read; In the absence of a Do Not Resuscitate Order by a licensed MD or APN or in accordance to resident's advance directive or if resident does not show signs of clinical death, a witnessed respiratory or cardiac arrest at [the facility], basic Cardio Pulmonary Resuscitation (CPR) will be initiated on all persons by CPR trained staff. CPR is provided as per the current American Heart Association and Emergency Cardiovascular Care (ECC) guidelines. Under Procedure bullet point one read: Initiate CPR and have someone page code blue and the emergency team will respond. Bullet point two read: The Supervisor is notified immediately. The MD/APN is notified and 911 is called. Bullet point three read: CPR continues until the Mobile Intensive Care Unit (MICU) arrives, or the licensed MD/APN is present to discontinue resuscitation. Bullet point number four read: After the resident is transferred, the following must be documented: a. Time the resident was found to be totally unresponsive and by whom. b. Time CPR was initiated and outcome of CPR. c. Time MICU arrived and transported the resident. d. Use of resuscitation bag and/or O2. e. MD/APN notified. f. Relative notified and time of call. The surveyor asked the DON if the facility had a separate policy for an unwitnessed respiratory or cardiac arrest. She said they did not, but moving forward they would add that to the policy.
The IJ was identified on [DATE], and the LNHA was notified of the IJ at 1:29 PM. A removal plan was received the same day at 2:38 PM, which included: that the facility updated the pre-admissions process to include; the admissions staff requesting a copy of the advance directive from the sending facility and providing a copy to the admitting nurse, verification of the code status by the admitting nurse, applying a code status identifier on the resident, daily audits of identifiers by the Unit Managers and House Supervisor on all shifts. The code status of residents will be reviewed the first day after admission, at the first clinical meeting about the resident, quarterly, at care plan meetings, and during family meetings. Education started on [DATE], after the LNHA was notified of the IJ situation. All staff were being educated on how to identify a resident who required a code, their responsibilities during a code, and how to document the event. Mock codes will be re-instated at the facility that were halted due to the Covid-19 Pandemic.
The implementation of the Removal Plan was verified on-site on [DATE], through observations, interviews with facility staff, and a review of in-service education and revised facility's Cardio Pulmonary Resuscitation policy.
NJAC 8:39-4.1(31)iii
NJAC 8:39-9.6(g)
)
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, and review of facility policies, it was determined that the facility failed to provide full vis...
Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview, and review of facility policies, it was determined that the facility failed to provide full visual privacy for 2 of 24 residents reviewed, Resident #96 and Resident #85.
The deficient practice was evidenced by the following:
1. On 9/15/2021 at 10:15 AM, Resident #85 was observed lying in bed with eyes open. The resident was pleasant when spoken to.
The surveyor reviewed Resident #85's Electronic Medical Records (EMR) that revealed the following:
The 7/30/21 Quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) an assessment tool indicated the resident had short term and long term memory problems and moderate cognitive impairment, had diagnoses of Non-Alzheimer's Dementia and Parkinson's Disease, and had one stage three pressure ulcer (an injury to the skin and underlying tissue primarily caused by prolonged pressure on the skin).
On 9/21/21 at 9:35 AM, the surveyor observed the pressure ulcer in the presence of the Registered Nurse Unit Manager (RNUM) and the hospice home health aide (HHA) during morning care.
The wound was on the resident's sacrum, so the resident's buttocks was exposed. The resident's roommate was present in bed on the other side of the room. The resident's privacy curtain was pulled partway, obscuring the view from the doorway and the hallway but not obscuring the view of the resident's roommate. The roommate's privacy curtain was also pulled partway in the same fashion, not obscuring the view to Resident #85.
On 9/21/21 at 10:44 AM, the surveyor interviewed the HHA who stated that when she provided morning care for Resident #85 that the privacy curtain was fully closed and that when the RNUM and the surveyor came into the room that it must have been pulled back. The HHA stated that she always ensures resident privacy.
On 9/22/21 at 10:40 AM, the surveyor interviewed the RNUM. The RNUM stated that she did not notice that the privacy curtain was not fully closed, and that Resident #85 was exposed to the roommate. The RNUM stated that she was focused on the task at hand of showing the surveyor the wound. She stated that the privacy curtain should have been closed all the way.
2. On 9/15/21 at 10:51 AM, the surveyor observed Resident #96 in bed awake. The resident was alert and oriented and watching television.
The surveyor asked the Registered Nurse (RN) who was assigned to the resident if the resident had a urinary catheter. The RN said the resident had a nephrostomy (a tube surgically inserted through the skin and into the kidney to divert urine into a drainage bag).
The surveyor asked the RN if she could assist the surveyor to see the nephrostomy, the tube, and the drainage bag. The RN entered the resident's room, washed her hands, went to the resident's bedside, and uncovered the resident while she explained to the resident what she was doing. She turned the resident over and showed the surveyor the nephrostomy tube from the right nephrostomy and the urinary drainage bag that was attached to the resident's right ankle, exposing the resident's legs. She lifted the resident's top as well to show me the resident's back where the tube was inserted. She did not close the privacy curtain. The resident's roommate was awake and sitting in the next bed.
On 9/15/21 at 11:20 AM, the surveyor reviewed the EMR of Resident #96 which revealed the following:
An admission MDS dated [DATE] which included a Brief Interview of Mental Status with a score of 14 of a possible 15. This indicated that the resident was cognitively intact. The MDS also indicated that the resident had the following active diagnoses, Cancer, Anemia, Urinary Tract Infection (last 30 days), Hyperlipidemia, and Malignant Neoplasm of Bladder.
A Physician's Order Sheet which included an order that read: Nephrostomy Site Care TAR cleanse Nephrostomy site with NSS (normal saline solution) pat dry, apply dressing daily at 6 am daily. The order date was 8/20/21.
On 9/22/21 at 2:09 PM, the surveyors spoke with the Administrator and the Director of Nursing (DON) about the concern with the lack of physical privacy for Resident # 96 and Resident #85. They both acknowledged that the nurses should have provided privacy. The surveyor asked for the facility's list of Resident Rights.
On 9/23/21 the surveyor reviewed the facility's list of resident's rights. Under Patient Rights, a. read: Each patient shall be entitled to the following rights: Number 16 read: To have physical privacy. The patient shall be allowed, for example, to maintain the privacy of his or her body during medical treatment and personal hygiene activities, such as bathing and using the toilet, unless the patient needs assistance for his or her safety.
8:39-37.4(b)
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Pressure Ulcer Prevention
(Tag F0686)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview, and record review, it was determined that the facility failed to reassess and provide care for ...
Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview, and record review, it was determined that the facility failed to reassess and provide care for pressure ulcers in accordance with professional standards of practice for 1 of 3 residents reviewed for pressure ulcer care, Resident #85.
The deficient practice is evidenced by the following:
On [DATE] at 10:15 AM, Resident #85 was observed lying in bed with eyes open.
On [DATE] at 9:35 AM, the surveyor observed the pressure ulcer (an injury to the skin and underlying tissue primarily caused by prolonged pressure on the skin) in the presence of the Registered Nurse Unit Manager (RNUM) and the hospice home health aide (HHA) during the resident's morning care. The surveyor observed an open wound on the sacrum with redness around the outside of the wound and yellowness inside of the wound bed.
The surveyor reviewed Resident #85's Electronic Medical Record (EMR) which revealed the following:
The Quarterly Minimum Data Set an assessment tool dated [DATE], indicated the resident had short term and long term memory problems and moderate cognitive impairment, and had diagnoses that included Non-Alzheimer's Dementia and Parkinson's Disease. In addition, the assessment indicated that the resident had one stage three pressure ulcer.
The Skin Breakdown care plan, revised on [DATE], indicated the resident had a history of an unstageable sacral wound. The interventions for this wound included to complete skin assessments weekly, and to provide treatment as ordered.
The [DATE] Weekly Skin Assessments dated [DATE], [DATE], and [DATE] revealed no documentation that the resident had a sacral wound. The nurse's documented on the Weekly Skin Assessments the following: On [DATE] it was documented that the resident had skin color usual for ethnicity and that the resident's skin was warm. On [DATE] and [DATE] the Weekly Skin Assessment indicated that the resident's skin was usual for ethnicity.
The [DATE] LTC Physician Order Review included a treatment order dated [DATE], to cleanse the sacral wound with Dakins Solution, to pat it dry, to apply calcium alginate, and to cover it with a dry dressing every 24 hours and as needed. The order had a stop date for the treatment that was [DATE].
The [DATE] Electronic Treatment Administration Record (ETAR) had no documentation after the stop date of [DATE], from [DATE]-[DATE], that the nurses had performed a treatment to the sacral pressure ulcer.
The Nursing Progress Notes from [DATE]-[DATE] revealed no documentation that the nurses had reassessed the sacral pressure ulcer once the treatment had ended on [DATE].
On [DATE] at 9:40 AM, the surveyor interviewed the RNUM regarding the treatment order for the pressure ulcer that had a stop order for [DATE]. The RNUM stated that the physician orders had expired but that the orders were still active on the ETAR. The surveyor stated that there were no active treatment orders on the ETAR and that there was no documentation on the ETAR from [DATE]-[DATE] that the nurses had performed the treatment. The RNUM stated that when treatment orders expire, the nurses need to contact the resident's physician.
On [DATE] at 9:45 AM, the surveyor spoke with the Registered Nurse (RN) assigned to the resident. The RN stated that the sacral pressure ulcer was closed and that she had been placing a dry dressing on the area according to her professional nursing judgment. The RN stated that no medicated ointment or treatment was applied to the wound since when the order expired on [DATE]. At 9:50 AM, The RN returned to the surveyor and stated that the resident's wound was still a little bit open and that she was contacting the doctor resume the treatment order to the sacral wound.
On [DATE] at 9:07 AM, the surveyor reviewed the Nursing Progress Note dated and timed [DATE] at 2:39 PM, that indicated the RN documented that she observed a small opening on the sacrum and that she cleansed the wound with normal saline and applied a dry sterile dressing.
On [DATE] at 9:54 AM, the Assistant Director of Nursing (ADON) provided the surveyor with Weekly Skin Assessments from [DATE], [DATE], and [DATE], which had documentation indicating the measurements and exudate (drainage) of the sacral pressure ulcer. The [DATE] Weekly Skin Assessments provided by the ADON were different from the [DATE] Weekly Skin Assessments the surveyor had obtained from the resident's EMR.
On [DATE] at 10:40 AM, the surveyor interviewed the RNUM about the difference in the Weekly Skin Assessments that were obtained from the EMR and the Weekly Skin Assessments that the ADON provided the surveyor. The RNUM stated that she backdated the Weekly Skin Assessments from [DATE], [DATE], and [DATE] and that they were all completed on [DATE].
On [DATE] at 1:20 PM the surveyor discussed the above concerns with the Administrator and the Director of Nursing (DON). The DON stated that there should have been a new physician's order to provide a treatment to the sacral pressure ulcer.
A review of the 2020 facility policy on Wound Assessment and Treatment indicated that wound assessments should be documented weekly including the measurement and description of the wound. The facility policy also indicated that nursing documentation should include notification to the physician regarding wound or treatment changes.
8:39-27.1(e)
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0691
(Tag F0691)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview, and record review, it was determined that the facility failed to provide care and services for ...
Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview, and record review, it was determined that the facility failed to provide care and services for a nephrostomy in a manner that would decrease the possibility of infection. This was found with Resident #96, who was 1 of 1 resident reviewed for nephrostomy care.
The deficient practice was evidenced by the following:
On 9/15/21 at 10:51 AM, the surveyor observed Resident #96 in bed awake. The resident was alert and oriented and watching television.
The surveyor asked Registered Nurse #1 (RN) who was assigned to the resident if the resident had a urinary catheter. RN #1 said the resident had a nephrostomy (a tube surgically inserted through the skin and into the kidney to divert urine into a drainage bag). The surveyor asked RN #1 if she could assist the surveyor to see the nephrostomy, the tube, and the drainage bag. RN #1 entered the resident's room, washed her hands, went to the resident's bedside, and uncovered the resident while she explained to the resident what she was doing. She turned the resident over and showed the nephrostomy tube from the right nephrostomy and the urinary drainage bag that was attached to the resident's right ankle.
On 9/15/21 at 11:20 AM the surveyor reviewed the record of Resident # 96 which revealed the following:
An admission Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] which included a Brief Interview of Mental Status with a score of 14 of a possible 15. This indicated that the resident was cognitively intact. The MDS also indicated that the resident had the following active diagnoses, Cancer, Anemia, Urinary Tract Infection (last 30 days), Hyperlipidemia, and Malignant Neoplasm of Bladder.
A Physician's Order Sheet which included an order that read: Nephrostomy Site Care TAR cleanse Nephrostomy site with NSS, pat dry, apply dressing daily at 6 am daily. The order date was 8/20/21.
An Interdisciplinary Care Plan dated 8/18/21 that read: [The resident] has a nephrostomy in place due to diagnosis of bladder cancer. The goal read: [The resident] will not show any signs or symptoms of infection X 30 days. The approach read: Will check for redness on stoma site, Will check for proper functioning and placement, Will monitor output, and Change nephrostomy dressing daily.
On 9/16/21 at 11:57 AM, the surveyor observed the resident in bed watching television. The resident was fully dressed and clean. The resident was laying on the bed. There was a urinary drainage bag from the nephrostomy tube attached to the resident's right ankle with a strap. The surveyor asked the resident if the staff changed the bag when the resident was in bed at night. The resident said No, this is it. This is what I use.
On 9/21/21 at 11:15 AM, the surveyor asked the Unit Manager/Registered Nurse (UM/RN) for a new urinary drainage bag for the nephrostomy tube that was used by Resident #96. She provided one for the surveyor to inspect. The surveyor asked the UM/RN if the facility had a different drainage bag they used at night when the resident slept in bed. The UM/RN said no, they used the leg bag when the resident was in bed. The surveyor asked the UM/RN when the resident's last Urinary Tract Infection (UTI) was. She said the resident was admitted with the nephrostomy tube and the resident hadn't had a UTI since the resident had been at the facility. She further stated that the resident did have a history of UTIs.
On 9/21/21 at 11:22 AM, the surveyor went to interview the resident again. The surveyor observed the resident asleep in bed on top of the bed fully dressed with the nephrostomy bag on the right ankle.
On 9/21/21 at 12:53 PM, the surveyor called the manufacturer for the urinary drainage bag that the resident had been observed wearing. The surveyor asked the customer service representative (CSR) if the leg bag should have been used for the resident when the resident was in bed. The CSR said no, that is a leg bag and not meant to be used while in bed. The CSR informed the surveyor that there was nighttime drainage bag for use when the resident would have been in bed.
On 9/21/21 at 1:44 PM, the surveyor spoke with RN #2 who identified herself as a part time nurse who had worked at the facility for 6 years. RN #2 said she filled in for the regular nurse when she was off and worked every other weekend. She said she was unaware if the urinary drainage bag should have been changed to a large bag when the resident was in bed. She said when a resident had a foley catheter they changed the collection bag, but she was unsure about the process for a resident with a nephrostomy.
On 9/21/21 at 12:00 PM, the surveyor reviewed the facility's policy and procedure titled Nephrostomy and Cystostomy Tube Care and Maintenance. Under Policy it read: Resident's with nephrostomy or cystostomy tubes will receive care consistent with professional standards of practice, the comprehensive person-centered care plan, and the resident's goals and preferences.
On 9/21/21 at 2:09 PM, the surveyor spoke with the Administrator and the Director of Nursing (DON). The DON acknowledged that the resident should not have been in bed with a leg bag on because of the risk of infection.
NJAC 8:39-27.1(a)
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0698
(Tag F0698)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on observation, interview, and record review, it was determined that the facility nurse failed to consistently assess the dialysis vascular access site before transport to the hemodialysis clini...
Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, interview, and record review, it was determined that the facility nurse failed to consistently assess the dialysis vascular access site before transport to the hemodialysis clinic for 1 of 1 resident (Resident #118) reviewed for hemodialysis.
The deficient practice was evidenced by the following:
The surveyor observed the resident on 9/15/21 at 10:46 AM. The resident was seen lying in bed in a hospital gown.
A review of the resident's Electronic Medical Records (EMR) which revealed the following:
The 8/18/21 admission Minimum Data Set (MDS) an assessment tool, indicated the resident had severe cognitive impairment as evidenced by a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of 0 of a possible 15.
Additionally, the resident was assessed to have dependence on Renal Dialysis and a diagnosis of End Stage Renal Disease (ESRD).
The care plan addressed two areas related to hemodialysis. 1) The need for dialysis three times a week for ESRD. Interventions included: arrange appointment and transportation as needed; provide a communication book to monitor compliance and pertinent information that dialysis center provides. 2) The potential for infection due to the presence of an internal jugular catheter for dialysis access. Interventions included: monitor catheter site for redness, drainage, and foul odor; perform laboratory testing as needed; administer antibiotics if indicated; follow up with vascular or primary physician if warranted.
The September 2021 Physician Orders included 8/17/21 orders for hemodialysis on Monday, Wednesday, and Friday and monitor and check the right internal jugular hemodialysis access site for redness and signs of infection.
The Dialysis Communication Sheet, a form traveling with the resident to the dialysis center, provided spaces for the dialysis center staff to complete. At the bottom of the form was a signature line for the long-term care (LTC) facility nurse to sign. There were six completed forms in the communication binder. None of the six forms included documentation from the LTC facility nurse indicating the dialysis access site was assessed before or when returning to the facility from the dialysis center.
The surveyor interviewed the Registered Nurse Unit Manager (RNUM) on 9/22/21 at 9:30 AM regarding nurses' documentation of resident's dialysis access site assessment prior to and upon returning from the dialysis center. The RNUM stated it was located on the Dialysis Communication Sheet. The surveyor and the RNUM reviewed the sheet together. The RNUM confirmed the assessments were not documented on the Dialysis Communication Sheet. She stated, I have to change that sheet.
The surveyor interviewed the unit Registered Nurse (RN #1) assigned to Resident #118 on 9/22/21 at 9:40 AM. RN #1 stated the resident leaves for dialysis on her shift (7 AM - 3 PM) and returns on the 3 PM - 11 PM shift. RN #1 stated the access site is monitored once each shift and is documented on the Electronic Treatment Administration Record. RN #1 was unable to provide documentation of monitoring at the time the resident was transported to the dialysis center.
The surveyor interviewed the 3 PM - 11 PM Registered Nurse (RN #2) on 9/22/21 at 11:10 AM via telephone. RN #2 stated when the resident returns from dialysis, she checks the access site for bleeding and to be sure the dressing is intact. RN #2 stated she documents the assessment in the Nursing Notes in the EMR.
The surveyor interviewed the Director of Nursing (DON) on 9/22/21 at 1:41 PM regarding nursing assessments of the resident's dialysis access site pre and post dialysis. The DON provided to the surveyor on 9/23/21 copies of eight Nursing Progress notes written in September 2021 documenting access site monitoring upon return from the dialysis clinic. Three of the notes were marked late entry written on 9/22/21 for previous dates. The DON did not provide documentation of assessments done prior to the resident leaving the facility for the dialysis center.
On 9/23/21 the DON provided the surveyor with the facility policy for Dialysis Transport and Communication, implemented 9/2017 and reviewed/revised 2020. The policy did not address monitoring the access site before or after returning from dialysis.
NJAC 8:39-27.1(a)
CONCERN
(E)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Comprehensive Care Plan
(Tag F0656)
Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** 2. On 9/16/21 at 1:24 PM, the surveyor observed Resident #98 in the resident's room. Resident #98 informed the surveyor that he/...
Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** 2. On 9/16/21 at 1:24 PM, the surveyor observed Resident #98 in the resident's room. Resident #98 informed the surveyor that he/she was receiving an anticoagulant medication.
The surveyor reviewed the EMR of Resident #98. The resident's face sheet revealed that Resident #98 was admitted with diagnoses that included Cerebrovascular Accident.
The admission Minimum Data Set (MDS) an assessment tool dated 9/2/21 indicated the facility performed a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) and the resident scored a 15 out of 15 which indicated the resident was cognitive intact.
The LTCAMO revealed that Resident #98 had a physician's order for Lovenox 40 mg/0.4 ml injected subcutaneously daily. The surveyor reviewed the resident's current care plans. There was no care plan developed regarding the resident's use of the anticoagulant medication.
On 9/20/21 at 10:30 AM, the surveyor interviewed the RN #1 assigned to the resident who stated that a care plan for the anticoagulant medication should have been created. RN #1 was unable to locate the care plan.
5. On 9/16/21 at 10:35 AM, the surveyor observed Resident #112 sitting in a wheelchair with eyes closed and a home health aide sitting in a chair beside the resident.
A review of the EMR revealed the following:
The Quarterly MDS dated [DATE] indicated that the resident had short term and long term memory problems and severe cognitive impairment. In addition, the assessment indicated that the resident had no unhealed pressure ulcers.
The Skin Impairment care plan, revised on 8/12/21, indicated that the resident had actual skin impairment as indicated by a left hip wound.
The most recent wound care consult was dated 5/4/2020 and indicated that the stage four pressure ulcer of the resident's left hip resolved.
On 9/17/21 at 9:48 AM, the surveyor interviewed the Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) regarding the condition of Resident #112's skin. The LPN stated that the resident does not have any wounds. She stated that the resident was on skin precautions and received skin preparation treatment to prevent wounds but that there were no wounds at this time.
At 9:58 AM, the surveyor interviewed RNUM regarding the status of the pressure ulcer and the care plan. RNUM stated that the pressure ulcer was now healed fully. The surveyor showed RNUM the care plan which indicated that the resident had an actual wound. RNUM stated that this was inaccurate and that she would change the care plan to indicate that it was a history of a wound and not an actual wound.
Based on observation, interview and record review, it was determined that the facility failed to accurately develop and implement a person-centered comprehensive care plan for care and service needs. This deficient practice was observed for 6 of 27 residents reviewed, Residents # 7, # 25, # 38, # 94, # 98, and # 112, as evidenced by the following:
1. On 9/15/21 at 1:04 PM, the surveyor observed Resident #94 in the resident's room. Resident # 94 informed the surveyor that he/she was receiving an anticoagulant medication.
The surveyor reviewed Resident #94's Electronic Medical Records. Resident #94's face sheet revealed that the resident was admitted to the facility with diagnoses that included Paroxysmal Atrial Fibrillation.
The admission Minimum Data Set (MDS) an assessment tool dated 8/21/21 indicated the facility performed a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) and the resident scored a 5 out of 15 which indicated the resident had moderate cognitive impairment.
A review of the LTC Active Medication Orders (LTCAMO) revealed the resident had a physician's order for Apixaban 2.5 mg 1 tablet by mouth twice daily. The surveyor reviewed the resident's current care plans. There was no comprehensive care plan developed regarding the resident's for the anticoagulant medication.
On 9/20/21 at 10:30 AM, the surveyor interviewed the Registered Nurse #1 (RN #1) assigned to the resident who stated that a care plan for the anticoagulant medication should have been created. RN#1 was unable to locate a care plan.
6. On 9/21/21 at 11:48 AM, the surveyor observed Resident #25 lying in bed with eyes closed. There was an indwelling catheter drainage bag hanging at the side of the bed in a privacy bag. The resident had AM care provided by the hospice home health aide.
The surveyor reviewed Resident #25's EMR and Hospice records located in the resident's hard copy chart that revealed the following:
The Quarterly MDS dated [DATE] indicated that a BIMS was performed by the facility and the resident scored an 8 out of 15, which indicated that Resident #25 had moderate cognitive deficit.
The resident was placed on hospice care on 6/20/20 for diagnoses that included Atrial Fibrillation, Hypertension, Coagulopathy, Acute Kidney Injury, Chronic Kidney Disease, Obstructive Uropathy and Dementia.
The Hospice nurse's plan of care interventions included but not limited to providing a home health aide, indwelling urinary catheter care needs and to collaborate with the facility nurses any changes.
The facility's nursing care plans for Resident #25 did not include a separate hospice care plan that would indicate that there was coordination of care between the hospice nurse and the facility nurse.
In addition, there was no care plan to address Resident #25's indwelling urinary catheter needs for the diagnosis of Obtructive Uropathy (when urine can not drain through the urinary tract).
On 9/21/21 at 12:22 PM, the surveyor interviewed the RNUM about the missing care plans. The surveyor and RNUM reviewed all the care plans located in the care plan book. The RNUM then checked the computer and stated she must of missed them.
On 9/22/21 at 1:13 PM, the survey team discussed the above care plan concerns with the Administrator and Director of Nursing (DON). The DON provided the survey team with requested facility policies.
The facility's policy titled Hospice indicated under Policy the following: The facility and hospice are jointly responsible for developing a coordinated plan of care for the resident that guide both providers and is based upon their assessments and the resident's needs and plans.
The facility's policy titled Foley Catheter Care did not include a procedure to develop a comprehensive care plan to address a resident's indwelling urinary catheter needs.
A review of the 2021 facility policy titled Interdisciplinary Care Plan/ MDS Assessment indicated that care plans should be revised and updated as per resident care needs.
NJAC 8:39- 11.2 (e)
3. The surveyor observed RN #2 feeding Resident #7 on 9/15/21 at 1:14 PM in the resident's room.
The surveyor interviewed RN #2 on 9/17/21 at 12:14 PM. RN #2 stated, depending on the resident's cognition, the resident must either be closely supervised during meals or fed. RN #2 stated the resident does better with breakfast, but for lunch the resident must be fed since he/she tends to be more confused at lunchtime.
A review of the resident's EMR revealed the following.
The Quarterly MDS dated [DATE] indicated the resident had moderate cognitive impairment evidenced by a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of 8 of a possible 15 (indicating moderate cognitive impairment). The resident was assessed to be independent with eating after receiving assistance setting up the food tray.
The Registered Dietician (RD) documented a Progress Note on 8/9/21 regarding the resident's recent weight loss. The RD indicated that she had discussed with the Unit Manager RN (RMUM) the need to begin to supervise or, if needed, feed the resident during mealtimes. The RD documented that since the resident's mental status and/or mood varies throughout the day, the resident would need to be more closely monitored during meals to provide optimal oral intake.
On 9/17/21 the RNUM provided the surveyor with the facility care plan dated 11/23/20 addressing nutritional risk listed dementia as one causal factor leading to weight loss. Interventions included, but were not limited to, provide dining room/meal accommodations: 'I fill out my own select menu with help from staff; allow adequate tie to eat; provide a quiet, calm setting.'
The surveyor interviewed RNUM on 9/22/21 at 10:00 AM. RNUM stated new interventions should be added to the care plan within 1 - 2 days. RNUM did not offer an explanation as to why the care plan had not been updated after the 8/9/21 RD recommendation to supervise or feed the resident.
4. The surveyor observed Resident #38 awake in bed on 9/16/21 at 12:12 PM. The resident's right hand wrist was bandaged in white gauze. At that time the surveyor asked RNUM why the resident's hand was bandaged. She replied that she sustained a skin tear. RNUM stated the resident can get combative during care. RNUM stated the resident is on hospice and has fragile skin.
A review of the resident's EMR revealed the following information:
The Significant Change in Status MDS dated [DATE] indicated the resident had short and long-term memory impairment along with moderately impaired decision-making skills. Additionally, on 1 - 3 days during the past seven days, the resident exhibited behaviors such as hitting or scratching self, rummaging, pacing, among other behaviors listed.
The September 2021 LTCAMO contained an 8/24/21 physician's order to treat a skin tear on the resident's right hand as follows: cleanse skin tear with normal saline, apply bacitracin, approximate skin edges, then apply Steri Strips x 1.
The RNUM provided the surveyor with a copy of the resident's care plan on 9/17/21 at 10:00 AM. The care plan's most recent revision date was listed as 6/14/21. The care plan did not reflect the 8/24/21 right hand skin tear. The care plan did not include interventions to protect the resident's extremities from future skin tears nor did the care plan reflect the resident's behavior of injuring self.
The surveyor interviewed RNUM on 9/22/21 at 9:50 AM. RNUM stated the care plan should be updated 1 - 2 days after changes in the resident's status occurs. She provided no explanation as to why interventions were not added to the care plan on methods to prevent injury to the resident's skin due to her self-injurious behavior and fragile skin.
MINOR
(B)
Minor Issue - procedural, no safety impact
Comprehensive Assessments
(Tag F0636)
Minor procedural issue · 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 a Comprehensive admission 14-day Mi...
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 a Comprehensive admission 14-day Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment according to the Resident Assessment Instrument (RAI) for 1 of 27 residents (Resident #323) reviewed.
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 deficient practice was evidenced by the following:
On 9/21/21 at 12:27 PM, the surveyor reviewed the Electronic Medical Records for Resident #323 which revealed the following:
According to the MDS Intelligence form, the facility set a target date for the admission MDS on 9/9/21. As of 9/21/21, Under the MDS status column, it indicated that the MDS was still open.
The Nursing Home Comprehensive (admission) MDS dated [DATE] had Section A, Identification Information, completed and the remaining areas Section B through Section V were not completed with in the 14 calendar days after admission.
On 9/21/21 at 1:29 PM, the surveyor interviewed the MDS Coordinator who confirmed that she did not complete the MDS. She stated she's been busy with the long term care unit and doesn't currently have help.
On 9/22/21 at 1:26 PM, the surveyor discussed the above concern with the Administrator and Director of Nursing (DON). The DON stated that the Department Heads are responsible for their part in completing the MDS and should have done so.
NJAC 8:39-11.2