CRITICAL
(J)
Immediate Jeopardy (IJ) - the most serious Medicare violation
Respiratory Care
(Tag F0695)
Someone could have died · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observations, record reviews, interviews, and policy review, the facility failed to ensure that one of one resident (Re...
Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observations, record reviews, interviews, and policy review, the facility failed to ensure that one of one resident (Resident (R) 23) reviewed for tracheostomy (trach) care out of a total sample of 20 residents was provided necessary suctioning of the airway, had the necessary supplies at the bedside in the event of a life-threatening emergency, and failed to train staff on appropriate emergency tracheostomy care in the event that a resident's airway was compromised, which placed residents with a tracheostomy at increased likelihood of serious harm or death and resulted in harm to R23 who was admitted to the hospital with diagnoses of pneumonia due to an infectious organism, AMS (altered mental status), SOB (shortness of breath), rigors (fever causing severe chills and shaking), respiratory distress, increasingly thick trach secretions, and sepsis (injury to tissues and organs due to infection).
On 11/29/22 at 10:30 PM, the Administrator in Training (AIT), the Regional Clinical Supervisor, and Director of Nursing (DON) were notified of an Immediate Jeopardy (IJ) at F695-J: Respiratory/Tracheostomy Care and Suctioning. The Immediate Jeopardy began on 11/29/22 when the survey team identified the concerns related to the facility staff not providing suctioning of R23's tracheostomy (surgical opening into the windpipe for breathing) and no emergency tracheostomy supplies and/or staff training in the event of dislodgement of the trach from the airway for R23.
The facility provided an acceptable removal plan on 12/01/22 at 6:30 PM. The removal plan included physician order revisions, placing tracheostomy supplies at the bedside in the resident's room, placing extra tracheostomy supplies in the medication room, in-servicing nursing staff on the location of tracheostomy supplies and tracheostomy care, care plan revisions, policy development of emergency management of trach, and re-education of all clinical staff. Following interviews with facility staff, observation of tracheostomy supplies, clinical record review of revised care plans and physician orders, and review of staff in-services for emergent trach care, the survey team verified implementation of the Removal Plan and removed the IJ on 12/02/22 at 8:30 PM.
During the exit conference, the Associate Regional Director and the Regional Clinical Supervisor were notified that the IJ was removed but the deficient practice existed at F695-G (isolated harm).
Substandard Quality of Care was identified with the requirements at 42 CFR 483.25(i) Respiratory/Tracheostomy Care and Suctioning (F695 S/S: J).
Findings include:
Review of R23's undated admission RECORD, located in the electronic medical record (EMR), revealed R23 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with multiple diagnosis to include malignant neoplasm of larynx (cancer of the voicebox), tracheostomy status, and dysphagia (difficulty swallowing).
Review of R23's admission Minimum Data Set (MDS) with an Assessment Reference Date (ARD) of 08/30/22 and located EMR under the MDS tab, revealed a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of 15 out of 15 indicating R23 was cognitively intact, had a tracheostomy, and required suctioning while not a resident but no suctioning required while a resident at the facility. Suctioning removes thick mucus and secretions from the trachea and lower airway that cannot be cleared by coughing.
Review of R23's comprehensive Care Plan, under the Care Plan tab located in the EMR and revised on 08/23/22, revealed .has a tracheostomy r/t [related to] impaired breathing mechanics . Further review of the care plan revealed no information for suctioning, for emergency management of tracheostomy, no style, size, or cuff or uncuffed tracheostomy information, and no intervention related to tracheostomy care including suctioning, cleaning, or ensuring, oxygenation.
Review of R23's Physician's Orders, under the Orders tab located in the EMR revealed the following:
.Trach suctioning as needed . dated 08/23/22 and in conflict with the physician's order for no suctioning dated 09/02/22.
.Tracheostomy care WITH NO SUCTIONING. ALLOW PATIENT TO COUGH OUT PHLEGM . dated 09/02/22 without specific definition of tracheostomy care such as cleaning the skin around the stoma and assessing for complications. Normal functions of the upper airway include warming, filtering, and humidifying inspired air].
.change disposable inner cannula [secretions can adhere to the internal lumen of a tracheostomy tube and severely reduce the inner lumen diameter over time. This potentially can increase the work of breathing and/or obstruct the patient's airway] every shift every day . dated 11/14/22 and without specific information about the inner cannula [it should be noted that there can be significant differences between the different manufacturer's tubes].
O2 [oxygen] concentrator set to 2 liters/min [minute] PRN [as needed] to maintain SPO2>92% [oxygen levels] . dated 09/02/22 and without route (nasal, face mask or trach) of oxygen administration.
.# [number] 6 Shiley [brand of tracheostomy] and Ambu bag [bag used as a method of artificial ventilation] at bedside check every shift . dated 08/23/22 and without information if the Shiley was to be cuffed or uncuffed. Uncuffed tubes allow airway clearance but provide no protection from aspiration (foreign objects such as fluids or foods entering the lungs). Cuffed tracheostomy tubes allow secretion clearance and offer some protection from aspiration, and positive-pressure ventilation can be more effectively applied when the cuff is inflated.
Further review of the physician orders revealed no order for an emergency tracheostomy kit at the bedside.
Review of R23's Treatment Administration Record (TAR), located in the EMR and dated for 11/22, revealed:
.Trach suctioning as needed Pre/Post Treatment . dated 08/23/22, with no staff's initials documented indicating the procedure was not performed from 11/01/22 through 11/30/22.
.Tracheostomy care WITH NO SUCTIONING. ALLOW PATIENT TO COUGH OUT PHLEGM . dated 09/02/22, and with no specific direction for cleaning the skin around the stoma and assessing for complications. Review of this TAR revealed staff initials documented for 11/01/22 through 11/29/22 indicating care was provided with no suctioning.
.change disposable inner cannula every day shift . ordered on 08/23/22 and discontinued and restarted on 11/14/22 without specific information of size of inner cannula. Review of the November 2022 TAR revealed staff initials from 11/01/22 through 11/29/22 indicating the cannula was changed every day shift.
.#6 Shiley and Ambu bag at bedside check every shift . ordered 08/23/22 without specific order for cuffed or uncuffed Shiley. Review of this TAR revealed staff's initials indicating the ambu bag was at the bedside from 11/01/22 through 11/29/22.
.Change disposable inner cannula every 12 hours as needed . dated 11/14/22 without information of size of inner cannula with no staff's initials for 11/14/22 through 11/29/22 indicating the order was not performed.
.O2 concentrator set to 2 liters/min PRN to maintain SPO@>92% as needed . without route (nasal, face mask or trach mask) . Further review of this TAR revealed no staff's initials indicating the treatment was not provided from 11/01/22 through 11/30/22.
.Change trach ties after bath/shower and as needed . dated 08/23/2022 with no staff's initials documented indicating the procedure was not performed from 11/01/22 through 11/30/22. Trach ties are bands that go around the neck to keep the trach tube in place.
During an interview on 11/29/22 at 5:32 PM, Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) 1 stated R23 did not have a physician's order to suction his trach.
During an interview on 11/29/22 at 6:37 PM, Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA) 2, who indicated she provided care for R23, stated the facility did not provide her with emergency management care training in the event the trach became dislodged.
During an observation on 11/29/22 at 6:39 PM, R23 was observed in his room sitting on his bed awake and alert. R23 had a trach with a large amount of white sputum at the trach site. R23 did not have a trach emergency medical kit or an ambu bag visible at his bedside. R23 had a suction machine on his bedside table but there was no suction tubing connected to the suction machine.
During an observation and interview on 11/29/22 at 6:47 PM, LPN1, assigned to R23, confirmed that there was no emergency kit, no ambu bag, and no extra trach at R23's bedside. LPNl stated if the trach became dislodged, she would let the manager know as she (LPN1) had no trach emergency management training. LPNl stated she would not know what to do if there was no manager on duty. LPN1 stated she had not performed suction for R23's trach.
During observation and interview on 11/29/22 at 7:0 PM, LPN2 confirmed there was no emergency kit at the bedside. LPN2 stated she worked at the facility for one year and had not been provided emergency management training in the event the trach became dislodged. LPN2 stated she had not performed suction for R23's trach.
During an observation and interview on 11/29/22 at 7:13 PM, the DON confirmed R23 did not have an emergency trach kit at his bedside or an ambu bag. The DON, who as part of the leadership team was responsible for providing staff training, stated trach emergency management was not provided by the facility for the staff.
During an interview on 11/29/22 at 7:22 PM, the DON verified there was no emergency trach kit in the supply room. The DON stated R23 moved to another room recently and staff did not follow the order and placed an ambu bag at his bedside.
During an interview on 11/29/22 at 7:25 PM, the Unit Manager (UM-Registered Nurse)1 stated she had been at the facility for 13 years. UM1 confirmed the facility had not provided her with tracheostomy emergency management training and confirmed the physician's orders were conflicting concerning suctioning.
During an interview on 11/29/22 at 7:28 PM, the Assistant Director of Nursing (ADON) confirmed he was employed at the facility for a year and the facility had not provided him with tracheostomy emergency management training.
During an interview on 11/29/22 at 8:13 PM, the Medical Director confirmed he expected the facility's staff to be provided training with tracheostomy emergency management training.
An interview attempt was made on 11/29/22 at 8:47 PM with the facility's Administrator and was unsuccessful.
During an observation and interview on 11/29/22 at 10:41 PM of R23's room with the ADON, the DON, and UM1 revealed R23 did not have emergency trach supplies at his bedside. UM1 confirmed the facility crash cart did not contain any tracheostomy supplies. UM1 stated the facility may have a size smaller of tracheostomy in the outside storage shed. UM1 confirmed R23 did not have a physician's order with specifications regarding if the tracheostomy was cuffed or uncuffed. UM1 confirmed R23's physician's order should contain whether his tracheostomy was cuffed or uncuffed to ensure the correct replacement tracheostomy was at his bedside.
Review of R23's Progress Note, under the Progress Notes tab located in the EMR revealed the following:
11/30/22 .Called into room to assess resident. Resident not able to answer questions, making groaning noises. SpO2 69% [out of 100%] on room air. Non-rebreather [mask] applied. Resident with twitching movements. MD called and order given to sent (sic) to ER [Emergency Room] via 911. 911 called .resident was pick [sic] up at 2:20pm taking to ER .
During an interview on 12/01/22 at 1:16 PM, UM1 confirmed R23 was sent to the emergency room for hypoxia and altered mental status on 11/30/22 at 2:20 PM. UM1 confirmed Respiratory Therapist (RT)2 was providing ventilation by ambu bag to R23's trach and did not provide trach suctioning while awaiting the ambulance to arrive. UM1 confirmed R23 had audible rhonchi (coarse rattling lung sounds usually caused by secretions in the airways), with low oxygen saturation, twitching behavior, and a foul odor from his tracheostomy site. UM1 also confirmed that respiratory therapy did not provide suctioning to R23 during routine care.
Review of an untitled hospital document, provided by R23's family and dated 11/30/22, revealed XR [x-ray of] CHEST .Hypo aeration [can be caused by blockages in the air passages] of the lungs, compatible with decreased inspirations .Asymmetric left basilar bandlike opacity appearance favors basilar atelectasis [Bibasilar atelectasis is a condition that happens when you have a partial collapse of your lungs. This type of collapse is caused when the small air sacs in your lungs deflate.], with minimal right basilar atelectasis .Problem List .Pneumonia due to infectious organism .AMS [altered mental status] SOB [shortness of breath] rigors [fever causing severe chills and shaking], respiratory distress, and increasingly thick trach secretions .trachea-pneumonitis [pneumonitis is a general term for lung inflammation. It can cause difficulty breathing and is often accompanied by a cough.] .Found to have GAS [Group A Strep bacteria] bacteremia [Invasive GAS infections are defined as bacteremia, pneumonia, osteomyelitis, septic arthritis, or any other infection associated with the isolation of GAS from a normally sterile body site] , likely pathogen of PNA [inflammation of the lungs, usually due to infection with bacteria, viruses, or other pathogens.] .Pt [patient] will need frequent suctioning .Tracheal suction with 100 cc of brown/yellowish output .Sepsis likely 2/2 [secondary to] GAS bacteremia .Pt observed to upper airway congestion, and copious [abundant] secretions coming through his trach. His cough is [NAME], but no secretions are expectorated from his mouth. Trach was cleaned and suctioned .
During an interview on 12/01/22 at 2:31 PM, the Doctor of Osteopathic Medicine-Pulmonologist (DOP) confirmed it was standard of practice for a resident with a trach to have a physician's order for brand, style, size, and cuff or uncuffed trach.The DOP confirmed if the facility did not provide a resident with trach suctioning it could cause a mucous plus in the resident's airway which causes pneumonia and the resident's lungs to collapse
During an interview on 12/01/22 at 6:29 PM with R23's Family Member (FM)1 with the team of surveyors present in the conference room at the facility, FM1 confirmed he was informed by the hospital staff R23 may not survive. FM1 confirmed R23 had a bad lung infection due to suctioning not being provided by the facility. FM1 confirmed R23 was diagnosed with pneumonia and sepsis by the hospital staff on 11/30/22.
During an interview on 12/02/22 5:33 PM, the Medical Director confirmed he was responsible for writing physician orders and ensuring the physician's orders were correct. The Medical Director stated he may have overlooked incomplete or conflicting physician orders. The Medical Director confirmed R23's physician's orders contained conflicting orders to provide suction and to not suction R23's trach. The Medical Director stated he expected the nursing staff to know when to suction the resident with a trach (even with conflicting physician's orders). The Medical Director confirmed it was important that R23's physician's orders contained specifics regarding his trach to include brand, size, type of his inner cannula and trach. The Medical Director confirmed R23's oxygen administration physician's orders should include the route of administration of the oxygen. The Medical Director stated he did not have clinical experience with replacing resident's trach. The Medical Director stated if R23's trach became dislodged, he would call 911 and attempt to locate a trach replacement and attempt to replace R23's because it would be considered a life-or-death situation. The Medical Director confirmed not providing a resident with a trach with suctioning could potentially cause formation of mucous plug, respiratory distress, pneumonia, lung collapse, and most importantly death.
Review of facility-provided policy titled, Tracheostomy Care revealed .This policy is to instruct on how to effectively clean a patient's tracheostomy and surrounding area to reduce the risk of infection and maintain a patent airway .Each resident has a specific trach tube, as ordered by a Physician .Each trach resident should have a spare back up trach at the bedside .Tracheostomy tubes have different sizes and styles .Cuffed and un-cuffed .Fenestrated and non-fenestrated .Disposable inner cannulas and non-disposable inner cannula .Different sizes .Different brands .Trach tubes and stoma sites require regular cleaning .If there is redness, bleeding or drainage from stoma, it should be reported to the resident's nurse .Whenever the tube is manipulated, respiratory, cardiovascular and skin parameters should be assessed .Suctioning is necessary to insure patent airway .Procedure for Changing Disposable Inner Cannula .equipment .Sterile disposable inner cannula .Sterile suction catheter .Sterile container .Sterile gloves .Sterile gloves .Trach Ties .Drain sponge .Sterile cotton applicators .Have a manual resuscitator available in case of respiratory distress .It is recommended infection control practice that trach care be performed on each shift .
NJAC 8:39-27.1(a)
SERIOUS
(G)
Actual Harm - a resident was hurt due to facility failures
Deficiency F0710
(Tag F0710)
A resident was harmed · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review, interviews, and policy review, the facility failed to ensure the physician clarified orders for suctioni...
Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review, interviews, and policy review, the facility failed to ensure the physician clarified orders for suctioning and emergency tracheostomy care for one of one resident (Resident (R) 23) with a tracheostomy (a surgical opening into the windpipe for breathing) out of a total sample of 20 residents. These failures resulted in harm to R23 who was admitted to the hospital with diagnoses of pneumonia due to an infectious organism, AMS (altered mental status), SOB (shortness of breath), rigors (fever causing severe chills and shaking), respiratory distress, increasingly thick trach secretions, and sepsis (injury to tissues and organs due to infection).
Findings include:
Review of R23's undated admission RECORD, located in the electronic medical record (EMR), revealed he was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with multiple diagnosis to include malignant neoplasm of larynx (cancer of the voice box), tracheostomy status, and dysphagia (difficulty swallowing).
Review of R23's admission Minimum Data Set (MDS) with an Assessment Reference Date (ARD) of 08/30/22 and located in the EMR under the MDS tab, revealed a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of 15 out of 15 indicating R23 was cognitively intact, had a tracheostomy, and required suctioning prior to admission to the facility but not while a resident. Suctioning removes thick mucus and secretions from the trachea and lower airway that cannot be cleared by coughing.
Review of R23's Physician's Orders, under the Orders tab located in the EMR revealed the following:
.Trach suctioning as needed . dated 08/23/22 and in conflict with the physician's order for no suctioning dated 09/02/22.
.Tracheostomy care WITH NO SUCTIONING. ALLOW PATIENT TO COUGH OUT PHLEGM . dated 09/02/22 without specific definition of tracheostomy care such as cleaning the skin around the stoma and assessing for complications. Normal functions of the upper airway include warming, filtering, and humidifying inspired air].
.change disposable inner cannula [secretions can adhere to the internal lumen of a tracheostomy tube and severely reduce the inner lumen diameter over time. This potentially can increase the work of breathing and/or obstruct the patient's airway] every shift every day . dated 11/14/22 and without specific information about the inner cannula [it should be noted that there can be significant differences between the different manufacturer's tubes].
O2 [oxygen] concentrator set to 2 liters/min [minute] PRN [as needed] to maintain SPO2>92% [oxygen levels] . dated 09/02/22 and without route (nasal, face mask or trach) of oxygen administration.
.# [number] 6 Shiley [brand of tracheostomy] and Ambu bag [bag used as a method of artificial ventilation] at bedside check every shift . dated 08/23/22 and without information if the Shiley was to be cuffed or uncuffed. Uncuffed tubes allow airway clearance but provide no protection from aspiration (foreign objects such as fluids or foods entering the lungs). Cuffed tracheostomy tubes allow secretion clearance and offer some protection from aspiration, and positive-pressure ventilation can be more effectively applied when the cuff is inflated.
Further review of the physician orders revealed no order for an emergency tracheostomy kit at the bedside.
Review of R23's Treatment Administration Record (TAR), located in the EMR and dated for 11/22, revealed:
.Trach suctioning as needed Pre/Post Treatment . dated 08/23/22, with no staff's initials documented indicating the procedure was not performed from 11/01/22 through 11/30/22.
.Tracheostomy care WITH NO SUCTIONING. ALLOW PATIENT TO COUGH OUT PHLEGM . dated 09/02/22, and with no specific direction for cleaning the skin around the stoma and assessing for complications. Review of this TAR revealed staff initials documented for 11/01/22 through 11/29/22 indicating care was provided with no suctioning.
.change disposable inner cannula every day shift . ordered on 08/23/22 and discontinued and restarted on 11/14/22 without specific information of size of inner cannula. Review of the November 2022 TAR revealed staff initials from 11/01/22 through 11/29/22 indicating the cannula was changed every day shift.
.#6 Shiley and Ambu bag at bedside check every shift . ordered 08/23/22 without specific order for cuffed or uncuffed Shiley. Review of this TAR revealed staff's initials indicating the ambu bag was at the bedside from 11/01/22 through 11/29/22.
.Change disposable inner cannula every 12 hours as needed . dated 11/14/22 without information of size of inner cannula with no staff's initials for 11/14/22 through 11/29/22 indicating the order was not performed.
.O2 concentrator set to 2 liters/min PRN to maintain SPO@>92% as needed . without route (nasal, face mask or trach mask) . Further review of this TAR revealed no staff's initials indicating the treatment was not provided from 11/01/22 through 11/30/22.
.Change trach ties after bath/shower and as needed . dated 08/23/2022 with no staff's initials documented indicating the procedure was not performed from 11/01/22 through 11/30/22. Trach ties are bands that go around the neck to keep the trach tube in place.
Review of R23's Progress Note, under the Progress Notes tab located in the EMR, revealed the following:
11/30/22 . Called into room to assess resident. Resident not able to answer questions, making groaning noises. SpO2 69% [out of 100%] on room air. Non-rebreather [oxygen mask] applied. Resident with twitching movements. MD called and order given to sent (sic) to ER [Emergency Room] via 911. 911 called .
During an interview on 12/01/22 at 1:16 PM, Unit Manager (UM) 1, confirmed R23 was sent to the emergency room for hypoxia [low blood oxygen levels] and altered mental status on 11/30/22. UM1 confirmed Respiratory Therapist (RT) 2 was providing ventilation by ambu bag to R23's trach and did not provide trach suctioning while awaiting the ambulance to arrive. UM confirmed R23 had audible rhonchi (lung sounds due to the airflow being blocked), with low oxygen saturation and twitching behavior and a foul odor from the trach.
Review of R23's untitled hospital document, dated 11/30/22 and provided by the family, revealed XR [x-ray of] CHEST .Hypo aeration [can be caused by blockages in the air passages] of the lungs, compatible with decreased inspirations .Asymmetric left basilar bandlike opacity appearance favors basilar atelectasis [Bibasilar atelectasis is a condition that happens when you have a partial collapse of your lungs. This type of collapse is caused when the small air sacs in your lungs deflate. These small air sacs are called alveoli.], with minimal right basilar atelectasis .Problem List .Pneumonia due to infectious organism .AMS [altered mental status] SOB [shortness of breath] rigors [severe shaking chills caused by fever], respiratory distress and increasingly thick trach secretions .trachea-pneumonitis [Pneumonitis is a general term for lung inflammation. It can cause difficulty breathing and is often accompanied by a cough.] .Found to have GAS [Group A Strep] bacteremia [Invasive GAS infections are defined as bacteremia, pneumonia, osteomyelitis, septic arthritis, or any other infection associated with the isolation of GAS from a normally sterile body site] , likely pathogen of PNA [Inflammation of the lungs, usually due to infection with bacteria, viruses, or other pathogens.] .Pt [patient] will need frequent suctioning .Tracheal suction with 100 cc of brown/yellowish output .Sepsis likely 2/2 [secondary to] GAS bacteremia .Pt observed to upper airway congestion, and copious [abundant] secretions coming through his trach. His cough is [NAME] [sic], but no secretions are expectorated from his mouth. Trach was cleaned and suctioned .
During an interview on 12/01/22 at 6:29 PM, R23's Family Member (FM)1, with the team of surveyors present in the conference room at the facility, confirmed he was informed by the local hospital staff that R23 may not survive. FM1 confirmed the hospital staff informed him R23 had a bad lung infection due to suctioning not being provided by the facility. FM1 confirmed R23 was diagnosed with pneumonia and sepsis by the hospital staff on 11/30/22.
During an interview on 12/02/22 05:33 PM, the Medical Director confirmed he was responsible for ensuring R23's physician's orders were correct and that he signed R23's physician's orders. The Medical Director confirmed R23's physician's orders should not be conflicting in particular whether or not to provide suctioning. The Medical Director stated he expected the nursing staff to know when to suction the resident with a trach (with conflicting physician's orders). The Medical Director confirmed it was important that R23's physician's orders contained specifics regarding his trach to include brand, size, type of his inner cannula and trach. The Medical Director confirmed R23's oxygen administration physician's orders should include the route of administration of the oxygen. The Medical Director confirmed not providing suctioning of a trach could result in the formation of a mucous plug, respiratory distress, pneumonia, lung collapse, and most importantly death. Cross Reference: F695-J Respiratory/Tracheostomy Care & Suctioning.
Review of facility-provided policy titled Physician Services, 03/22, revealed .The medical care of each resident is under the supervision of a Licensed Physician .prescribe an appropriate medical regimen .Physician orders .shall be maintained .
NJAC 8:39-27.1(a)
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0554
(Tag F0554)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interviews, record reviews, and review of facility policy, the facility failed to ensure one of 20 sampled...
Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interviews, record reviews, and review of facility policy, the facility failed to ensure one of 20 sampled residents (Resident (R) 23) had a physician's order and was assessed and care planned for the self-administration of medications. This failure increased the risk of incomplete or inaccurate administration of medication for R23.
Findings include:
Review of the electronic medical record (EMR) revealed R23 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with multiple diagnosis to include malignant neoplasm of larynx (cancer of the voice box), tracheostomy (surgical opening in the windpipe for breathing) status, and dysphagia (difficulty swallowing).
Review of R23's admission Minimum Data Set (MDS) with an Assessment Reference Date (ARD) of 08/30/22 and located in the EMR under the MDS tab, revealed a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of 15 out of 15 indicating R23 was cognitively intact, had a tracheostomy, and required suctioning prior to admission but not while a resident at the facility. Suctioning removes thick mucus and secretions from the trachea and lower airway that cannot be cleared by coughing.
Review of R23's Physician's Orders, for 11/22 and under the Orders tab in the EMR, revealed no order for self-administration of medication.
Review of R23's Medication Administration Record (MAR), dated 11/22 and located under the Orders tab in the EMR, revealed no order for self-administration of medication.
Review of R23's comprehensive Care Plan, located in the EMR, revealed no interventions for self-administration of medication.
Observation on 11/29/22 at 6:39 PM revealed R23 in his room sitting on his bed, with a trach mask (for the delivery of oxygen) over his trach site connected to nebulizer machine (administers medication in the form of a mist inhaled into the lungs). R23 had a nebulizer treatment administered via trach mask oxygen tubing, without clinical staff present, indicating R23 was self-administering his medication.
During an interview on 11/29/22 at 6:43 PM, Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) 1 confirmed she did not remain with R23 for inhalation (nebulizer) of R23's albuterol medication administration. LPN1 confirmed she instilled the albuterol inhalation medication into the oxygen tubing reservoir and connected it to his trach and turned the nebulizer on and left R23's room. LPN1 confirmed R23 was not assessed by the facility for self-administer of his medications. LPN1 confirmed the facility expected the nursing staff to administer R23's medications. LPN stated she planned to return to R23's room and remove his trach oxygen mask nebulizer treatment after 15 minutes.
During an interview and second observation on 11/29/22 at 6:47 PM, LPN1 removed the trach oxygen mask from R23's trach and turned off the nebulizer machine. LPN1 confirmed R23's oxygen tubing reservoir was filled with white sputum. LPN1 confirmed that the oxygen tubing reservoir should not contain sputum as the sputum could block the flow of oxygen into the trach.
Review of facility provided policy, dated 10/01/18, titled Self-Administration of Medication, revealed .The decision for self-administration is made after the completion of a comprehensive assessment. The decision for self-administration is recommended to be completed and care planned within seven (7) days .Orders for self-administration must list specific medications the customer may self-administer .
Review of facility provided policy, dated 10/22, titled .Nebulizer . revealed .To deliver specific medication/agents .to a patient via inspiration and targeted to the respiratory system .Observe the patient for any signs of hyperventilation or adverse reactions to medications. Treatment time is generally 10 minutes. Stay with patient the duration of the therapy . Suction, if necessary .
NJAC 8:39-29.2(c)1,6
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
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observations, record reviews, staff interviews, and policy review, the facility failed to ensure care plan intervention...
Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observations, record reviews, staff interviews, and policy review, the facility failed to ensure care plan interventions for emergency tracheostomy (trach) care were developed for one of one resident (Resident (R 23) reviewed for tracheostomy (a surgical opening into the windpipe for breathing) care out of a total sample of 20 residents. This failure increased R23's risk for compromised airway/respiratory distress and/or respiratory infections.
Findings include:
Review of R23's undated admission RECORD, located in the electronic medical record (EMR), revealed he was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with multiple diagnosis to include malignant neoplasm of larynx (cancer of the voice box), tracheostomy status, and dysphagia (difficulty swallowing).
Review of R23's admission Minimum Data Set (MDS) with an Assessment Reference Date (ARD) of 08/30/22 and located in the EMR under the MDS tab, revealed a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of 15 out of 15 indicating R23 was cognitively intact, had a tracheostomy, and required suctioning prior to admission but not while a resident at the facility. Suctioning removes thick mucus and secretions from the trachea and lower airway that cannot be cleared by coughing. Respiratory therapy was provided zero out of 7 days during the assessment period.
Review of R23's comprehensive Care Plan, under the Care Plan tab in his EMR with a revision date of 08/23/22, revealed . has a tracheostomy r/t [related to] impaired breathing mechanics ., that included no information for emergency tracheostomy management, no tracheostomy information (style, size, or cuff or uncuffed), and no intervention related to tracheostomy care including suctioning, cleaning, or ensuring oxygenation.
During an interview on 12/01/22 at 12:01 PM, the Unit Manager (UM) 2 confirmed R23's care plan interventions for emergency tracheostomy management should have been included on his care plan for directions for nursing to follow for his care.
During an interview on 12/01/22 at 12:53 PM, the MDS Coordinator (MDSC) confirmed the nursing staff generated R23's baseline care plans. The MDSC confirmed the residents' care plans should reflect the resident's physician's orders. The MDSC verified R23 had a physician's order for an ambu bag [respiration device for manual ventilation needed during resuscitation] to remain at his bedside. The MDSC confirmed R23's care plan should include specific orders for an ambu bag at his bedside and emergency trach management.
Review of facility-provided policy titled Care Plan, Comprehensive Person-Centered, revised 10/21, revealed . Resident population is long term and sub acute [sic] therefore care plans need to be updated, for sub acute [sic] on admission, after significant clinical changes, and as needed .A comprehensive, person-centered care plan that includes measurable objectives and timetables to meet the resident's physical .is developed and implemented for each resident .Describe the services that are to be furnished to attain or maintain the resident's highest practicable physical .well-being .Incorporate identified problem areas .Reflect treatment goals .Aid in preventing or reducing decline in the resident's functional status .Reflect currently recognized standards of practice for problem areas and conditions . Cross Reference: F695-L Respiratory/Tracheostomy Care and Suctioning.
NJAC 8:39-11.2(e)1
NJAC 8:39-27.1(a)
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0660
(Tag F0660)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interviews, record review, and policy review, the facility failed to provide a discharge assessment and discharge plan,...
Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interviews, record review, and policy review, the facility failed to provide a discharge assessment and discharge plan, for one of three residents (Resident (R) 39) reviewed for discharge out of a total sample of 20 residents. This failure increased the risk of delayed and/or incomplete discharge planning for residents wanting to be discharged from the facility.
Findings include:
Review of R39's undated admission RECORD, under the Profile tab in the electronic medical record (EMR), revealed R39 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with multiple diagnosis to include major depression disorder and dementia without behavior disturbances.
Review of R39's quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) with an Assessment Reference Date (ARD) of 09/12/22 and located in the EMR under the MDS tab, revealed a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of 14 out of 15 indicating R39 was cognitively intact.
Review of R39's documents under the Miscellaneous tab located in the EMR revealed no information and/or documentation for an alternative decision maker for R39.
Review of R39's Social Services Assessment, under the Assessments tab in the EMR and dated 03/09/22, revealed .to be discharged to the community .barrier was weakness .'Was referral made to Local State agency' .no-referral not needed .why .SAR [short term rehab].
Review of R39's Progress Notes, under the Progress Notes tab located in the EMR revealed the following:
06/09/22 .[R39] Says 'I want the door to open, and I want to walk through it, I've had it with this place, you're trying to get around me and I won't allow this to happen' . signed by Physician Assistant Certified (PA-C).
06/16/22 .[R39] says she is still eager to go home . signed by Physician Assistant Certified (PA-C).
11/11/22 .Call received from resident's daughter .resident's issues with staff, continued irritability and agitation .increasing Lexapro [antidepressant] .irritability and agitation .agreeable .discussed Psychology consult for resolution of issues .being in SNF .suggested [daughter] contact National Alliance on Mental Illness .to connect with support services for herself .increase Lexapro .daughter in agreement . signed by Advance Practice Nurse Certified (APN-C) Behavioral Health.
12/01/22 .Psychiatry Progress Note .admits she has not adjusted well to living in facility . Physician Assistant Certified (PA-C).
12/01/22 .SW [Social Worker] expressed that the goal is to begin adjusting to living with us and that we [the facility] would expect moving forward that she begins to express her preferences and needs to the IDT[ Interdisciplinary Team] .[R39] said .'It has been difficult overall' .Care Plans are updated to reflect discussed goals and adjustment interventions .A psych consult was placed for needs . signed by the Regional Social Services Director (RSSD).
Review of the EMR Care Plan tab revealed the following Care Plan, initiated 12/01/22:
[R39's name] has adjustment issues related to admission to nursing facility, recent changes in independence .I [R39] will maintain the ability to seek social contact and stimulation through the next review .I will show evidence of adjustment to nursing home by being more involved in facility life to increase quality of life .Encourage me to participate in conversations with staff and other residents daily . I need the opportunity to express my feelings about how things effect [sic] me, such as nursing home placement, loss of independence etc. Allow free nonjudgmental space to speak freely .Learn to recognize and help me to identify my stressors which may be early warning signs of problem behavior . will be involved in psychotherapy as need and ongoing based on the resident's preference.
Further review of R39's comprehensive Care Plan, under the Care Plan tab located in the EMR, revealed no discharge care plan, goals, or interventions.
During an interview on 11/30/22 at 12:35 PM, R39 stated she wanted to be discharged from the facility. R39 stated the facility did not provide her with assistance with discharge plans from the facility. R39 stated she wanted to be discharged to an assisted living facility.
During an interview on 12/02/22 at 9:05 AM, the Social Services Director (SSD) confirmed that she routinely started discharge planning with residents at the facility on the day of their admission. The SSD stated the discharge planning was not included on R39's care plan and should be. The SSD confirmed she had not assisted R39 with any discharge care planning. The SSD confirmed R39 could make her own decisions regarding her care and plans. The SSD confirmed R39 had her own apartment prior to being admitted to the facility. The SSD stated R39 was sharp and articulate and care decisions should be discussed with R39 and not with R39's daughter.
During an interview on 12/02/22 at 9:36 AM, the RSSD confirmed she had a conversation with R39 and developed a new adjustment care plan for R39 on 12/01/22 regarding adjusting to life at the facility. The RSSD confirmed R39's discharge plan should begin on admission and was not. The RSSD verified R39 did not have a medical power of attorney and could make her own decisions The RSSD stated the facility's social services department was responsible for assisting residents with the discharge process, setting up home care, ordering equipment, financial assistance, and assessing the possibility of returning to the community. The RSSD verified R39's social services assessment note included R39's plan was to be discharge home and the only barrier was weakness on 09/22.
Review of the facility-provided policy titled, Discharge Summary and Plan, updated 01/19, revealed When a resident's discharge is anticipated .post-discharge plan will be developed .Every resident will be evaluated for his or her discharge needs and will have an individualized post-discharge plan .The post-discharge plan will be developed by the Care Planning/Interdisciplinary with the assistance of the resident .Where the individual plans to reside .Arrangements that have been made for follow-up care and services .A description of the resident's stated discharge goals .The degree of caregiver/support person availability .How those factors will be address . Team .Residents will be asked about their interest in returning to the community. If the resident indicates an interest in returning to the community, he or she will be referred to local agencies and support services that can assist in accommodating the resident's post-discharge .If it is determined that returning to the community is not feasible, it will be documented why this is the case and who made the determination .
NJAC 8:39-35.2(d)15
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0688
(Tag F0688)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observations, interviews, record review, and policy review, the facility failed to ensure two of two residents (Residen...
Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observations, interviews, record review, and policy review, the facility failed to ensure two of two residents (Resident (R) 54 and R69) reviewed for limited Range of Motion (ROM) out of a total sample of 20 residents was provided treatment to maintain and/or increase ROM. This failure increased the risk of a decline in ROM for residents that require treatment.
Findings include:
1. Review of R54's undated admission RECORD, under the Profile tab located in the electronic medical record (EMR) revealed she was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with multiple diagnoses to include chronic inflammatory demyelination polyneuritis (nerve damage resulting in pain and tingling), neuromuscular dysfunction of bladder (loss of bladder control), and functioning quadriplegic (paralysis of arms and legs).
Review of R54's annual Minimum Data Set (MDS) with an Assessment Reference Date (ARD) of 09/21/22 and located in the EMR under the MDS tab, revealed a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of 15 out of 15 indicating R54 was cognitively intact, had limited range of motion in upper and lower extremities and was provided physical therapy 0 out of 7 days and restorative therapy 0 out of 7 days of the assessment period.
Review of R54's Physician's Orders, for 11/22 under Orders tab located on her EMR, revealed the following:
.Occupational Therapy (OT)-Evaluation & treatment as recommended . dated 02/23/22.
.Physical Therapy (PT)- Evaluation & treatment as recommended. No directions specified for order . dated 2/23/22.
Further review of the physician's orders revealed no orders for treatment to maintain or improve the limited range of motion of R54's lower extremities or feet.
Review of R54's comprehensive Care Plan, under the Care Plan tab located in the EMR and dated 09/14/21, revealed . has limited physical mobility . Monitor/document any s/sx [signs and symptoms] of immobility: worsening contractures [shortening of tendon or muscle resulting in a fixed joint deformity] forming Provide supportive care .
Further review of the Care Plan revealed no person-centered problems list and/or interventions to direct the staff to provide treatment to maintain or improve R54's limited range of motion or prevent further contractures of her lower extremities.
Observation and interview on 11/30/22 at 12:07 PM revealed R54 lying on her bed, in her room. R54 stated she had a diagnosis of foot drop [a condition in which you cannot raise the front part of one or both feet] in both feet. R54 stated the facility had not provided her with braces or splints or ROM exercises for her feet or lower extremities.
During an interview on 12/01/22 at 11:29 AM, Rehabilitation Director (RD) confirmed the rehab department was responsible for providing residents with services for limited range of motion to maintain or increase range of motion of upper and lower extremities, such as: passive range of motion exercise, stretching exercises, strengthening exercises, positioning of the extremities, positioning, and evaluation for devices. The RD stated the department provided ankle foot orthotics (brace) for resident's ankles (for with foot drop) to avoid further contracture decline and prevent heel sores. The RD confirmed residents with contractures, their joints got very tight and increased their potential to develop wounds. The RD verified R54 had a diagnosis of foot drop with limited range of motion in her upper and lower extremities. The RD confirmed the facility's resident's (with foot drop and limited ROM) care plans should include interventions for person-centered specific directives for the facility's staff to maintain or improve resident's limited ROM and contractures and R54's care plan did not. The RD verified the facility was not providing R54 with foot splints or range of motion exercises.
During an observation and interview on 12/01/22 at 11:58 AM with the RD revealed R54 in her room lying on her bed. RD removed R54's sheet and exposed R54's legs and feet (positioned on pillow). R54's bilateral feet were flexed with toes pointed downward without splint or brace. R54 was unable to move her feet or legs. The RD moved R54's legs and bent at knee and attempted to passively move R54's feet and ankles. The RD confirmed R54's ankles were fixed and contracted. The RD confirmed R54 had limited range of motion with both feet, ankles, knees, and right upper arm. The RD confirmed R54 would benefit from services from the rehabilitation department to maintain and prevent further decline with her limited range of motion with her feet and lower legs to include ROM exercises and foot braces. 2. Review of the Medical Diagnoses, under the Medical Diagnoses tab in the EMR, indicated R69 had diagnoses of Cerebral Infarction (stroke) affecting his left upper and lower extremity, Parkinson's disease, and muscle weakness.
Review of the quarterly MDS, found under the EMR MDS tab with an ARD of 09/15/22, revealed R69's was originally admitted to the facility on [DATE]. Further review of this MDS revealed R69's cognition was intact with a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of 14 out of 15. Review of this MDS revealed R69 required extensive staff assistance with activities of daily living (ADLs) such as bed mobility, transfers, and dressing, had not walked during the assessment period, was incontinent of bowel and bladder, and had ROM limitations on one side of both his upper and lower extremities (shoulder, elbow, arms, hands, legs, feet).
Review of the Care Plan, last revised 06/21/22 and located in the EMR under the Care Plan tab, revealed no ROM interventions for R69.
Review of R69's Physician's Orders, for 11/22 and located under the EMR Orders tab, revealed the following orders:
Occupational Therapy (OT)-Evaluation & treatment as recommended . dated 04/07/22.
Physical Therapy (PT)-Evaluation & treatment as recommended . dated 04/07/22.
Further review of the Orders revealed no orders to maintain or improve the limited ROM of R69's lower extremities or feet.
Observation and interview on 12/2/2022 at 5:18 PM revealed R69 had a contracted left hand and left leg. R69 stated he does not receive any exercises from staff to his hand or leg but would like assistance in moving his hand and leg before they got [sic] any worse. R69 did not have any devices in place to prevent further decline in ROM.
During an interview on 12/02/22 at 4:50 PM, UM1 (unit manager) stated R69's hand was not completely contracted .UM1 said she was not aware R69 needed ROM and did not believe staff provided ROM to R69.
During an interview with (Certified Nursing Assistant) CNA2 on 12/02/22 at 4:55 PM, she said she had not done any ROM on the R69's hand.
On 12/02/22 at 5:05 PM during an interview with the Regional Clinical Supervisor she stated her expectations were that residents requiring ROM received the care and services to prevent further decline in ROM.
Review of the policy titled, Contracture Management Program, undated, revealed .Contracture management is essential to minimize decline of ROM, prevention of deformity, improve joint mobility and posture, protect skin integrity, minimize pain and maximize function and quality of life .Obtain an MD order for splint, wear schedule .Establish a schedule for use of all positioning devices .Establish a ROM program .
Review of the policy titled, Functional Maintenance Program, undated, revealed To ensure all residents discharged from the rehab services who continue to require a lesser level of rehab care are afforded a Functional Maintenance Program to prevent decline of function .
NJAC 8:39-27.1(a)
NJAC 8:39-27.2(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 observations, interviews, record review, and policy review, the facility failed to ensure an indwelling catheter was an...
Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observations, interviews, record review, and policy review, the facility failed to ensure an indwelling catheter was anchored to prevent excessive tension on the catheter tubing for one of two residents (Resident (R) 54) reviewed for catheter care out of a total sample of 20 residents. This failure increased R54's risk of injury to the urinary tract.
Findings include:
Review of R54's undated admission RECORD, located in the electronic medical record (EMR), revealed she was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with multiple diagnosis to include chronic inflammatory demyelination polyneuritis (nerve damage resulting in pain and tingling), neuromuscular dysfunction of bladder (loss of bladder control), and functioning quadriplegic (paralysis of arms and legs).
Review of R54's annual Minimum Data Set (MDS) with an Assessment Reference Date (ARD) of 09/21/22 and located in the EMR under the MDS tab, revealed a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of 15 out of 15 indicating R54 was cognitively intact and had an indwelling catheter.
Review of R54's Physician's Orders, for 11/22 and under the Orders tab located in the EMR, revealed no order for a catheter guard to secure her catheter tubing.
Review of R54's comprehensive Care Plan, initiated 09/16/21 and located under the Care Plan tab in the EMR, revealed .Catheter Strap- check placement of catheter strap every shift .
Observation on 11/30/22 at 12:01 PM revealed R54 lying on her bed in her room awake. R54 had a urinary bag on the left lower bed frame.
During an interview on 11/30/22 at 12:01 PM, R54 stated she had had an indwelling urinary catheter since 2019 because she could not fully empty her bladder. R54 confirmed she did not have a stat lock or leg strap on either of her upper legs to hold the catheter tubing in place. R54 stated her catheter accidentally came out with the bulb (inflated balloon used to keep the catheter in the bladder) intact a few months ago. R54 stated that it was painful when the catheter came out.
During an observation and interview on 12/01/22 at 11:58 AM of R54 with the Rehabilitation Director (RD), she confirmed R54 did not have a stat lock or leg strap holding her indwelling catheter tubing in place.
During an interview on 12/01/22 at 1:35 PM, License Practical Nurse (LPN) 3 confirmed the facility required the indwelling catheter's tubing to be secured to the upper leg with a secure guard to avoid the indwelling catheter tubing from pulling or coming out and injuring the resident. LPN3 confirmed if a resident's indwelling catheter tubing were accidentally pulled out with the balloon inflated, it could cause a resident a serious injury. LPN3 confirmed R54 had an indwelling catheter but she was not sure if R54 had a stat lock holding her indwelling tubing in place.
During a second observation on 12/01/22 at 1:47 PM of R54 with LPN3 in her room, LPN3 verified R54 did not have a stat lock on her upper leg to hold her catheter tubing in place.
During an interview on 12/01/22 3:55 PM, Unit Manager Registered Nurse (UM) 2 confirmed a secure guard was a device used by the facility to stabilize a resident's indwelling catheter tubing. UM2 confirmed R54 did not have a secure guard in place but should to ensure her catheter tubing did not get yanked out causing injury to R54.
Review of facility-provided undated policy titled, .CATHETER CARE revealed .Ensure catheter is anchored using strap or other anchoring device .
NJAC 8:39-19.4(a)
CONCERN
(E)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0726
(Tag F0726)
Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interviews, record review, and policy review, the facility failed to ensure the clinical staff were trained to provide ...
Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interviews, record review, and policy review, the facility failed to ensure the clinical staff were trained to provide emergency treatment for one of one resident (Resident (R) 23) with a tracheostomy (surgical incision into the windpipe for breathing) out of a total sample of 20 residents. This failure increased R23's risk of not receiving appropriate tracheostomy care during an emergency situation.
Findings include:
Review of R23's undated admission RECORD, located in the electronic medical record (EMR) revealed he was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with multiple diagnosis to include malignant neoplasm of larynx (cancer of the voice box), tracheostomy status, and dysphagia (difficulty swallowing).
Review of R23's admission Minimum Data Set (MDS) with an Assessment Reference Date (ARD) of 08/30/22 and located in the EMR under the MDS tab, revealed a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of 15 out of 15 indicating R23 was cognitively intact, had a tracheostomy, and required suctioning prior to being a resident but not while a resident in the facility. Suctioning removes thick mucus and secretions from the trachea and lower airway that cannot be cleared by coughing.
During an interview on 11/29/22 at 6:32 PM, Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA) 1 confirmed she had been employed at the facility for two years. CNA1 confirmed the facility had not provided her tracheostomy care or emergency training.
During an interview on 11/29/22 at 6:37 PM, CNA2 confirmed she provided care for R23 to include washing and changing him. CNA2 confirmed the facility had not provided her with trach emergency management or care training.
During an interview and observation on 11/29/22 at 7:00 PM, Licensed Practice Nurse (LPN) 4 confirmed the facility had not provided her training on emergency trach management.
During an observation and interview on 11/29/22 at 7:25 PM, the Unit Manager (UM) 1 confirmed the facility did not provide her with trach emergency management training in the past year. UM1 confirmed she had worked at the facility for 13 years.
During an interview on 11/29/22 at 7:28 PM, the Assistant Director of Nursing (ADON) confirmed the facility had not provided him with emergency management of tracheostomy in the past year.
During an interview on 11/29/22 at 7:55 PM, the Director of Nursing (DON), who as part of the leadership team was responsible for providing staff training, stated trach emergency management was not provided by the facility for the staff. The DON stated the facility did not have a policy for trach emergency kits or dislodgement of a resident's tracheostomy.
During an interview on 11/29/22 at 8:47 PM, the Regional Clinical Supervisor stated the facility had 100 staff members and only 18 were trained in tracheostomy care and no training was provided on emergency management for tracheostomies. The Regional Clinical Supervisor also stated that the facility did not have a policy on emergency management training for tracheostomies.
During an interview on 11/29/22 at 8:13 PM, the Medical Director confirmed he expected the facility staff to be trained to provide emergency management care for residents with tracheostomies.
Attempted an interview on 11/29/22 at 8:47 PM with the facility's Administrator and was unsuccessful. Cross Reference: F695-J Respiratory/Tracheostomy Care & Suctioning.
Review of facility-provided document titled, Facility Assessment Tool, dated 03/22, revealed .Special Treatments .Suctioning .Tracheostomy Care .staff .competencies .existing staff also receive this training annually .
Review of facility-provided policy titled, Competency of Nursing Staff, undated, revealed .The staff development and training program is created by the nursing leadership, with input from the medical director, and is designed to train nursing staff to deliver individualized, safe, quality care and services for the residents .factors are considered in the creation of the training program .Specialized skills or training needed based on the residents population .The facility assessment includes an evaluation of the staff competency that are necessary to provide the level and types of care specific to the residents population .resident-specific competency evaluations will be conducted .annually and as deemed necessary based on the facility assessment .will include .return demonstration .Demonstrated ability to use tools, devices, or equipment used to care for residents .
NJAC 8:39-13.4(c)1