COMPLETE CARE AT HARBORAGE LLC

7600 RIVER RD, NORTH BERGEN, NJ 07047 (201) 854-5400
For profit - Limited Liability company 247 Beds COMPLETE CARE Data: November 2025 1 Immediate Jeopardy citation
Trust Grade
73/100
#26 of 344 in NJ
Last Inspection: December 2024

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

Overview

Complete Care at Harborage LLC has a Trust Grade of B, indicating it is a good choice among nursing homes, reflecting solid performance overall. It ranks #26 out of 344 facilities in New Jersey, placing it in the top half, and #2 of 14 in Hudson County, suggesting only one other local option is better. The facility is showing improvement, as the number of reported issues decreased from 11 in 2023 to 8 in 2024. Staffing is a concern, with a rating of 2 out of 5 stars and a turnover rate of 48%, which is average but may affect the consistency of care. Importantly, the facility has no fines on record, which is a positive sign. However, there have been critical incidents that raise concerns. For instance, during a COVID-19 outbreak, the facility failed to properly contact trace and test exposed residents and staff, which could have worsened the situation. Additionally, there were issues with expired medical supplies in medication rooms, increasing the risk of infection. Lastly, care plans for residents using psychoactive medications were not properly developed, potentially leading to inadequate monitoring for side effects. Overall, while there are strengths, families should carefully consider these weaknesses when evaluating this facility.

Trust Score
B
73/100
In New Jersey
#26/344
Top 7%
Safety Record
High Risk
Review needed
Inspections
Getting Better
11 → 8 violations
Staff Stability
⚠ Watch
48% turnover. Above average. Higher turnover means staff may not know residents' routines.
Penalties
✓ Good
No fines on record. Clean compliance history, better than most New Jersey facilities.
Skilled Nurses
✓ Good
Each resident gets 42 minutes of Registered Nurse (RN) attention daily — more than average for New Jersey. RNs are trained to catch health problems early.
Violations
⚠ Watch
20 deficiencies on record. Higher than average. Multiple issues found across inspections.
★★★★★
5.0
Overall Rating
★★☆☆☆
2.0
Staff Levels
★★★★★
5.0
Care Quality
★★★★☆
4.0
Inspection Score
Stable
2023: 11 issues
2024: 8 issues

The Good

  • 5-Star Quality Measures · Strong clinical quality outcomes
  • Full Sprinkler Coverage · Fire safety systems throughout facility
  • No fines on record

Facility shows strength in quality measures, fire safety.

The Bad

Staff Turnover: 48%

Near New Jersey avg (46%)

Higher turnover may affect care consistency

Chain: COMPLETE CARE

Part of a multi-facility chain

Ask about local staffing decisions and management

The Ugly 20 deficiencies on record

1 life-threatening
Dec 2024 6 deficiencies
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 record review, interview, and policy review, the facility failed to develop care plans related to use and monitoring of...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review, interview, and policy review, the facility failed to develop care plans related to use and monitoring of psychoactive medications for one (Resident (R) 49 of five residents reviewed for unnecessary medications out of a sample of 35 residents. Findings include: Review of R49's admission Record located under the Profile tab of the electronic medical record (EMR) revealed R49 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses that included depression and anxiety, Review of R49's physician orders, located under the Physician Orders tab of the EMR, revealed medication orders for Divalproex Sodium Oral Capsule Delayed Release Sprinkle 125 milligram (mg) three times a day for agitation; Mirtazapine Oral Tablet 7.5 mg at bedtime for depression; and Buspirone HCl Oral Tablet 5 mg three times a day for anxiety. Review of R49's care plan located under the Care Plan tab of the EMR, did not include the use of psychoactive medication or interventions for monitoring for side effects or behaviors. Review of the facility's policy Comprehensive Care Plan last reviewed 07/02/24 indicated, It is the policy of this facility to develop and implement a comprehensive person-centered care plan for each resident . to meet a resident's medical, nursing, and mental and psychosocial needs that identified in the resident's comprehensive assessment. During an interview with the Director of Nursing (DON) on 12/06/24 at 3:11PM she was asked about R49's care plan. The DON confirmed that any resident receiving psychoactive medication should have a care plan with interventions that describe the monitoring of behaviors and reporting side effects from the use of the medication. NJAC 8:39-11.2(e) thru (i) NJAC 8:39-27.1(a)
CONCERN (D) 📢 Someone Reported This

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

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

ADL Care (Tag F0677)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Resident #108 Activities of Daily Living Review of MAR revealed meds given as ordered. Shower sheets do not reveal a concern. ...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Resident #108 Activities of Daily Living Review of MAR revealed meds given as ordered. Shower sheets do not reveal a concern. \ Observation of resident from 3PM to 4:24PM on 12/03/24. No staff observed adjusting resident as she is reclined in Broda chair. Resident was not readjusted, but at 4:27 Review of R108's care plan revealed the resident has potential for pressure ulcer development r/t Immobility, Incontinence initiated 10/27/23. Goal is for resident to have intact skin, free of redness, blisters or discoloration using interventions that included: assist to shift weight in W/C q 15 minutes and following the facilities policy/protocols for the prevention/treatment of skin breakdown (initiated 10/27/23). 12/03/24 04:27 PM Staff member came and brought resident a pillow and place behind the resident's head. Observed resident in the main dining 12/04/24 01:32 PM appearing to be asleep. Non-slip socks in place, pillow behind head and back. No odors or obvious signs of distress. Resident does have foot drop 12/04/24 01:35 PM staff member approached to assist with meal. Resident was set up by staff and able to feed self. Food was pureed consistency. Care Plan: · [NAME] has potential for pressure ulcer development r/t Immobility, Incontinence -Goal is for resident skin to remain intact, free of redness/blisters/discoloration, with interventions that included assisting resident with shifting her weight every 15 minutes Review of most recent annual MDS revealed although resident is at risk for skin deterioration, she has had none. 12/05/24 02:53 PM Says have been actively hiring and using agency. Have improved but weekends are still a concerns. Offers incentives and use other companies and recruiters to get staffing. Says biggest concern they have been made aware of is call light response time needs to be improved. The DON was also asked about expectations for residents seated in the common area for monitoring over an extended period time, and she stated that she expects staff to follow each residents plan of care. If the resident's plan of states to check for incontinence every 2 hours she expects staff to take the resident to their room, for privacy and check their brief, adding that if resident requires a Hoyer then staff has to find help. NJAC 8:39-4.1(a) Based on observations, interviews, record review, and policy review, the facility failed to provide two residents (Resident (R) 139 and R108) out of nine residents reviewed for Activities of Daily Living (ADLs) the necessary repositioning and incontinence care to ensure residents dependent on assistance with ADLs received care and services for toileting hygiene and skin protection out of a total sample of 41 residents. Findings include: 1. Review of R139's Face Sheet found in the Resident Report tab of the electronic medical record (EMR) revealed admission on [DATE] with diagnoses including sepsis, extended spectrum beta lactamase resistance, muscle weakness, and benign prostatic hyperplasia. Review of R139's quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) located in the MDS tab in the EMR with an Assessment Reference Date (ARD) of 08/21/24, revealed a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of nine out of 15, which indicated moderate cognitive impairment. According to the MDS R139 was always incontinent of urine and bowel, is dependent on toileting hygiene, showering/bathing, toilet transfer, and R139 required substantial/maximal assistance with rolling left and right. The resident is identified as high risk for developing pressure ulcers. During a continuous observation on 12/03/24 from 1:30 PM to 3:30 PM, R139 was seated in the communal area on the 300 unit. The resident was never repositioned or checked for incontinence. During an interview on 12/03/24 at 1:45 PM, R139's resident representative (RR2), she stated that the resident was always brought to the communal area every morning and stayed there until evening, when they were put back into bed. They stated that staff did not reposition, toilet, or provide R139 incontinence care while in the common room. During an observation on 12/03/24 from 4:15 PM until 4:45 PM, R139 was still observed in their chair in the same position, with no staff present. During an additional continuous observation on 12/05/24 from 11:00 AM until 2:50 PM, R139 were observed in their Broda wheelchairs in the communal area. R139 was observed attending the activity and the lunch service in the communal area during this time, without leaving the room being repositioned, nor checked for incontinence care needs. Review of R139's EMR under the Resident Orders tab under the Resident Reports revealed an order, dated 10/09/24, to turn and position every two hours as tolerated to prevent pressure wounds, every shift. Review of R139's EMR under the Resident Orders tab under the Resident Reports revealed an order, dated 10/09/24, for Phyto plex z-guard 57-17% .apply to diaper area topically every shift for skin protectant with each diaper change. Review of R139's Care Plan in the EMR under the Care Plan tab, initiated 10/16/23 and revised 07/24/24, revealed R139 had the potential for skin integrity impairment of the sacrum related to impaired mobility and incontinence. Interventions included assisting the resident with general hygiene and comfort measures. Review of R139's Care Plan in the EMR under the Care Plan tab, initiated 11/20/23 and revised 08/06/24, revealed R139 had bowel and bladder incontinence related to Alzheimer's, generalized weakness/impaired mobility, benign prostatic hyperplasia, and overactive bladder. Interventions included checking every two hours and as required for incontinence, to wash, rinse and dry perineum. Review of R139's EMR under the Task tab revealed bladder documentation every shift for October 2024. Documentation by Certified Nurse Aides (CNAs) revealed no documentation completed for 42 of 93 opportunities. Review of R139's EMR under the Task tab revealed bladder documentation every shift for November 2024. Documentation by CNAs revealed no documentation completed for 23 of 90 opportunities. Review of R139's EMR under the Task tab revealed turning and repositioning documentation every shift for October 2024. Documentation by CNAs revealed no documentation completed for 42 of 93 opportunities. Review of R139's EMR under the Task tab revealed turning and repositioning documentation every shift for November 2024. Documentation by CNAs revealed no documentation completed for 23 of 90 opportunities. Review of R139's EMR under the Task tab revealed turning and repositioning documentation every shift for December 2024. Documentation by CNAs revealed no documentation completed for three of 18 opportunities. During an interview on 12/06/24 at 4:55 PM, CNA2 stated that the nurse aides should check the residents every 15 minutes, to observe them. She confirmed residents should be checked every two hours for care needs. During a concurrent interview on 12/06/24 at 5:00 PM, Registered Nurse (RN) 1 and RN2 confirmed that it was important to check for incontinence and reposition R139 because he had a history of skin breakdown, fungal infection, and urinary tract infections. RN1 and RN2 said that the resident received his brief change at approximately 8:00 AM and again by 11:00 AM. They both stated that after that R139 was out of bed and in his Broda wheelchair and in the communal area. RN1 and RN2 said that the resident would then be checked for incontinence and changed after 3:00 PM when he went back to his room. They both confirmed the resident was totally incontinent of bowel and bladder. 2. Review of R108's Face sheet located under the Resident Report tab of the EMR revealed R108 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnosis of Alzheimer's disease Review of R108's annual MDS with an ARD of 10/23/24, located under the MDS tab, revealed the resident was severely impaired and unable to complete the interview. Review of R108's care plan found under the Care Plan tab of the EMR revealed R108 has potential for pressure ulcer development r/t [related to] Immobility, Incontinence. The care plan interventions indicated, assist to shift weight in W/C [wheelchair q [every]15 minutes. and following the facilities policy/protocols for the prevention/treatment of skin breakdown that was initiated 10/27/23. Observation of R108 on 12/05/24 at11:00AM until 4:27PM in the 3rd floor dining room, revealed that R108 was seated in a Broda chair. During the observation, the resident was not approached until 4:27PM, when CNA 2 brought the resident a pillow and placed it behind the resident's head, however, did not check R108 for incontinence. Review of the ADL flow sheet provided by the facility revealed that R108 was toileted/provided incontinence care on 12/03/24 at 12:17AM and 11:59PM; and on 12/04/24 at 6:32AM and 7:38PM. During an interview on 12/06/24 at 5:17 PM, Director of Nursing (DON) stated that if a resident was wet, they needed to be changed right away. She said that every shift the nurse aides were required to check residents' skin and for any incontinence. The CNAs should monitor for incontinence every two hours to prevent any skin breakdown, prevent infection, or any urinary infection. The DON confirmed that nurse aides should remove residents from the day room every two hours to go to the resident room for a side to side or stand check to monitor for incontinence. Review of the facility's policy Activities of Daily Living dated 07/01/24 indicated, The facility will, based on the resident's comprehensive assessment and consistent with the resident's needs and choices, ensure a resident's abilities in ADLs do not deteriorate unless deterioration is unavoidable .Care and services will be provided for the following activities of daily living: 1. Bathing, dressing, grooming and oral care .transfer and ambulation .toileting .A resident who is unable to carry out activities of daily living will receive the necessary services to maintain good nutrition, grooming, and personal and oral hygiene.
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0698 (Tag F0698)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview, record review, and facility policy review, the facility failed to ensure ongoing communication and collabora...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview, record review, and facility policy review, the facility failed to ensure ongoing communication and collaboration with the dialysis facility and failed to ensure a medication was administered on dialysis days for one of one residents (Resident (R) 61) reviewed for dialysis out of a sample of 41. Findings include: 1. Review of R61's Face Sheet, found in the Resident Report tab of the electronic medical record (EMR), revealed she was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnosis including end stage renal disease, kidney transplant failure, congestive heart failure, hypertension, and diabetes mellitus type two. Review of R61's quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) located in the MDS tab in the EMR with an Assessment Reference Date (ARD) of 09/10/24 revealed a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of fourteen out of 15, which indicated no cognitive impairment. R61 was documented to receive dialysis while a resident. Review of R61's EMR under the Resident Orders tab under the Resident Reports revealed an order dated 04/20/24, for the resident to attend dialysis on Monday, Wednesday, and Friday at 9:45 AM. Further review revealed an order dated 04/20/24, for furosemide (diuretic medication) oral tablet 40 milligram (mg) .give one tablet by mouth in the afternoon for CHF (congestive heart failure). The medication was scheduled to be administered at 1:00 PM once a day. Review of R61's Medication Administration Record (MAR) of the EMR under the Resident Orders tab for October 2024, revealed furosemide oral tablet 40 mg was not administered on seven of 13 opportunities, (10/07/24, 10/09/24, 10/11/24, 10/14/24, 10/21/24, 10/25/28, and 10/28/24) and was coded by nursing staff as out of the facility on scheduled dialysis dates. Review of R61's MAR of the EMR under the Resident Orders tab for November 2024, revealed furosemide oral tablet 40 mg was not administered on seven of 13 opportunities, (11/04/24, 11/06/24, 11/15/24, 11/20/24, 11/22/24, 11/25/24, and 11/27/24) and was coded by nursing staff as out of the facility on scheduled dialysis dates. Review of R61's MAR of the EMR under the Resident Orders tab for December 2024, revealed furosemide oral tablet 40 mg was not administered on two of two opportunities, (12/02/24 and 12/04/24) and was coded by nursing staff as out of the facility on scheduled dialysis dates. Review of R61's EMR under the Resident Orders tab under the Resident Reports revealed an order, dated 04/20/24, for carvedilol oral tablet 25 mg .give one tablet by mouth two times a day for hypertension give with food. The medication was scheduled to be administered at 12:00 PM and 9:00 PM. Review of R61's MAR of the EMR under the Resident Orders tab for October 2024, revealed carvedilol oral tablet 25 mg was not administered on eleven of 13 opportunities, (10/07/24, 10/09/24, 10/11/24, 10/14/24, 10/16/24, 10/18/24, 10/21/24, 10/23/24, 10/25/24, 10/28/24, and 10/30/24) and was coded by nursing staff as out of the facility on scheduled dialysis dates. Review of R61's MAR of the EMR under the Resident Orders tab for November 2024, revealed carvedilol oral tablet 25 mg was not administered on eight of 13 opportunities, (11/04/24, 11/06/24, 11/13/24, 11/15/24, 11/20/24, 11/22/24, 11/25/24, and 11/27/24) and was coded by nursing staff as out of the facility on scheduled dialysis dates. Review of R61's MAR of the EMR under the Resident Orders tab for December 2024, revealed carvedilol oral tablet 25 mg was not administered on two of two opportunities, (12/02/24 and 12/04/24) and was coded by nursing staff as out of the facility on scheduled dialysis dates. Review of R61's EMR under the Resident Orders tab under the Resident Reports revealed an order, dated 04/20/24, for Humalog injection solution 100 unit/milliliter (ml) .inject as per sliding scale subcutaneously four times a day every Monday, Wednesday, and Friday for diabetes mellitus. The medication was scheduled to be administered at 7:30 AM, 1:00 PM, 5:00 PM, and 9:00 PM. Review of R61's MAR of the EMR under the Resident Orders tab for October 2024, revealed Humalog injection solution 100 unit/ml was not administered on eight of 52 opportunities, (10/07/24, 10/09/24, 10/11/24, 10/14/24, 10/18/24, 10/21/24, 10/25/24, and 10/28/24 at 1:00 PM) and was coded by nursing staff as out of the facility on scheduled dialysis dates. Review of R61's MAR of the EMR under the Resident Orders tab for November 2024, revealed Humalog injection solution 100 unit/ml was not administered on seven of 52 opportunities, (11/04/24, 11/06/24, 11/15/24, 11/20/24, 11/22/24, 11/25/24, and 11/27/24 at 1:00 PM) and was coded by nursing staff as out of the facility on scheduled dialysis dates. Review of R61's MAR of the EMR under the Resident Orders tab for December 2024, revealed Humalog injection solution 100 unit/ml was not administered on two of eight opportunities, (12/02/24 and 12/04/24 at 1:00 PM) and was coded by nursing staff as out of the facility on scheduled dialysis dates. Review of R61's Dialysis Communication documentation from October 2024 to December 2024 revealed that the facility did not send these medications to dialysis for administration, and the dialysis center did not document that these medications were administered while away from the facility. During a concurrent interview on 12/06/24 at 5:00 PM, Registered Nurse (RN)1 and RN2 stated that R61's went to dialysis on Mondays, Wednesdays, and Fridays, usually by 9:45 AM. RN2 said that R61 usually returned around 2:30 PM. They both stated that the resident was checked upon return from dialysis, and that they had good communications with the dialysis center. They stated that if the dialysis center had concerns for R61 they would write the information on the communication forms. RN1 said that the nurses complete their part of the communication form, and then review and complete them upon return. They confirmed R61 was administered medications furosemide, Humalog, and carvedilol while scheduled to be at dialysis and that those medications could not be given if the resident was not present. Once the resident returned from dialysis it was too late to administer the medications. RN1 and RN2 confirmed that the carvedilol, furosemide, and Humalog were important because the resident had congestive heart failure, diabetes, and end stage renal disease. During an interview on 12/06/24 at 5:17 PM, Director of Nursing (DON) stated that the facility nurses should take resident vitals, check the site, and prepare the dialysis communication binder that the resident would take with them for dialysis. She stated that the dialysis center knew what medications the resident was taking, but that the dialysis center did not administer any of those medications. The [NAME] stated that if the resident had a medication that was ordered to be administered while the resident was scheduled to be at dialysis, the nurse should call the physician to see if the medication could be given before or after they go out for dialysis. The DON stated that if the physician stated that the scheduled medication did not need to be given when the resident was going out to dialysis, the physician would document that. She confirmed that the dialysis center did not administer R61's Humalog or carvedilol while they were out of the facility. She confirmed that the physician should reschedule the medication or withhold it. Review of the facility's policy titled, Hemodialysis dated 07/01/24 documented, The facility will provide the necessary care and treatment, consistent with professional standards of practice, physician orders, .The licensed nurse will communicate to the dialysis facility via telephone communication or written format, such as a dialysis communication form or other form, that will include, but not limit itself to .timely medication administration (initiated, held or discontinued) by the nursing home and/or dialysis facility .physician/treatment orders .The facility will communicate with the dialysis facility, attending physician and/or nephrologist medication administration or withholding of certain medications prior to the dialysis treatment and document such orders .The facility will ensure that the physician's orders for dialysis include: .Any medication administration or withholding of specific medications prior to dialysis treatments. NJAC 8:39-2.9
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0761 (Tag F0761)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on observations, interviews, and policy review, the facility failed to ensure that one of 10 medication carts (fifth floor south) and one of one rolling cart (fifth floor) were not left unsecure...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observations, interviews, and policy review, the facility failed to ensure that one of 10 medication carts (fifth floor south) and one of one rolling cart (fifth floor) were not left unsecured and unmonitored when medication cart was unlocked. This the potential for medication diversion and for residents to obtain medications that could affect their health. Findings include: Review of the facility's policy titled Medication Storage dated 07/01/24, revealed, it is the policy of this facility to ensure all medications housed on our premises will be stored in the medication rooms/medication carts according to the manufacturer recommendations .All drugs and biologicals will be stored in locked compartments (i.e., medication carts, cabinets, drawers, refrigerators, medication rooms) under proper temperature controls .During a medication pass, medications must be under the observation of the person administering medications or locked in the medication storage area/cart. During observations conducted on the fifth-floor nursing unit on 12/03/24 at 12:07PM, the 5 South medication cart was observed as being unlocked. Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN)1 was observed removing medications and leaving the medication cart unlocked while administrating the medications. The medication cart was observed as being unlocked; out of sight of LPN1, and unattended from 12:07PM to 12:15PM. During an interview on 12/03/24 at 12:15PM, LPN1 confirmed the medication had been left unlocked, and stated the medication cart keys were lost, everyone was aware of it, and they were waiting for pharmacy to come fix it. When questioned how long the cart had been left unlocked, LPN1 responded since 7:15 AM that morning. During an interview on 12/03/24 at 1:31PM with the Administrator, Director of Nursing (DON), the Administrator was questioned if he was aware of the issue with the medication cart. The Administrator responded yes, and they had placed a stat order for pharmacy to supply another lock/key. The Administrator was questioned what the facility's plan was to ensure the security of the medications in the cart, the Administrator responded, the plan is for the nurse to not leave the cart unattended. During an observation on 12/04/24 at 3:36PM to 3:46PM on the Fifth-floor nursing unit, it was observed that there was a plastic rolling cart left unattended with three insulin pens on top of the cart. The medication was observed as unsecured and not within sight of licensed nursing staff. During an interview on 12/04/24 at 3:47 PM, the Unit Manager (UM) confirmed the cart had been left unattended, and the medications were left unsecured on top of the cart. The UM stated the medication should not have be left unattended and proceeded to secure medications. During an interview on 12/05/24 at 3:51PM, the DON stated she expected the nursing staff not to leave medications unattended and to lock the medication cart. NJAC 8:39-29.4
CONCERN (D) 📢 Someone Reported This

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

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

Medical Records (Tag F0842)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interviews, record review and policy review, the facility failed to maintain an accurate medical record for two (Reside...

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 maintain an accurate medical record for two (Resident (R) 71 and R22) of six residents reviewed for nursing services. The facility failed to ensure medications administrations were accurately documented administration record. Findings include: 1. During an interview with R71's Resident Representative (RR) on 12/03/24 at 12:20 PM, she stated that R71 has missed medication administrations. Review of R71's Electronic Medical Record (EMR), under the Orders tab revealed Medication Administration Record (MAR) dated November 2024 lacked documentation that the following medications were not administered on 11/14/24 and 11/26/24 for the following medications: Lasix (diuretic) 20 milligram (mg), Sertraline (antidepressant) 100mg, Divalproex (antipsychotic) 125mg, Memantine (miscellaneous central nervous system agent) 10mg (twice daily), and Donepezil (Acetylcholinesterase inhibitor) 10mg. Further review of the Nurse notes in the EMR, under Progress Notes lacked documentation as to why the medications were not administered. During an interview with Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) 8 on 12/05/24 at 4:42PM, who was the nurse on the PM shift on 11/14/24, LPN8 could not recall the situation but stated that if she did not give the medication, she would have written a nurses note and contacted the physician. During an interview with the Director of Nursing (DON) and the Corporate Nurse (CRN) 1 on 12/06/24 at 3:16PM, the DON was asked about R71's missing medication administrations on 11/1424 and 11/16/24. The DON stated that she was not aware of the missed medications and believed this was just a lack of incomplete documentation. The DON stated that if a medication was not given or given late it should be documented in the medical record on the MAR and should include a corresponding nurses note. 2. Review of R22's undated admission Record located in the EMR, under the Profile tab, indicated the resident was admitted to the facility on [DATE], and discharged home on [DATE], with diagnoses including gout, hypertension, kidney transplant, atrial fibrillation, neuropathy, for gastroesophageal reflux disease(GERD), type 2 diabetes mellitus with hyperglycemia, respiratory failure with hypoxia, and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). Review of R22's MAR dated 10/20/24 located in the EMR under the Orders tab, indicated the following medications were not administered to the resident per the physician orders: Allopurinol daily at 9:00AM for Gout Amlodipine daily at 9:00AM for hypertension Cyclosporine one time at 9:00AM for kidney transplant Furosemide daily at 9:00AM for atrial fibrillation Gabapentin daily at 9:00AM for nerve pain Metoprolol Succinate daily at 9:00AM for hypertension Prednisone daily at 9:00AM for COPD Protonix daily at 9:00AM for GERD Apixaban two times daily, 9:00AM dose was not given, for atrial fibrillation Albuterol Sulfate every 8 hours, not given at 2:00PM, for COPD Insulin Lispro, inject six (6) units subcutaneously before meals and at bedtime, not administered at 7:30AM, and 11:30AM, for diabetes Insulin Lispro sliding scale, no blood sugar and/or insulin given at 7:30AM, and 11:30AM, for diabetes. Review of R22's Assessments located in the EMR under the Assessment tab and Progress Notes located in the EMR under the Progress Notes tab revealed no documentation related to why the medications were not given for 10/20/24. During an interview with DON on 12/06/24 at 4:32 PM, the DON stated she had spoken to LPN5, who was responsible to administer R22's medications. LPN5 was adamant that he had administered the medications, and just had not documented them as given. During an interview on 12/06/24 at 12:20 PM with the Corporate Registered Nurse (CRN)1, DON, and Administrator, they reviewed the October 2024 MAR and stated the resident's medications for 10/20/23 were not documented as being administered. The DON stated she expected the residents' medications to be administered and if not, it should be documented in the record. Review of the undated facility's policy titled, Accuracy of Medical Records indicated Each resident's medical record shall contain an accurate representation of the actual experience of the actual experiences of the resident and include enough information to provide picture of the resident's progress through complete, accurate, and timely documentation. The policy's Compliance Guidelines included: 1. Licensed staff and interdisciplinary team members shall document . services provided in the resident's medical record 2. Documentation should be completed at the time of service, but no later than the shift in which .care service occurred. a. Documentation shall be accurate, relevant, and complete, containing sufficient details about resident's care and/or responses to care. NJAC 8:39-35.2(d)(9)
CONCERN (E)

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

Pharmacy Services (Tag F0755)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observations and interview, the facility failed to ensure medication rooms on three (2nd nursing unit (NU), 3rd NU, and...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observations and interview, the facility failed to ensure medication rooms on three (2nd nursing unit (NU), 3rd NU, and 5th NU) of four nursing units, did not have expired medical products or items left open. This has the potential to increase of risk of infections due to expiration. Findings include: During observations conducted with Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN)9, revealed the following expired items located in the resident care supplies: 1. Observation on [DATE] at 9:26 AM on the second-floor nursing unit, revealed the following expired items: (10) Central Line Trays w/chloral prep expired on [DATE]. (2) Huber needles (1) expired on [DATE], and (1) expired on [DATE]. (1) Microbore Extension set expired on [DATE]. (1) IV Securement Kit expired on [DATE]. (1) 30ml sterile water syringe left open. (1) IV (intravenous) administration kit that expired on [DATE]. (12) Replacement caps expired on [DATE]; (29) on [DATE], and (24) on [DATE]. 2. Observation conducted on [DATE] at 10:17 AM on the third-floor nursing, revealed the following expired items: (1) Huber Needle expired on [DATE]. .(2) sterile water vials that expired on [DATE], and [DATE]. (1) specimen transport tube expired on [DATE]. (1) Five-gram lubricating jelly expired on [DATE]. (34) Needleless connector caps expired on [DATE]. 3. Observation conducted on [DATE] at 11:59 AM on the fifth-floor nursing, revealed the following expired items: (2) saline enema laxative expired on 02/24, and 05/24. (10) Micro scaffold collagen expired on [DATE]. (1) Micro-kill one Germicidal alcohol wipes-160 wipes expired on [DATE]. (1) box-quantity of six- Glucose control solutions expired on [DATE]. During an interview on [DATE] at 12:12 PM, the Director of Nursing (DON) stated that the unit managers should be overseeing the medical supplies and expiration dates. NJAC 8:39-29.4
Jan 2024 2 deficiencies 1 IJ (1 affecting multiple)
CRITICAL (K)

Immediate Jeopardy (IJ) - the most serious Medicare violation

Infection Control (Tag F0880)

Someone could have died · This affected multiple residents

Based on interview, record review, and review of pertinent documentation on 01/03/24, 01/05/24, and 01/08/24, it was determined that the facility was in an active COVID-19 outbreak status on 10/2/23, ...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on interview, record review, and review of pertinent documentation on 01/03/24, 01/05/24, and 01/08/24, it was determined that the facility was in an active COVID-19 outbreak status on 10/2/23, failed to prevent the spread of COVID-19, a highly contagious virus for the following: a.) failing to perform contact trace (CT) of the employees and residents who were exposed to COVID-19 virus, b.) failing to consistently test exposed residents and employees. c.) failing to ensure that the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) guidance were implemented to limit the spread of the infectious disease, and to put into effect the facility's policy titled Emergent Infectious Disease (COVID-19) Outbreak Plan V11 to prevent the spread of Covid-19 which is a highly contagious virus. Reference: CDC, COVID-19, Interim Infection Prevention and Control Recommendations for Healthcare Personnel During the Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) Pandemic, Updated May 8, 2023, indicated the following .Perform SARS-CoV-2 Viral Testing, Asymptomatic patients with close contact with someone with SARS-CoV-2 infection should have a series of three viral tests for SARS-CoV-2 infection. Testing is recommended immediately (but not earlier than 24 hours after the exposure) and, if negative, again 48 hours after the first negative test and, if negative, again 48 hours after the second negative test. This will typically be at day 1 (where day of exposure is day 0), day 3, and day 5. Due to challenges in interpreting the result, testing is generally not recommended for asymptomatic people who have recovered from SARS-CoV-2 infection in the prior 30 days. Testing should be considered for those who have recovered in the prior 31-90 days; however, an antigen test [rapid test] instead of a nucleic acid amplification test (NAAT) is recommended. This is because some people may remain NAAT positive but not be infectious during this period . Testing considerations for healthcare facilities with an outbreak of SARS-CoV-2 are described below. The yield of screening testing for identifying asymptomatic infection is likely lower when performed on those in areas with lower levels of SARS-CoV-2 community transmission. However, these results might continue to be useful in some situations (e.g., when performing higher-risk procedures, admitting/caring for patients who are moderately to severely immunocompromised, or for the HCP [Health Care Provider] caring for such patients) to inform the type of infection control precautions used (e.g., room assignment/cohorting, or PPE used) and prevent unprotected exposures. If implementing a screening testing program, testing decisions should not be based on the vaccination status of the individual being screened. To provide the greatest assurance that someone does not have SARS-CoV-2 infection, if using an antigen test instead of a NAAT, facilities should use 3 tests, spaced 48 hours apart, in line with FDA recommendations. In general, performance of pre-procedure or pre-admission testing is at the discretion of the facility. Performance of expanded screening testing of asymptomatic HCP without known exposures is at the discretion of the facility . Create a Process to Respond to SARS-CoV-2 Exposures Among HCP and Others Healthcare facilities should have a plan for how SARS-CoV-2 exposures in a healthcare facility will be investigated and managed and how contact tracing will be performed. If healthcare-associated transmission is suspected or identified, facilities might consider expanded testing of HCP and patients as determined by the distribution and number of cases throughout the facility and ability to identify close contacts. For example, in an outpatient dialysis facility with an open treatment area, testing should ideally include all patients and HCP. Depending on testing resources available or the likelihood of healthcare-associated transmission, facilities may elect to initially expand testing only to HCP and patients on the affected units or departments, or a particular treatment schedule or shift, as opposed to the entire facility. If an expanded testing approach is taken and testing identifies additional infections, testing should be expanded more broadly. If possible, testing should be repeated every 3-7 days until no new cases are identified for at least 14 days. Guidance for outbreak response in nursing homes is described in setting-specific considerations below. Healthcare facilities responding to SARS-CoV-2 transmission within the facility should always notify and follow the recommendations of public health authorities . Nursing Homes .The approach to an outbreak investigation could involve either contact tracing or a broad-based approach; however, a broad-based (e.g., unit, floor, or other specific area(s) of the facility) approach is preferred if all potential contacts cannot be identified or managed with contact tracing or if contact tracing fails to halt transmission. Perform testing for all residents and HCP identified as close contacts or on the affected unit(s) if using a broad-based approach, regardless of vaccination status. Testing is recommended immediately (but not earlier than 24 hours after the exposure) and, if negative, again 48 hours after the first negative test and, if negative, again 48 hours after the second negative test. This will typically be at day 1 (where day of exposure is day 0), day 3, and day 5. Due to challenges in interpreting the result, testing is generally not recommended for asymptomatic people who have recovered from SARS-CoV-2 infection in the prior 30 days. Testing should be considered for those who have recovered in the prior 31-90 days; however, an antigen test instead of a nucleic acid amplification test (NAAT) is recommended. This is because some people may remain NAAT positive but not be infectious during this period . According to the progress note in the medical record, it revealed that on 10/02/23, Resident #1, who resided on the second floor, had signs and symptoms of lethargy, generalized weakness and loss of appetite. The resident was given a Rapid COVID-19 test on the same day and the result was positive. According to the CDC guidelines and the Local Health Department (LHD) facility was to initiate the 3 series of viral tests on 10/02/23. a.) The facility's Infection Control Preventionist (ICP#1) identified that nine staff members were exposed to Resident #1 prior to the resident testing positive for COVID-19 on 10/2/23. The staff members were Licensed Practical Nurses (LPNs) #2, #3, and #5, and Certified Nursing Assistants (CNA) #2, #3, #4, #5, #6, and #7. All 9 staff members were rapid tested for COVID-19 on 10/03/23 and 10/04/23, however, testing was not repeated on Day 3 and Day 5 post exposure and so the 9 staff members continued to provide care to other residents. On 12/12/23, facility conducted Broad Based Approach Testing (BBAT) but failed to complete the 3 series of CDC testing recommendations for all residents on Day 1, 3, and 5 for COVID-19. b.) When Residents #2 , #3, #4, #5, and #6 tested positive for COVID -19 virus on 10/7/23, 10/8/23, 10/9/23, 10/11/23 and 10/13/23, the facility failed to initiate CT to identify staff who provided care for 5 residents on the second floor to prevent the spread of COVID-19 virus, In addition, the facility failed to CT and test exposed residents from COVID-19 virus when on 11/01/23, 11/06/23, and 11/24/23, 2 staff members, LPN #3 and #4, who provided care on the second floor and one rehab staff (Rehab #1) received rapid testing and results were positive for COVID-19. The facility had a total of 55 residents and 34 staff who tested positive for COVID-19 virus that started on 10/02/23. The facility failure to complete the recommended series of 3 viral tests, conduct contact tracing upon the identification of COVID-19 positive for staff and residents to prevent the spread of COVID-19, a contagious infectious and potentially deadly virus, posed a serious and immediate risk to the health and well-being of all staff and residents for contracting COVID-19. A serious adverse outcome was likely to occur as the identified non-compliance resulted in an Immediate Jeopardy (IJ) situation that was identified on 1/3/24 at 6:30 p.m. The removal plan was accepted and verified as implemented by the survey team during an onsite visit on 1/8/24. The IJ situation began on 10/05/23, when nine staff members who were exposed from Resident #1 who exhibited lethargy, general weakness, and no appetite were rapid tested for COVID-19 on Day 1 (10/03/23) and (10/04/23) Day 2 but no evidence of testing after this date. The non-compliance remained on 1/3/24 for F880 at level E, with no actual harm with the potential for more than minimum harm that is not immediate jeopardy. On 1/3/24 at 8:51 a.m., during the entrance conference, the Director of Nursing (DON) and Nurse Educator (NE) informed the surveyors that the facility was experiencing an outbreak of COVID-19 which began on 10/2/23. The facility currently had 3 positive COVID-19 residents. The DON stated that the facility had been communicating with the LHD and had been receiving and following the LHD's recommendation. The surveyors were provided with the facility's ongoing line listing (LL), a document that is transmitted to the Department of Health and lists all COVID-19 cases during an outbreak, and a copy of the CT for Resident #1 who tested positive for COVID-19 on 10/2/23. The LL indicated a total of 55 residents and 34 employees were tested positive for COVID-19. The surveyors reviewed the CT provided by the facility on 1/3/24. The CT revealed that LPNs #2, #3, and #5, CNAs #2, #3, #4, #5, #6, and #7 were exposed from Resident #1 and tested on Day 1. The CT did not indicate that the aforementioned CNAs and LPNs continued to be tested and this was not in accordance with the LHD recommendation, CDC guidelines, and facility policy. The surveyors conducted an interview with the DON, Regional ICP (RICP) and ICP #2 on 01/3/24 at 4:08 p.m., the ICP #2 stated that she started working with facility on the first week of September 2023 in the title of a staff nurse and started in the present title as an ICP on 10/28/23 after she took Infection Control classes from 10/23/23 to 10/27/23. ICP #2 further stated that ICP #1 last day was 10/3/23. DON stated that she was ICP certified and that she was overseeing the infection control and prevention after ICP #1 left (started on 10/4/23). The DON and ICP #2 stated that the CT was initiated on 10/3/23 by ICP #1. The DON and ICP #2 were unable to explain the reason why the 3 series of testing was not completed to the exposed staff from 10/2/23. The DON and ICP #2 revealed that the CT was not performed when Residents #2, Resident #3, Resident #4, Resident #5, and Resident #6 tested positive on 10/7/2023, 10/8/23, 10/9/23, 10/11/23 and 10/13/23, and when 3 staff members on 11/01/23, 11/06/23, and 11/24/23 tested positive for COVID-19. According to the DON everything fell into the cracks, I thought the staff, Unit Managers would know and would do the testing and contact tracing. The DON admitted that when the staff who were exposed on 10/2/23 were tested on day 1, there were no further testing was done. In addition, the DON stated that there was no documented evidence that the CT was done when 5 residents (Residents #2, #3,#4, #5 and #6) tested positive on 10/7/2023, 10/8/23, 10/9/23, 10/11/23 and 10/13/23. The DON and RICP stated it is important to CT and to test the identified exposed resident/staff to stop further exposure and eliminate transmission of Covid-19 among residents and staff. The DON and ICP #2 were aware that on 11/1/23, 11/6/23, and 11/24/23, three facility employees respectively tested positive for Covid-19, the DON stated, contact tracing and testing was done but there's no documentation to prove that it was done. The surveyors conducted an interview with ICP #2 on 1/3/24 and 1/5/24. The ICP confirmed the aforementioned cases of COVID-19. The ICP was unable to provide documented evidence that the staff who were exposed from Resident #2, Resident #3, Resident #4, Resident #5, and Resident #6 were CT and tested for COVID-19 in the accordance with the CDC guidelines and the facility policy. In addition, during the interview with the ICP on 1/5/23 at 10:05 a.m., she explained that BBAT was initiated for the whole building (for all staff and resdients) because they were unable to perform CT. On 12./11/23, there were many staff and residents who tested positive, so CT was not done at this time. According to the ICP, the staff had been educated to test for COVID-19, however, the testing was not consistently done to detect the virus before providing care to the residents. The electronic-mail (e-mail) communication from LHD on 10/3/23 at 11:16 a.m. indicated that the facility was in an outbreak. The LHD email was sent to ICP #1, DON, ICP #2, and the Administrator. The LHD instructed the facility to Conduct contact tracing on all resident and staff cases. Conduct testing of close contacts as appropriate (on days 1, 3, and 5). Be sure to follow all applicable federal and state directives. Included in the email was an Outbreak Management Checklist for COVID-19 in Nursing Homes and other Post-acute Care Settings The checklist under Screening, Testing, & Response Outbreak Intervention 1. Review outbreak response plans for SARS-CoV-2 and other respiratory pathogens to support containment and response efforts . Under Contact Tracing or Broad-based Approach Outbreak Intervention 1. Facilities should perform contact tracing to identify all high-risk staff exposures and close contact encounters with patients/residents .2. Contact tracing approach: Perform SARS-CoV-2 viral testing for all patients/residents identified as close contacts and all staff who have higher-risk exposures, regardless of vaccination status, who have not been previously positive within the past 30 days. Asymptomatic patients/residents and staff with close contact or higher-risk exposures should have a series of three viral tests for SARS-CoV-2 infection. Testing is recommended immediately but not earlier than 24 hours after exposure and, if negative, 48 hours after the first negative test. If negative, again 48 hours after the second negative test. This will typically be on days 1, 3, and 5 (where the day of exposure is day 0). 3. Continue performing contact tracing if testing reveals additional cases .5. Broad-based approach: Perform SARS-CoV-2 testing for all patients/residents and staff on the affected unit(s), regardless of vaccination status, who have not been previously positive within the past 30 days, immediately and, if negative, again 48 hours after first negative test, and if negative, again 48 hours after second negative test. 6. If additional cases are identified, testing should continue on the affected unit(s) or facility-wide every 3-7 days until there are no new cases for 14 days. If antigen testing is used, more frequent testing (every 3 days) should be considered . The LL for COVID-19 from 10/2/23 through 12/28/23 revealed the following medical records (MR), Resident #2, who resided on the second floor tested positive for COVID-19 on 10/7/23. Resident #3, who resided on the second floor tested positive for COVID-19 on 10/8/23. Resident #4, who resided on the second floor tested positive for COVID-19 on 10/9/23. Resident #5, who resided on the second floor tested positive for COVID-19 on 10/11/23. There was no documentation to indicate that Residents #2, #3, #4, and #5 were tested to complete the 3 series of viral test from 12/12/23 when the facility performed BBAT for all staff and residents. The medical records revealed the following: Resident #6, who resided on the second floor tested positive for COVID-19 on 10/13/23. On 12/27/23 at 11:24 a.m., documented by the Speech Therapy (ST) that Resident #6 had difficulty swallowing, at 11:25 a.m., documented by LPN #2 Very congested. Productive cough. Stated unable to swallow. Wants med crushed. Temp: 97.3. [Nurse Practitioner] informed. Order received for stat [Now] CXR [Chest X-ray], at 3:36 pm, documented by LPN #2 Appetite poor. On 12/28/23 at 10:24 a.m., documented by ST that Resident #6's diet was changed to chopped solids, at 3:06 p.m., documented by LPN #2 that the CXR results was Right lower lobe infiltrate and NP was made aware. On 12/29/23 at 12:55 p.m., documented by a LPN #1 that Resident #6 was on antibiotic for Upper Respiratory Infections. On 12/31/23 at 3:53 p.m., documented by LPN #2 that the Resident was coughing. On 1/1/24, documented by the Residents Primary Physician (PP) that No specific issue reported by nursing home staff. On 1/2/24 at 9:12 a.m., documented by Unit Manager/LPN (UM/LPN #1) that Resident was congested, and secretions was increased, the NP ordered Duoneb and CXR. On 1/2/24, Resident #6 complaint of sore throat and shortness of breath, at 7:04 p.m., the facility received an order for Levaquin for infiltrate for 7 days. On 1/3/24 at 12:49 p.m., documented by the NP to start intravenous (IV) fluids. At 3:26 p.m., documented by LPN #2 that Resident #6 was on Levaquin for Upper Respiratory Infection (URI), continued coughing and family visited. At 4:07 p.m., documented by LPN #2 Status poor. Increase congestion. Neb [nebulizer] TX [treatment] on going. On LEVAQUIN .VS stable . On 1/5/24 at 4:40 p.m., the resident was tested negative for COVID-19, at 11:15 p.m., Resident #6 was sent to emergency room for having low sodium and chest congestions. Resident #6 was admitted with diagnosis of Respiratory Syncytial Virus. The facility failed to perform CT on the staff who provided care from 10/13/23 and continued to provide care to other residents. In addition, there was no documentation that 3 series of viral test was done from 12/12/23 when the facility performed BBAT to all staff and residents. Furthermore, the facility failed to test the resident for COVID-19 when symptoms manifested from 12/27/23 until 1/5/24. Resident #7, who resided on the second floor tested positive for COVID-19 on 12/16/23. Resident #8, who resided on the second floor tested positive for COVID-19 on 12/16/23. Resident #9, who resided on the second floor tested positive for COVID-19 on 12/14/23. Resident # 11, who resided on the second floor tested positive for COVID-19 on 12/14/23. Resident #12, who resided on the second floor tested positive for COVID-19 on 12/21/23 when she/he manifested nasal congestion and noted with occasional cough. Resident #14, who resided on the second floor was tested positive for COVID-19 on 12/16/23 after she developed a cough. Residents #7, #8, #9, #11, #12, and #14 had no documentation in the MR to indicate that the residents completed the 3 series of viral test from 12/12/23 when the facility performed BBAT for all staff and residents. During an interview with the surveyor on 1/3/24 at 10:24 a.m., the Respiratory Therapist (RT) revealed that he had been working in the facility and had not been tested for COVID-19 since the beginning of the outbreak on 10/2/23. A follow up interview with the RT at 11:28 a.m., the RT revealed that he was just tested today for COVID-19 and tested negative. He also stated that this was the first time the facility tested him for COVID-19 virus. On 1/3/23 at 2:53 p.m., ICP #2 verified that the RT worked on the following days 12/13/23, 12/18/23, 12/20/23, 12/26/23, and 12/27/23. The ICP confirmed that the RT was not tested on the aforementioned dates and was only tested today, 1/3/24. Review of the form Covid BinaxNow Test Results (CBTR) provided by the facility during the survey on 1/8/24, indicated a list of employees who tested for COVID-19. The form revealed that on 12/13/23, 12/18/23, 12/20/23, 12/26/23, and 12/27/23 the RT was not tested for COVID-19 and provided care on the Ventilator Unit. The facility policy titled Policy for Emergent Infectious Diseases (COVID-19) (Outbreak Plan V11), dated 05/22/23, under ASSUMPTIONS .Every disease is different. The local, state, and federal health authorities will be the source of the latest information and most up to date guidance on prevention, case definition, surveillance, treatment, and skilled nursing center response related to a specific disease threat .GOAL to protect our residents, families, and staff from harming resulting from exposure to an emergent infectious disease while they are in our care center. 2. Local Threat: a. Once notified by the public health authorities at either the federal, state and/or local level that the Emergent Infectious Disease (EID) is likely to or already has spread to the care center's community, the care center will b. activate specific surveillance and screening as instructed by Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), state agency and/ or the local public health authorities .6: Test Based Prevention Strategy .Testing of nursing home HCP .3 .CMS still expects facilities to conduct SARS-CoV-2 testing in accordance with accepted national standards, such as the CDC recommendations .5. Retesting of HCP will be completed in accordance with the CDC guidance, amended and supplemented .Testing related to (+) COVID-19 exposure and/or symptoms associated with SARS-CoV-2 (Outbreak Testing) 1. An outbreak investigation is initiated when a single new case of Covid-19 occurs among the residents or staff to determine if others have been exposed. Testing during an outbreak would be determined in accordance with CDC guidance .3. Upon the identification of a single new case of Covid-19 infection in any staff or residents, testing should begin immediately (but not earlier than 24 hours after the exposure, if known). The facility has the option to perform outbreak testing through two approaches: contact tracing, or broad-based; 1. Contact tracing approach. Identifies all patients/residents close contacts and staff high-risk exposures. All individuals with close contact and/or high-risk exposure should be tested as described below .testing reveals additional cases, contact tracing will be continued to be performed. 2. Broad-based approach. Testing is performed for all patients/residents and staff on the affected unit(s), regardless of vaccination status, who have not been previously positive within the past 30 days .Testing of Residents and Staff as follows .2. If there is a newly identified COVID-19 positive staff of resident in a facility that can identify close contacts, then: Residents: regardless of vaccination status, who had close contact with the COVID-19 positive individual must be tested. Staff: regardless of vaccination status, that had higher risk exposure with a COVID-19 positive individual must be tested. Testing is completed on Day 1 - Day 3 - Day 5 or in accordance with the recommendations by local health department (LHD). 3. If a newly identified COVID-19 positive staff or residents in a facility that is unable to identify close contacts, then: Residents: regardless of vaccination status, facility wide or at a group level (e.g., unit, floor, or other specific area(s) of the facility) must be tested. Staff: regardless of vaccination status, facility-wide or at a group level if staff are assigned to specific location where the new cases occurred (e.g., unit, floor, or other specific area(s) of the facility) must be tested. Testing is completed on Day 1 - Day 3 - Day 5 or in accordance with the recommendations by local health department (LHD) . N.J.A.C. 8:39-19.4 (a)(e)
CONCERN (D)

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

Pharmacy Services (Tag F0755)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on interviews and record review, as well as review of pertinent facility documents on 1/3/24, 1/5/24, and 1/8/24 it was determined that the facility failed to administer medication as ordered an...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on interviews and record review, as well as review of pertinent facility documents on 1/3/24, 1/5/24, and 1/8/24 it was determined that the facility failed to administer medication as ordered and to follow the facility's policy titled Administering Medication for 1 of 8 residents (Resident #6), reviewed for medication administration. This deficient practice was evidenced by the following: According to the admission RECORD, Resident #6 was admitted to the facility with diagnoses that included but were not limited to: Cerebral Infarction, Hypertension, and Peripheral Vascular Disease. According to the resident's Minimum Data Set (MDS), an assessment tool dated 12/18/23, Resident #6 had a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of 12/15, indicating that the resident cognitive was moderately impaired. A review of the form Order Summary Report (OSR), dated 12/2023 revealed an order initiated on 12/28/23 for Zithromax Oral Tablet 500 milligrams (mg), give 1 tablet by mouth every 12 hours for Upper Respiratory Infection (URI) to be given until 12/31/23. A review of Resident #6's Medication Administration Record (MAR), for 12/2023, confirmed that the Zithromax Oral Tablet 500 mg 1 tablet by mouth every 12 hours was scheduled to be given at 9:00 a.m. and 9:00 p.m. The MAR revealed that on 12/29/23 and 12/30/23 at 9:00 p.m., there was no documention to indicate on those dates and time that the Zithromax was administered. Additionally, there was no documentation in the medical record indicating that the medication was administered, or the Primary Physician was notified on 12/29/23 and 12/30/23 at 9:00 p.m. During an interview with the surveyors on 1/5/24 and 1/8/24, the Director of Nursing (DON) stated that nurses were expected to follow the Physician's order. The DON further stated that if the medication was not administered, the nurses were to call the residents Primary Physician and document in the resident's medical record. She agreed that this was not done for Resident #6. A review of the facility policy titled, Administering Medications, updated on 10/2023, under Policy Interpretation and Implementation .2. Medications must be administered in accordance with the orders, including the required time frame .11. If a drug is withheld, refused, or given at a different time other than the scheduled time, the individual administering the medication will document in the administration record . N.J.A.C 8:39-29.2(d)
Apr 2023 11 deficiencies
CONCERN (D)

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

Safe Environment (Tag F0584)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

2. On 4/18/23 at 12:15 PM, during lunch meal service on the 4th floor dining room, the surveyor observed that all the meals in the DR were served on meal trays and were left on the trays in front of t...

Read full inspector narrative →
2. On 4/18/23 at 12:15 PM, during lunch meal service on the 4th floor dining room, the surveyor observed that all the meals in the DR were served on meal trays and were left on the trays in front of the residents. On 4/18/23 at 12:24 PM, the surveyor interviewed the 4th floor Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN)/UM. She stated that the CNAs and Nurses will assist the residents to open everything for them and that if the residents require assistance with feeding, they will be assisted. She further stated that the residents' meals are served on the trays during the duration of the meals. The LPN/UM agreed that leaving the meals in the trays does not create a homelike environment for the residents during mealtimes. On 4/21/23 at 1:28 PM, the team met with the LNHA and DON. The surveyor verbalized the above concern. The LNHA stated, The items on the trays should be removed during mealtimes. N.J.A.C. 8:39-4.1(a)12 Based on observation and interview it was determined that the facility failed to provide a homelike environment during meal service as evidenced by the following. The deficient practice was observed on 2 out of 3 facility floors during lunch service observation. This deficient practice was evidenced by the following: 1. On 4/10/23 at 1:00 PM, during the lunch meal service located on the 2nd Floor dining room (DR), the surveyor observed that all meals in the DR were served and remained on meals trays. The surveyor also observed the Certified Nursing Assistants (CNA's) who were providing assistance with set-up to the residents in the DR left the lid from the food plate on the table and placed all the empty milk and juice containers along with straw papers and other trash in front of the resident. The garbage along with the meal tray was left on the table in front of the resident through the entirety of the meal, while residents were eating. On 4/11/23 at 12:55 PM, during the lunch meal service on the 2nd Floor DR, the surveyor observed that all meals in the DR were once again served and remained on meals trays. The surveyor also observed the Certified Nursing Assistants (CNAs) who were providing assistance with set-up to the resident in the DR left the lid from the food plate on the table and placed all the empty milk and juice container along with straw papers and other trash in front of the resident. The meal was left on the meal tray as well as the garbage in front of the resident through the entirety of the meal, while residents were eating. On 4/12/23 at 8:50 AM, during the breakfast meal service located on the 2nd Floor DR, the surveyor observed that all meals in the DR were served and remained on meals trays throughout the meal. The surveyor also observed this on the second floor dayroom area, where the breakfast trays remained under the meal served while the resident was eating. On 4/20/23 at 10:52 AM, the surveyor interviewed the 2nd floor RN Unit Manager (UM), who stated, it's the facilities' normal practice to leave the trays on the tables with the plates, cups and utensils for the resident in the dining as well as for residents who eat in their rooms. The UM did agree that leaving the meals on the trays does not create a homelike environment. On 4/20/23 at 1:54 PM, the surveyor team met with the Licensed Nursing Home Administrator (LNHA), the Director of Nursing (DON) and Regional Director on Nursing (RDON) to review our concerns. The LNHA stated they would provide response tomorrow. On 4/21/23 at 12:47 PM, the surveyor team met with the LNHA and DON for their responses. The DON agreed that all items should be removed off trays for resident in the dining room to create a homelike environment.
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0655 (Tag F0655)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on observation, interview, and record review, it was determined that the facility failed to develop and implement a person-centered baseline care plan (CP) for a resident within 48 hours of admi...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, interview, and record review, it was determined that the facility failed to develop and implement a person-centered baseline care plan (CP) for a resident within 48 hours of admission. This deficient practice was identified for 1 of 2 residents reviewed, (Resident #381) who had impaired communication related to language barrier. This deficient practice was evidenced as follows: On 4/10/23 at 12:43 PM, during the initial tour, the surveyor observed Resident #381 sitting in a wheelchair in their room. The surveyor greeted the resident who responded in Spanish. On 4/17/23 at 12:20 PM, the surveyor observed Resident #381 sitting in their wheelchair in their room. The surveyor greeted the resident who responded in Spanish. At around the same date and time, the surveyor interviewed the Licensed Practice Nurse (LPN) assigned to the resident. The LPN stated that Resident #381 speaks and understands only Spanish and that a translator and a communication board would be needed. The surveyor brought the LPN to Resident #381's room. The LPN acknowledged that there was no communication board tool located in the resident's room and that the resident never had one. A review of Resident #381's medical record revealed the following: A Face Sheet (an admission record) revealed that Resident #381 was admitted to the facility with diagnoses that included but not limited to Pneumonia, unspecified organism, Dependence of Renal Dialysis, and Essential (primary) Hypertension. A further review of the face sheet revealed that the resident's preferred language was Spanish. The admission Minimum Data Set (MDS), an assessment tool used to facilitate the management of care, with an Assessment Reference Date of 4/6/23, revealed a Brief Interview Status score of 7 out of 15, indicating that the resident had severely impaired cognition. The MDS assessment further reflected under Section A1100, Language that Resident #381 needed/wanted an interpreter to communicate with a doctor or healthcare staff and Spanish was his/her preferred language. A review of Resident #381's CP did not identify that the resident was Spanish-speaking and required a communication board and an interpreter. On 4/17/23 at 12:52 PM, the surveyor interviewed the Registered Nurse/Unit Manager. She stated that Resident #381 speaks and understands only Spanish and that a translator and a communication board would be needed. The RN/UM acknowledged that the resident did not have a baseline CP implemented to address the impaired communication/language barrier. She further stated that a baseline CP should have been initiated for the resident because it should be important to relay their needs. The RN/UM was not able to locate or demonstrate a communication board in the resident's room. A review of the facility policy titled, Care Plans-Baseline with a reviewed date of 2/2023, revealed the following under Policy Statement, A baseline plan of care to meet the resident's immediate needs shall be developed for each resident within forty eight (48) hours of admission. A further review of the policy indicated under Policy Interpretation and Implementation, 1. To assure that the resident's immediate care needs are met and maintained, a baseline care plan will be developed within forty-eight (48) hours of the resident's admission. 3. The baseline care plan will be used until the staff can conduct the comprehensive assessment and develop an interdisciplinary person-centered care plan. On 4/21/23 at 1:08 PM, the team met with the Licensed Nursing Home Administrator and Director of Nursing (DON). The surveyor verbalized the above concern. The DON acknowledged that Resident #381 did not have a baseline CP implemented to address impaired communication/language barrier which should have been implemented. NJAC 8:39-27.1(a)
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0658 (Tag F0658)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** On 4/19/2023 at 11:10 AM, the surveyor observed wound care on Resident #114 performed by the facility Wound Care Licensed Practi...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** On 4/19/2023 at 11:10 AM, the surveyor observed wound care on Resident #114 performed by the facility Wound Care Licensed Practical Nurse (WC LPN). A review of Resident #114's medical record revealed the following: A review of Resident #114 AR reflected that the resident was admitted to the facility with diagnoses which included but were not limited to malignant neoplasm of larynx (cancer cells), acute and chronic respiratory failure with hypoxia(deficiency in the amount of oxygen reaching the tissues), tracheostomy(an opening created at the front of the neck so a tube can be inserted into the windpipe (trachea) to help you breathe), pressure ulcer of sacral region (pressure sores). A review of the Quarterly MDS dated , 3/5/2023, revealed a BIMS score 15 of 15. This score suggests that Resident #114 has an intact cognition. A review of the electronic Medication Administration Record (eMAR), dated 4/19/2023, revealed a Physician's Order (PO) dated 2/15/2023 cleanse sacral wound with normal saline solution, pack with silver alginate dressing then cover with optifoam (make sure to pack undermining). A review of the Care Plan dated 6/23/2022 for Pressure Ulcer/ Injury revealed an intervention of weekly consult with wound healing solutions. A review of the Progress Notes dated 4/19/2003 through and including 4/20/2023 revealed the lack of any documentation from the nurse observed (by the surveyor) performing wound care on the 4/19/2023 day shift. A review of the Treatment Administration History 3/25/2023 through 4/24/2023 revealed that the documentation on the eMAR for wound care performed on 4/19/2023 day shift was not the initials of the Wound Care Licensed Practical Nurse observed. During the chart review, the surveyor could not find any nursing wound documentation by nursing for daily wound care, only consultant documentation was noted. On 4/20/2023 at 11:33 AM, the surveyor interviewed the WC LPN who performed the wound care for Resident #114. The surveyor asked her why she did not sign off the wound care in the eMAR, as she was observed performing it. The WC LPN responded, I don't know why, I never do. A wound care note is not documented daily when I do treatment care on the resident. On 4/20/2023 at 11:40 AM, the surveyor interviewed the residents assigned registered nurse (RN) who signed the eMAR and documented that she performed the wound treatment observed by the surveyor. The RN explained that she was asked to sign the eMAR by the WC LPN. The RN indicated, I don't know but knew it was not right. On 4/20/23 at 11:45 AM, the surveyor discussed her concerns with the DON. The DON stated, the facility expectation is to follow the policy appropriately and the prescribed order. The nurse should document and adjust the care plan as needed. The wound care nurse should do the treatment, document appropriately and document what she has done. Then sign off in the eMAR. It is not appropriate to ask the staff nurse to sign off the eMAR if she did not perform the treatment. A review of facility Charting and Documentation policy, version 1.2 (H5MAPL0124), adopted 11/2018, updated 1/2022, reviewed by the facility on 3/2023, revealed #7 Documentation of procedures and treatments will include care-specific details, including: The date and time the procedure /treatment was provided. The name and title of the individual(s) who provided care. The assessment data and /or any unusual findings obtained during the procedure/treatment. How the resident tolerated the procedure/ treatment. The signature and title of the individual documenting. A review of facility Wound Care policy, version 1.2 (H5MAPL0296), adopted 11/2018, updated 10/2019, updated 5/2021, reviewed 1/2023, revealed, section Documentation #4, the name and title of the individual performing the wound care. On 4/20/23 at 1:30 PM, the surveyor met with the Director of Nursing (DON), the Licensed Nursing Home Administrator (LNHA) and the Regional LNHA to discuss the issue involving appropriate signing of the eMAR by the treatment performing nurse. No further information was provided. NJAC 8:39-27.1 (a) Complaint # NJ00156374 4. On 4/17/23 at 12:26 PM, the surveyor reviewed the closed medical record for Resident #478. A review of Resident #478's AR revealed that the resident was admitted to the facility with diagnoses that included but were not limited to; tracheostomy (a surgically created hole (stoma) in your windpipe (trachea) that provides an alternative airway for breathing), dependence on respirator [ventilator] (a machine used to help a patient breathe) and gastrostomy (A surgical opening into the stomach used for feeding, usually via a feeding tube called a gastrostomy tube). A review of the Progress Notes (PN) included the following note written by nursing staff, 7/17/22 3:34 PM: during rounds, resident noted with face purplish color and lethargic and abdominal breathing. VS (vital signs: blood pressure-pulse-respirations-temperature) 143/64-88-24-101- 02 sat (oxygen saturation) 93% with 02 (oxygen) at 50%. Dr. made aware and order to transfer to . ER (Emergency Room). supervisor was informed, family and ER made aware. resident was transferred for AMS (altered mental status), hypoxia (a state in which oxygen is not available in sufficient amounts at the tissue level to maintain adequate homeostasis) and abdominal breathing. Further review of the PN included the following note written by nursing staff, 7/15/22 10:46 PM: Son requested that resident be checked for pneumonia. Placed a call to PMD (primary medical doctor) and new order for Chest X-ray (CXR)received. Another nursing PN reviewed, 7/16/22 1:11 PM: vent-dependent with expressive aphasia, for portable CXR will be for tomorrow, 02 sat 97-100%. total care with ADL's (Activities of Daily Living). kept clean, dry and comfortable. family visited and very supportive, at the time resident was sleeping, easy and unlabored breathing. An additional review of the PN included the following note written by nursing staff, 7/17/22 10:51 PM: admitted to hospital DX (diagnosis): pneumonia (an infection that affects one or both lungs that causes the air sacs, or alveoli, of the lungs to fill up with fluid or pus). Resident #478 did not return to the facility noted by the Universal Transfer Form dated 7/17/22, that revealed Resident #478 was transferred to the ER for altered mental status and hypoxia. A review of the July 2022 Physician Order Report (POR) revealed that there was no order for a CXR. There was no documented evidence of an order for a CXR or that a CXR was performed during the timeframe of 7/15/22 at 10:46 PM when the request for a CXR was made until 7/17/22 at 3:34 PM, when Resident #478 was transferred to the ER. On 4/19/23 at 11:13 AM, the surveyor interviewed the 5th floor Licensed Practical Nurse Unit Manager (LPN/UM) regarding Resident #478 and the process of obtaining a CXR. The 5th floor LPN/UM confirmed that she could not find a CXR ordered in the electronic medical record for Resident #478 from 7/15/22 to 7/17/22. She revealed that she was not familiar with Resident #478. The 5th floor LPM/UM stated that if a family member would have requested a CXR, the nurse would call the physician, get an order and then enter the order in the computer system. The LPN/UM then stated that if the CXR was ordered stat (immediately) then the CXR would be performed the same day and if it was not ordered stat then the CXR would be performed the following day. On 4/19/23 at 12:52 PM, the surveyor interviewed the DON regarding Resident #478 and the process for obtaining a CXR. The DON stated that the current electronic medical record system for documentation that the facility was using had been in use for the last four to five years and that the order for a CXR could be in the progress notes. She added that the facility in the past had also used the hospitals electronic system and that the CXR order could be in the hospitals electronic system. The surveyor then requested documented evidence that a CXR was ordered by the facility on or after 7/15/22. On 4/20/23 at 10:07 AM, in the presence of the Regional Clinical Specialist (RCS) and Regional LNHA (RLNHA), the surveyor interviewed the DON regarding Resident #478. The DON could not provide the surveyor a CXR order or CXR result that was previously requested. The DON revealed that a CXR was not ordered or done and that the Physician had seen the resident on 7/15/22, documenting that the resident was stable. The DON added that the family requested the CXR later that day. The DON stated that the CXR was planned for 7/17/22. The DON explained that the resident was stable when the physician examined the resident and the CXR was not ordered stat. The DON was not sure of the reason the family requested the CXR. The DON explained the process for obtaining a CXR included getting a Physician's order, then calling the radiology department in the hospital for an appointment. The DON did not present any evidence of a Physician's order or an appointment with the hospital radiology department. On 4/20/23 at 10:36 AM, in the presence of the hospital's Director of Clinical Operations, the surveyor interviewed the hospital's Radiology Manager (RM) regarding the process of obtaining a CXR. The RM stated that the hospital would have to have a physician's order to perform a CXR on a resident from the nursing home facility since the resident would be considered an outpatient. The surveyor asked the RM if there was an order for a CXR for Resident #478. The RM reviewed the hospital's electronic medical record computer system and revealed that there was no order received for a CXR from 7/15/22 to 7/17/22 prior to the ER admission. The RM confirmed that the only CXR performed was done in the ER at 20:38 on 7/17/22. The surveyor reviewed the process with the RM who explained that it was the responsibility of the nursing home to obtain a CXR for the nursing home through the hospital. The RM explained that the hospital would have to receive a physician's order for the CXR via fax from the facility. The RM added that the hospital would then be responsible to scan the order into the hospital's computer system. He verified that the hospital would not perform an X-ray without a physician's order or without the order being in the computer system. A review of the document titled image.png provided by the RM, revealed that there were no orders for a CXR from 7/15/22 until the ER encounter on 7/17/22. On 4/20/23 at 12:24 PM, the surveyor interviewed the DON and RCS regarding the CXR report that was provided to the survey team that day at 10:29 AM. The DON confirmed that the CXR report provided was done after the resident was transferred to the ER. The RCS then verified that they could not find an order for the CXR requested. On 4/20/23 at 1:52 PM, in the presence of the DON, RCS, LNHA, RLNHA and a DON from another facility, the surveyor team discussed the concern regarding the lack of a Physician's order and request for a CXR ordered or performed for Resident #478 in a timely manner. A review of the facility provided policy titled Request for Diagnostic Services with a facility review date of 2/2023 included the following: 1. All requests for diagnostic services must be ordered by the resident's Attending Physician. 2. All orders for diagnostic services must be entered into the resident's medical record and signed by the Attending Physician. 3. Orders for diagnostic services will be carried out as instructed by the physician's order. 4. Emergency requests must be labeled stat to assure that prompt action is taken. On 4/21/23 at 12:53 PM, in the presence of the survey team, the DON stated that she could not find any documenting orders, change of condition or an order for a CXR. The DON confirmed that there should have been an order for a CXR. No further information was provided. Based on observation, interview and record review, it was determined that the facility failed to maintain professional standards of nursing practice for 3 of 31 sampled residents observed, Resident #92, #228 and #114 . This deficient practice was evidenced by the following: Reference: New Jersey Statutes Annotated, Title 45, Chapter 11. Nursing Board. The Nurse Practice Act for the State of New Jersey states: The practice of nursing as a licensed practical nurse is defined as performing tasks and responsibilities within the framework of casefinding; reinforcing the patient and family teaching program through health teaching, health counseling and provision of supportive and restorative care, under the direction of a registered nurse or licensed or otherwise legally authorized physician or dentist. 1. On 4/18/23 at 8:45 AM, during the medication administration observation (med pass), the Surveyor observed the 5th Floor Registered Nurse (RN) preparing crushed medications for administration to a gastric tube (Gtube) resident, Resident #92. The RN opened a packet prepared by the pharmacy, marked for 9:00 AM administration. The Surveyor noted that the RN's computer was on the screen saver mode. No electronic medication administration record (eMAR) was checked prior to preparing the medication removed from the packet. The RN then opened the eMAR to check for other medications that were due to be administered to Resident #92. The RN noted that there were two controlled substance medications ordered for Resident #92 that the RN removed from the control lock box located in the medication cart. The RN removed 1 tablet of Phenobarbital 64.8 mg and 20 ml of Vimpat (Lacosamide) Solution 10 mg/ml both used to prevent seizures. The RN crushed the medications for administration to Resident #92 and completed the administration process. Once the RN had completed her med pass for Resident #92, the surveyor interviewed her. The RN explained that she should have verified the medications in the packet with the physician orders documented on the eMAR before removing the medication from the packet containing numerous medications prepared by the pharmacy. The Surveyor also asked the RN if she had documented the removal of the 2 control substance medications from the Controlled Drug Administration Record. The RN opened the sheets designated for the Phenobarbital 64.8 mg and Lacosamide Solution 10 mg/ml, which were dated, signed but lacked any documentation of time that the sheets were signed. The RN revealed that she had documented the removal of both medications on the declining sheets prior to removing the medication and prior to starting Resident #92's med pass. The RN indicated that this is not the appropriate process for documenting on the control substance declining sheet. The RN clarified that she should check the amounts listed on the declining sheet prior to removing the medication from storage, see that the amounts match and only document after removing the medication, including the time the medication was removed from storage. A review of Resident #92's medical record revealed the following: Review of Resident #92's admission Record (AR) indicated that the resident was admitted with diagnoses that included but were not limited to Acute Respiratory Failure with Hypoxia, Anoxic Brain Damage, Tracheostomy, Gastrostomy and Seizures. A review of the most recent Quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) an assessment tool used to facilitate the management of care, dated 1/27/2023, identified that Resident #92 should not have a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) evaluation as the resident's cognition is severely impaired. 2. On 4/18/23 at 10:06 AM, during the med pass, the Surveyor observed the 4th floor Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) preparing whole medication for administration to Resident #228. The LPN opened a packet containing numerous medications prepared by the pharmacy, marked for 9:00 AM administration. The Surveyor noted that the LPN's computer was on the screen saver mode. No eMAR was checked prior to preparing the medication removed from the packet. The LPN then opened the eMAR to check for other medications that were due to be administered to Resident #228. The LPN prepared numerous other medications placed in a medication cup. The LPN poured water in a cup and proceeded to enter Resident #228's room. Resident #228 was seated in a wheelchair with a family member seated next to the resident. The family member advised the LPN that Resident #228 received crushed medication and thickened liquid. The LPN and Surveyor exited the room. The LPN proceeded to check the Physician's order for Resident #228 in the presence of the Surveyor. The Physician's order dated 4/12/23 stated, Medications that can be crushed per the manufacturer may be crushed and administered together. Another Physician's order dated 4/14/23 stated, Diabetic, Nectar Thick, Pureed. The LPN proceeded to crush the medication and pour Nectar Thick water for administration to Resident #228. After completing the med pass for Resident #228, the Surveyor interviewed the LPN. The LPN stated that she was not familiar with this resident. The LPN acknowledged that she should have verified the Physician's orders carefully to familiarize herself with Resident #228's orders. A review of Resident #228's medical record revealed the following: Review of Resident #228's Face Sheet AR indicated that the resident was admitted with diagnoses that included but were not limited to Cerebral Infarction, Pneumonia, Dysphagia, Facial weakness, Altered Mental Status and Unspecified Hearing Loss. Review of Resident #228's admission MDS dated [DATE], identified that Resident #228 had a BIMS of 99, indicating that the resident was unable to complete an interview. Review of Resident #228's Care Plan (CP) describes that the resident, has cognitive impairment related to Altered Mental Status, Dementia, decreased in ability to communicate needs. In addition the CP documented that the resident, does not speak in the dominant language of the facility. Review of the Speech Therapy Evaluation and Plan of Treatment dated 4/13/23, documents the recommendation for mildly thick liquid and pureed modified diet. An interview with the Speech Pathologist (SP) on 4/24/23 at 1:33 PM verified that only swallow of food (Pureed) and liquid (Nectar Thick) was evaluated. The SP added that there was never a request to evaluate for swallow of medications. The Physician ordered to crush the medication. Review of the Administering Medications Policy, under the Policy Interpretation and Implementation indicated: 5. The individual administering the medication must check the label against the Physician's order to verify the right resident, right medication, right dosage, right time and right method (route) of administration before giving the medication. On 4/18/23 at 1:47 PM , the surveyor met with the Director of Nursing (DON), the Licensed Nursing Home Administrator (LNHA) and the Regional LNHA to discuss the results of the observation of morning med pass. The DON acknowledged that all medications should be verified with the Physician's orders prior to administration. The DON added that diet restrictions are posted within the eMAR and should be verified and followed.
CONCERN (D)

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

ADL Care (Tag F0677)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Complaint # NJ00154588 Based on observations, interviews, review of medical records, and review of other pertinent facility documents, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure that timely ...

Read full inspector narrative →
Complaint # NJ00154588 Based on observations, interviews, review of medical records, and review of other pertinent facility documents, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure that timely incontinence care was provided to 1 of 3 residents dependent on staff for care. This deficient practice was observed during a care tour and involved Resident #100. This deficient practice was evidenced by the following: On 4/19/23 at 11:46 AM, the surveyor conducted a care tour with the 2nd floor Licensed Practical Nurse/Unit Manager (LPN/UM). Resident #100 was checked for incontinent care by the 2nd floor LPN/UM. The surveyor observed Resident #100, who was lying in bed, wearing a disposable incontinent brief which appeared to be saturated with urine. There was an absorbent cloth pad underneath Resident #100 which had a yellowish stain on it. The outer border of the stain was a darker yellowish color. The 2nd floor LPN/UM confirmed that the yellow color stain was from urine. On 4/19/23 at 12:00 PM, the surveyor interviewed the 2nd floor LPN/UM. The 2nd floor LPN/UM indicated that Resident #100's incontinent brief and pad underneath should not have been saturated with urine. The 2nd floor LPN/UM identified that residents should be checked every two hours. On 4/19/23 at 12:23 PM, the surveyor conducted an interview with the Certified Nurse Aide (CNA #1) assigned to Resident #100. CNA #1 stated that she made rounds on her assigned residents when she started her shift and that she would check the residents' incontinent briefs. CNA #1 added that if the resident's briefs were soiled, she would change them before the breakfast trays were delivered to the residents. CNA #1 stated that she checked incontinent briefs every two hours. CNA #1 stated that she had about 10 residents on her assignment and that half of the residents were incontinent. She added that sometimes she had 11 residents on her assignment to care for when the unit only had 6 CNA's. CNA #1 indicated that she checked Resident #100 around 8:30 or 9:00 AM and that the resident was dry. She added that she has a routine and was changing another resident who was soiled. CNA #1 demonstrated that she was planning on going to change Resident #100 after completing the previous resident. CNA #1 explained that Resident #100 was very soiled and should not have been left like that. She added that she tried her best to check her residents every two hours but that it does not always happen. CNA #1 confirmed that it had been more than two hours and that she had not checked the resident prior to the surveyor finding Resident #100 soaked. CNA #1 confirmed that the resident did not have any skin breakdown. On 4/19/23 at 1:04 PM, the surveyor interviewed the Director of Nursing (DON) regarding incontinent care. The DON stated that the residents should be changed as frequently as possible. The DON indicated that her expectations were that residents should not have incontinent briefs saturated with urine as well as the pad underneath them wet with urine. On 4/21/23 at 9:55 AM, the surveyor went to interview Resident #100. The surveyor was unable to interview the resident who was not in the facility at that time. The surveyor reviewed Resident #100's medical record. A review of the admission Record (AR) indicated that the resident was admitted to the facility and had diagnoses which included but were not limited to; chronic respiratory failure with hypoxia (condition that occurs when the lungs cannot get enough oxygen into the blood or eliminate enough carbon dioxide from the body), severe protein-calorie malnutrition (nutritional status in which reduced availability of nutrients leads to changes in body composition and function) and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD a group of diseases that cause airflow blockage and breathing-related problems). A review of the quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS), an assessment tool dated 2/17/23, reflected a Brief Interview of Mental Status (BIMS) score of 14 out of 15 which indicated intact cognition. Section G of the MDS indicated under Toilet use that the resident required extensive assistance. Section H indicated under urinary incontinence that the resident was always incontinent. A review of the resident's individualized care plan reflected a focused area dated 8/11/22, that the resident was at risk for skin breakdown secondary to impaired mobility and incontinence. Interventions included but were not limited to: Offer toileting assistance upon arising, before/after meals, at bedtime and PRN. Provide incontinence care after each incontinent episode. On 4/20/23 at 1:53 PM, in the presence of the DON, Regional Clinical Specialist (RCS), Regional Licensed Nursing Home Administrator (RLNHA) and a DON from another facility, the surveyor discussed their concern that the incontinent care for Resident #100 was not performed in a timely manner during their observation. A review of the facility provided policy titled, Urinary Continence and Incontinence-Assessment and Management with a revised date of September 2010 included the following: 1. The staff and practitioner will appropriately screen for, and manage, individuals with urinary incontinence. 2. Management of incontinence will follow relevant clinical guidelines. 3. The physician and staff will provide appropriate services and treatment to help residents restore or improve bladder function and prevent urinary tract infections to the extent possible. The policy did not include how often incontinence care would be provided. A review of the facility provided policy titled, Activities of Daily Living (ADL's), Supporting with an updated date of 10/2021, included the following, Policy Statement: Residents will [be] provided with care, treatment, and services as appropriate to maintain or improve their ability to carry activities of daily living (ADLs). Residents who are unable to carry out activities of daily living independently will receive the services necessary to maintain good nutrition, grooming and personal and oral hygiene. Review of the Policy Interpretation and Implementation section documented, 2. Appropriate care and services will be provided for residents who are unable to carry out ADLs independently, with the consent of the resident and in accordance with the plan of care, including appropriate support and assistance with: .c. Elimination (toileting); . On 4/21/23 at 12:54 PM, in the presence of the DON, RCS, RLNHA, a DON from another facility and the survey team, the Licensed Nursing Home Administrator (LNHA) shared that the minimum time for incontinent care was every two hours and more frequently if needed. No further information was provided. N.J.A.C. 8:39-27.1 (a)
CONCERN (D)

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

Accident Prevention (Tag F0689)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on observation, interview, review of the medical record and other facility documentation, it was determined that the facility failed to follow and maintain fall prevention interventions document...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, interview, review of the medical record and other facility documentation, it was determined that the facility failed to follow and maintain fall prevention interventions documented on the resident's care plan (CP) for 1 of 2 residents reviewed for falls, Resident #119. The deficient practice was evidenced by the following: On 4/10/2023 at 12:21 PM, the surveyor observed the resident in bed with eyes closed with the right-side floor mat off the floor and leaning against the bed rail. On 4/11/2023 at 12:22 PM, the surveyor observed the resident in bed with eyes closed with the right-side floor mat off the floor and once again leaning against the bed rail. A review of the admission Record face sheet (an admission summary) indicated that the resident had diagnoses which included but was not limited to acute respiratory disease (a serious lung condition that causes low blood oxygen), unspecified dementia (a mental disorder in which a person loses the ability to think, remember, learn, make decisions, and solve problems.), generalized muscle weakness (weakness or decreased strength of the muscles). A review of the Quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS), an assessment tool, dated 1/22/2023. The resident had a brief interview for mental status (BIMS, cognitive screening measure that focuses on orientation and short-term word recall) score coded as 4 of 15 indicating they had a severely impaired cognition. A review of the residents CP with an initiated date of 10/21/2020 and revised on 4/17/2023, reflected that the resident was at risk for falls secondary to generalized weakness and poor safety awareness. Interventions reflect floor mats at bedside initiated on 10/21/2021. A review of the resident's orders dated 10/21/2021 indicated that the order was active. The order reads, Bilateral floor mats when resident in bed, check placement every shift. On 4/18/2023 at 10:37 AM, the surveyor interviewed the Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) responsible for the care of Resident #119. The LPN informed the surveyor, floor mats are used for safety. When the resident is in bed they are always supposed to be on the floor. The LPN added that the proper positioning for bilateral floor mats is next to the bed. In addition the LPN explained, when the resident is in the bed both floor mats should be down, both mats should be flat, only if staff is with resident and resident is in bed could it be up. On 4/18/2023 at 11:10 AM, the surveyor interviewed the Director of Nursing (DON) who stated, when we identify a patient, the facility puts the floor mats in the room to prevent injury, then the patient will be care planned for it. The only time the floor mat should not be down is if the patient is eating because the bedside table cannot roll under bed if mats are down, or a visitor is in the room at bedside. A review of the Falls Risk Evaluation policy, provided by the DON on 4/18/2023 at 12:23 PM, under section labeled Policy: The Fall Risk Evaluation (completed on admission) will determine fall risk factors. The intradisciplinary team identifies and implements appropriate interventions to reduce the risk of falls or injuries while maximizing dignity and independence. Under the section labeled Procedure: 2) Implement goal and interventions with resident /patient/family for inclusion in the intradisciplinary plan of care (IPOC) based on individual needs. On 4/18/2023 at 1:00 PM, the surveyor met with the DON, Licensed Nursing Home Administrator (LNHA) and the Regional LNHA to discuss the deficient practice. No further information was provided. N.J.A.C. 8:39-27.1 (a)
CONCERN (D)

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

Respiratory Care (Tag F0695)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on observation, interview, and record review it was determined that the facility failed to: a) maintain respiratory care and services for a resident who was receiving an oxygen treatment accordi...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, interview, and record review it was determined that the facility failed to: a) maintain respiratory care and services for a resident who was receiving an oxygen treatment according to the standards of practice. The deficient practice was identified for 2 of 4 residents, Resident #382 and #114 reviewed for respiratory care. This deficient practice was evidenced by the following: a) On 4/10/23 at 12:56 PM, during the initial tour, the surveyor observed Resident #382 sitting in their wheelchair with oxygen (O2) in use via nasal cannula (n/c) set at 3 liters per minute (3 L/min) attached to a humidified O2 concentrator (a medical device used for delivering O2). The O2 tubing was dated 4/6/23. On 4/18/23 at 11:58 AM, the surveyor observed Resident #382 not in their room. The surveyor observed a nasal cannula on the floor, dated 4/13/23, not in use, and connected to the O2 concentrator. The surveyor reviewed Resident #382's medical record that revealed the following: The Face Sheet revealed that Resident #382 was admitted to the facility with diagnoses that included but not limited to Other pulmonary embolism without acute cor Pulmonale (right sided heart failure) and Hypoxemia (a low level of oxygen in the blood). The admission Minimum Data Set, an assessment tool used to facilitate the management of care, with an Assessment Reference Date of 3/19/23, revealed a Brief Interview Status score of 14 out 15, which indicated that the resident was cognitively intact. A further review in Section O. Treatment and Procedures, indicated that the resident received oxygen treatments in the facility. The April 2023 Physician Order Report revealed the following: O2 at 3 L/min via n/c continues every shift with a start date of 3/13/23 and a discontinued date of 4/7/23. O2 at 3 L/min via every shift as needed (PRN) for shortness of breath (SOB) with a start date of 4/7/23 and a discontinued date of 4/19/23. On 4/18/23 at 12:00 PM, the surveyor brought the Licensed Practical Nurse/Unit Manager (LPN/UM) inside the resident's room. During the interview, the LPN/UM acknowledged that the nasal cannula should have been placed inside a plastic bag when not in use for proper storage, she stated, It shouldn't have been on the floor. A review of the facility policy titled, Departmental (Respiratory Therapy)-Prevention of Infection with a review date of 2/2023 under Purpose: The purpose of this procedure is to guide prevention of infection associated with respiratory therapy tasks and equipment. The policy further indicated under Infection Control Considerations Related to Oxygen Administration: 5. Keep the oxygen cannula and tubing used PRN in a plastic bag when not in use. On 4/21/23 at 1:08 PM, the team met with the Licensed Nursing Home Administrator and Director of Nursing. The surveyor verbalized the above concern. The LNHA and DON acknowledged that the nasal cannula should have been placed inside a plastic bag when not in use. b) On 4/19/2023 at 11:10 AM, the surveyor observed wound care on Resident #114, who was observed having an opening at the front of their neck with a tube inserted into their windpipe (trachea) to help them breathe (Trach). On 4/19/2023 at 11:28 AM, after wound care the resident requested to speak privately with the surveyor. Resident #114 had trouble speaking, so they conversed through written conversation. The surveyor proceeded to have a written conversation with the resident. Resident #114 communicated with the surveyor via writing and mouthing (with no sound) their needs. On 4/19/2023 at 11:33 AM, the surveyor interviewed Resident #114, who informed the surveyor that they had sought out help from the Respiratory therapist (RT) by informing him that they were in distress. Resident #114 wrote out, I need constant suctioning. I need to be repositioned. I must buzz for the nurse 20 minutes or so and I am gasping for breath. Please help me. The resident explained that they informed, the RT and the social worker (SW). Resident #114 added, the RT told me he has been trying to get me moved to his department, which was the 5th floor Ventilator unit. A review of Resident #114's admission Record (AR) indicated that they were admitted to the facility with diagnoses which included but were not limited to malignant neoplasm of larynx (malignant cancer cells), acute and chronic respiratory failure with hypoxia (deficiency in the amount of oxygen reaching the tissues), tracheostomy (an opening created at the front of the neck so a tube can be inserted into the windpipe (trachea) to help you breathe) (Trach), and pressure ulcer of sacral region (pressure sores). A review of the Quarterly MDS dated , 3/5/2023, revealed a BIMS score of 15 of 15. This score suggested that Resident #114 had intact cognition. A review of the Comprehensive Care Plan with an admission date of 7/20/2020, revealed . ~at risk for Activities of daily living (ADL) decline, dated 6/23/2022. with an intervention in place is to have a pen and paper within reach to communicate. ~is on a Tbar, (T-shaped tubing used to deliver oxygen therapy) as ordered and dated on 6/23/2022 with an intervention to suction as needed and every shift by the RT and nurse. A review of the electronic Medication Administration Record (eMAR), dated 11/20/2022 through 4/21/23, revealed a Physician's Order (PO) dated 3/20/2023, Trach suction as needed for increased secretions every shift and PRN (as needed). A review of the Progress Notes dated 3/20/2023 through 4/19/2003 did not reveal any documentation from the RT stating that the resident had told him of their concerns regarding suctioning. There was no documentation from the RT that anyone else was made aware of the concerns that Resident #114 was experiencing, including the LNHA or DON. On 4/19/23 at 12:14 PM, the surveyor interviewed the social worker (SW). Who stated, I am unaware of Resident #114 having trouble breathing. The Resident has not discussed specifically with me about moving to the 5th floor. On 4/19/23 at 12:52 PM, the surveyor interviewed the Licensed Nursing Home Administrator (LNHA). The LNHA stated, I am unaware of any breathing/ suctioning issues. I have not been informed by the RT that Resident #114 requested a move to the 5th floor. On 4/19/2023 at 12:33 PM, the surveyor interviewed the DON. The DON informed the surveyor, I was unaware of the resident having trouble breathing. It was never brought to my attention that the resident wanted to move to the 5th floor. The only request I was informed of was that Resident #114 wanted a window bed which we have recently gotten them. On 4/19/23 at 1:48 PM, the surveyor interviewed the RT who stated, The resident has stated that they were short of breath, and I told the staff on the floor to call me, and I will come down to suction them. The surveyor asked the RT if he informed his supervisor, the DON or the LNHA of the resident's breathing issues? The RT stated, No, I have not. I did tell the resident I would try to move them back to 5th floor. The RT indicated that nothing was documented referring to his discussions with Resident #114 or in reference to the resident's concerns. A review of facility Charting and Documentation policy, version 1.2 (H5MAPL0124), adopted 11/2018, updated 1/2022, reviewed by the facility on 3/2023, revealed #7 Documentation of procedures and treatments will include care-specific details, including: The date and time the procedure /treatment was provided. The name and title of the individual(s) who provided care. The assessment data and /or any unusual findings obtained during the procedure/treatment. How the resident tolerated the procedure/ treatment. The signature and title of the individual documenting. A review of the Oxygen administration policy adopted 11/2018, revised 10/2020, and updated by the facility on 10/2019 revealed under reporting section #2- Report other information in accordance with facility policy and professional standards of practice. A review of the facility Employee Lease agreement between the Hospital Medical Center and the facility, states that the RT is an employee of the hospital and leased to the facility for respiratory care services. The agreement was signed by the President of the hospital and dated on 3/16/2023. The surveyor reviewed the original contract for the lease of the respiratory therapist dated 3/10/1997 signed by the [NAME] President and Chief Executive Officer of the Medical Center hospital. It states in the body of the agreement: technical management oversight by our director of Respiratory Service at the Medical Center. The RT failed to follow up with the discomfort that Resident #114 was experiencing discussed with him. The RT failed to follow protocol by notifying the Respiratory Director at the Medical Center, the facility's DON or LNHA of the resident's concerns, care, or alterations in medical issues that Resident #114 was experiencing and discussed with him. The RT did not follow up with a progress note on the resident's chart documenting the issues that Resident #114 was having. There was no documentation or verbal discussions provided to the surveyor relaying that any of the discussions that Resident #114 had with the RT took place. On 4/21/23 at 12:54 PM, in the presence of the DON, Regional Clinical Specialist, Regional LNHA, and a DON from another facility, the survey team further discussed the issue surrounding Resident #114's suctioning concerns and the request to move to another unit that provided a higher level of care. No further information was provided. NJAC 8:39-4.1 (a) 5
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0725 (Tag F0725)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Complaint # NJ00154588 Based on observation, interview, record review, and review of other pertinent facility documentation, it was determined that the facility failed to provide sufficient nursing st...

Read full inspector narrative →
Complaint # NJ00154588 Based on observation, interview, record review, and review of other pertinent facility documentation, it was determined that the facility failed to provide sufficient nursing staff to ensure resident's highest practical wellbeing by failing to: a.) provide incontinence care in a timely manner, b.) maintain the required minimum direct care staff-to-shift ratios as mandated by the state of New Jersey. This deficient practice was evidenced by the following: Reference: New Jersey Department of Health (NJDOH) memo, dated 01/28/2021, Compliance with N.J.S.A. (New Jersey Statutes Annotated) 30:13-18, new minimum staffing requirements for nursing homes, indicated the New Jersey Governor signed into law P.L. 2020 c 112, codified at N.J.S.A. 30:13-18 (the Act), which established minimum staffing requirements in nursing homes. The following ratio(s) were effective on 02/01/2021: One Certified Nurse Aide (CNA) to every eight residents for the day shift. One direct care staff member to every 10 residents for the evening shift, provided that no fewer than half of all staff members shall be CNAs, and each direct staff member shall be signed in to work as a CNA and shall perform nurse aide duties: and One direct care staff member to every 14 residents for the night shift, provided that each direct care staff member shall sign in to work as a CNA and perform CNA duties. On 4/19/23 at 11:46 AM, the surveyor conducted a care tour with the 2nd floor LPN/UM. Resident #100 was checked for incontinent care by the 2nd floor LPN/UM. The surveyor observed Resident #100, who was lying in bed, wearing a disposable incontinent brief which was saturated with urine. There was an absorbent cloth pad underneath Resident #100 which had a yellowish stain on it. The outer border of the stain was a darker yellowish color. The 2nd floor LPN/UM confirmed that the yellow color stain was from urine. The 2nd floor LPN/UM explained that Resident #100's incontinent brief and pad underneath should not have been saturated with urine. She explained that the resident's CNA was taking care of another resident and hadn't gotten to care for Resident #100 yet. The 2nd floor LPN/UM verified that residents should be checked every two hours for need of care. She added that the residents had breakfast and now the CNAs were taking care of them. The 2nd floor LPN/UM specified that there was seven CNAs on the unit that day. The LPN/UM indicated that the CNAs had nine residents, and some had ten residents to care for. She then added that sometimes the unit had eight CNAs and sometimes six CNAs. The surveyor requested the CNA assignment sheet. A review of the 7:00 to 3:00 PM consisting of 7 CNA's Assignment sheet dated 4/19/23 included the following: Assignment 1, 2 and 3 had 10 residents each Assignment 4 and 5 had 9 residents each Assignment 6 and 7 had 8 residents each with 1 resident on each of those assignments marked with a black line through it which indicated that there was not a resident in that bed that needed to be cared by. CNA #1 (The CNA assigned to care for Resident #100) was listed under Assignment 4 with 9 residents. On 4/19/23 at 12:23 PM, the surveyor conducted an interview with the CNA #1, assigned to Resident #100. CNA #1 stated that she made rounds on her assigned residents when she started her shift and that she would check the residents' incontinent briefs and if their briefs were soiled, she would change them before the breakfast trays were delivered to the residents. CNA #1 stated that she checked the resident and their incontinent briefs every two hours. CNA #1 informed the surveyor that she had about ten residents and that half of the residents were incontinent. She added that sometimes she had eleven residents on her assignment when the unit only had six CNAs. CNA #1 identified that she checked Resident #100 around 8:30 or 9:00 AM and that the resident was dry. She added that she has a routine and was changing another resident who was soiled before returning to change Resident #100. CNA #1 revealed that Resident #100 was really soiled and should not have been left like that. She added that she tries her best to check her residents every two hours but that it does not always happen. CNA #1 confirmed that it had been more than two hours and that she had not checked the resident prior to the .surveyor finding the resident On 4/19/23 at 12:35 PM, the surveyor interviewed the 2nd floor LPN/UM regarding staffing and the ratio of residents to CNA. The 2nd floor LPN/UM stated that there was a staffing coordinator who determines staffing needs. She indicated that she was not sure of the staffing ratio mandate. On 4/19/23 at 1:04 PM, the surveyor interviewed the Director of Nursing (DON) regarding incontinence care and staffing. The DON stated that the expectation was for staff to perform incontinent care and change residents as frequent as possible. The DON informed the surveyor that there was a staffing coordinator and that they try to staff the building with as many CNAs as possible per unit. The DON stated that she was aware of the mandated ratio of staff to residents. The DON added that they try to have eight residents per CNA on the day shift but that sometimes there are callouts. The DON revealed that two CNAs called out in the morning. The surveyor reviewed the Nursing Home Resident Care Staffing Report posted on the Receptionist Desk. The Staffing Report included the following: 4/19/2023-Day shift Shift Hours: 7:00 AM-3:00 PM Current Resident Census:167 Certified Nurses Aide (CNA) # of Staff: 30; Total hours Worked: 240.00; Staff to Resident Ratio: 1 CNA: 5.6 Residents On 4/21/23 at 9:59 AM, the surveyor interviewed the Staffing Coordinator (SC) regarding the process for staffing. The SC stated that she staffed the building with CNAs per unit. She then stated that if she was under the mandated ratio, she would call in agency staff to meet the needed staff numbers. The SC stated that she was aware of the mandated staffing ration, it was eight residents for 1 CNA. The SC stated that if staffing is found to be under the mandated ratio she would notify the Assistant DON, DON and Licensed Nursing Home Administrator. The surveyor asked the SC to explain the posted Staffing report for 4/19/23 that had a ratio of 5.6 residents for 1 CNA when the 2nd floor was found to have an assignment of nine or ten residents per 1 CNA. The SC explained that she counts all the CNAs in the building and calculates the ratio by the facility census. The SC explained that she was directed to count all the CNAs in building, including CNAs that were not given assignments to care for residents. She added that she was a CNA and was counted in the total number of CNAs Staffing Ratio. In addition, the SC explained that the Functional Maintenance Program CNAs (provide services to optimize and maintain a client's performance after they are discharged from therapy) were also counted in calculating the Staffing Ratio. She revealed that those CNAs did not have resident assignments but that they can help feed residents and sometimes do care. The SC explained that the purpose of the Staffing Ratio was to give residents proper care and have enough staff to comply with resident's need. She revealed that with frequent staffing callouts the staffing ratio is frequently below the standard amount. The SC explained that she reviews each unit and will call staff in to work. The SC stated that she was not sure why this was not the process for the 2nd floor on 4/19/23. On 4/21/23 at 10:59 AM, the surveyor interviewed the DON, in the presence of a DON from another facility and the Regional Licensed Nursing Home Administrator (RLNHA) regarding the process for staffing. The DON stated that they try to staff each unit based on the census on that unit. The DON was aware of the mandated ratios. She stated that the facility tries their best to staff according to the ratio. The DON explained that the posted Staffing Ratio included all CNAs in the building, even CNAs that did not have assignments but go to the units to help with feeding and care. The DON added that the posted number was an average for the CNAs in the entire building. The RLNHA stated that the facility goal is to at least meet the ratio for CNA assignments. The DON stated that she was not aware of the CNA ratio on the 2nd floor unit having nine or ten residents per CNA on 4/19/23. On 4/21/23 at 1:05 PM, the surveyor, in the presence of the survey team, further discussed the concern that the 2nd floor unit had CNAs assigned to nine and ten residents and that the facility was reporting and posting that ratio of resident to CNA was 5.6 residents with the DON and Licensed Nursing Home Administrator The facility did not provide any additional information. As per the Nurse Staffing Report completed by the facility for the weeks of 5/01/2022 to 5/07/2022 and 5/08/2022 to 5/14/2022, the facility was deficient in CNA staffing for residents on 10 of 14 day shifts, deficient in CNAs to total staff on 1 of 14 evening shifts, and deficient in total staff for residents on 1 of 14 overnight shifts as follows: -05/01/22 had 19 CNAs for 184 residents on the day shift, required 23 CNAs. -05/02/22 had 21 CNAs for 184 residents on the day shift, required 23 CNAs. -05/06/22 had 20 CNAs for 180 residents on the day shift, required 22 CNAs. -05/07/22 had 13 CNAs for 180 residents on the day shift, required 22 CNAs. -05/08/22 had 13 CNAs for 180 residents on the day shift, required 22 CNAs. -05/08/22 had 10 CNAs to 22 total staff on the evening shift, required 11 CNAs. -05/09/22 had 20 CNAs for 180 residents on the day shift, required 22 CNAs. -05/10/22 had 20 CNAs for 180 residents on the day shift, required 22 CNAs. -05/11/22 had 20 CNAs for 180 residents on the day shift, required 22 CNAs. -05/12/22 had 11 total staff for 180 residents on the overnight shift, required 13 total staff. -05/13/22 had 20 CNAs for 182 residents on the day shift, required 23 CNAs. -05/14/22 had 18 CNAs for 179 residents on the day shift, required 22 CNAs. A review of the facility provided policy titled, Staffing with a revised date of October 2017, included the following: Policy Statement Our facility provides sufficient numbers of staff with the skills and competency necessary to provide care and services for all residents in accordance with resident care plans and the facility assessment. Policy Interpretation and Implementation 1. Licensed nurses and certified nursing assistants are available 24 hours a day to provide direct resident care services. 2. Staffing numbers and the skill requirements of direct care staff are determined by the needs of the residents based on each resident's plan of care or applicable federal/state laws . 4. Direct care staffing information per day (including agency and contract staff) is submitted to the CMS payroll-based journal system on the schedule specified by CMS, but no less than once a quarter. 5. Inquiries or concerns relative to our facility's staffing should be directed to the Administrator or his/her designee. N.J.A.C. 8:39-27.1 (a)
CONCERN (D)

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

Pharmacy Services (Tag F0755)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

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

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 hold a medication used to treat high blood pressure in accordance with physician orders. This deficient practice was identified for 2 of 34 residents reviewed for medication management (Resident #124, Resident #92). The evidence was as follows: 1.) On 4/10/23 at 10:35 AM, the surveyor observed Resident #124 in the room with eyes closed. The resident was non-interviewable. The surveyor reviewed Resident #124's medical record. The resident was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses that included but not limited to Hypertension and Anoxic Brain Damage. A review of the electronic Physician Orders for April 2023 reflected a physician order (PO) with a start date of 3/2/23 for a medication, Metoprolol Tartrate. The order specified to give 1 tablet of 25 milligrams (mg) every 12 hours for Hypertension and to hold the medication for a systolic blood pressure (SBP) (top number of a blood pressure reading) less than 100. A review of the electronic Medication Administration Record (eMAR) for January 2023 through March 2023 reflected for the medication Metoprolol Tartrate was to be administered at 9:00 AM and 9:00 PM. The eMAR revealed that the Metoprolol Tartrate was signed as given when the resident's SBP was less than 100. Review of the January 2023 eMAR showed that the medication was administered 4 times, February 2023 showed that the medication was administered 13 times and March 2023 showed that the medication was administered 6 times. 2.) On 4/10/23 at 12:30 PM, the surveyor observed Resident #92 in the room with eyes closed. The resident was non-interviewable. The surveyor reviewed Resident #92's medical record. The resident was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses that included but not limited to Hypertension and Respiratory Failure. A review of the electronic Physician Orders for April 2023 reflected a PO with a start date of 9/23/22 for a medication, Metoprolol Tartrate. The order specified to give 1 tablet of 25 mg every 12 hours for Hypertension and to hold the medication for a SBP less than 100. A review of the eMAR for January 2023 through March 2023 reflected for the medication Metoprolol Tartrate was to be administered at 9:00 AM and 9:00 PM. The eMAR revealed that the Metoprolol Tartrate was signed as given when the resident's SBP was less than 100. Review of the January 2023 eMAR showed that the medication was administered 2 times, February 2023 showed that the medication was administered 3 times and March 2023 showed that the medication was administered 1 time. On 4/21/23 at 1:15 PM, the surveyor informed the Administrator and the Director of Nursing in the presence of the survey team who both acknowledged that the eMAR was signed to reflect that the resident received the Metoprolol Tartrate when his/her SBP was below the hold parameters according to the PO from January 2023 through March 2023. They were unable to provide additional documentation as to why the nurses administered the medication without regard to the physician orders. NJAC 8:39- 29.2 (d)
CONCERN (D)

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

Unnecessary Medications (Tag F0759)

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 maintain a medication rate err...

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 maintain a medication rate error below 5%. The surveyor observed 2 nurses administer 26 doses of medication to 3 residents and there were 3 errors which resulted in a medication error rate of 11.50 %. The deficient practice was evidenced by the following: 1. On 4/18/23 at 8:45 AM, during the medication administration observation (med pass), the Surveyor observed the 5TH Floor Registered Nurse (RN) preparing crushed medications for administration to a gastric tube (gtube) resident, Resident #92. The RN opened a packet prepared by the pharmacy, marked for 9:00 AM administration that included 2 medications, Metoprolol Tartrate 25 mg to be administered every 12 hours Hold if Systolic Blood Pressure (SBP) is less than (<) 100 and Famotidine 20 mg twice daily. The Surveyor noted that the RN referred to a paper that contained handwritten room numbers and vitals for numerous residents, including Resident #92. The paper documented a SBP of 126/60 for Resident #92. When asked the RN could not give an accurate time that she took Resident #92's vitals. On 4/18/23 at 9:13 AM, as the RN was preparing to administer the medication to Resident #92, the surveyor requested that the SBP be checked. The RN agreed and the SBP was 108/77. The RN was interviewed after the administration of the medication to Resident #92. The RN agreed that the SBP should be checked just prior to the preparation and administration of medication to the resident when a parameter is ordered by the Physician. Review of Resident #92's Face Sheet (admission summary) indicated that the resident was admitted with diagnoses that included but were not limited to Acute Respiratory Failure with Hypoxia, Anoxic Brain Damage, Tracheostomy, Gastrostomy and Seizures. A review of the most recent Quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) an assessment tool used to facilitate the management of care, dated 1/27/2023, identified that Resident #92 should not have a BIMS evaluation as the resident's cognition is severely impaired. 2. On 4/18/23 at 10:06 AM, during the med pass, the Surveyor observed the 4th floor Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) preparing whole medication for administration to Resident #228. The LPN opened a packet prepared by the pharmacy, marked for 9:00 AM administration that contained two medications that had physician's orders which included parameters, Amlodipine 5 mg daily Hold for SBP <110 for Hypertension and Metoprolol Tartrate 25 mg twice daily Hold for SBP < 100 and Heart Rate (HR) < 60. The Surveyor noted that the LPN referred to a paper that contained handwritten room numbers and vitals for numerous residents, including Resident #228. The paper documented a SBP of 120/63 and a HR of 79 for Resident #228. When asked the LPN could not give an accurate time that she took Resident #228's vitals. On 4/18/23 at 10:15 AM, prior to the administration of the medication to Resident #228, the surveyor requested that the SBP and HR be checked. The LPN rechecked the vitals which resulted in the SBP for Resident #228 being 101/60 and the HR 78. The LPN continued to administer both medications to Resident #228. The LPN was interviewed after the administration of the medication to Resident #228. The LPN agreed that the SBP and HR should be checked just prior to preparation and administration of medication to the resident when parameters are ordered by the Physician. The LPN agreed that she should not have administered the Amlodipine 5 mg to Resident #228, as the SBP was 101 prior to administration and the physician's order documented that the medication should be held if the SBP is < 110. Review of Resident #228's Face Sheet (admission summary) indicated that the resident was admitted with diagnoses that included but were not limited to Cerebral Infarction, Pneumonia, Dysphagia, Facial weakness, Altered Mental Status, Hypertension and Unspecified Hearing Loss. Review of Resident #228's admission MDS dated [DATE], identified that Resident #228 had a BIMS of 99, indicating that the resident was unable to complete an interview. Review of Resident #228's Care Plan (CP) describes that the resident, has cognitive impairment related to Altered Mental Status, Dementia, decreased in ability to communicate needs. In addition the CP documented that the resident, does not speak in the dominant language of the facility. Review of the Administering Medications Policy, under the Policy Interpretation and Implementation indicated: 2. Medications must be administered in accordance with the orders, including any required time frame. 6. The following information must be checked/verified for each resident prior to administering medications b. Vital signs, if necessary On 4/18/23 at 1:47 PM , the surveyor met with the Director of Nursing (DON), the Licensed Nursing Home Administrator (LNHA) and the Regional LNHA to discuss the results of the observation of morning med pass. The DON acknowledged that when there are medications ordered with parameters by the physician, the vitals should be checked just before preparing the resident's medication. NJAC 8:39-29.2 (d)
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0836 (Tag F0836)

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 pertinent facility documents it was determined that the facility failed to notify...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview, and review of pertinent facility documents it was determined that the facility failed to notify CMS (Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services) and receive authorization for a change in facility name in accordance with 42 CFR (Code of Federal Regulations) 424.516. This deficient practice was evidenced by the following: According to 42 CFR 424.516 Additional provider and supplier requirements for enrolling and maintaining active enrollment status in the Medicare Program: (a) Certifying compliance. CMS enrolls and maintains an active enrollment status for a provider or supplier when that provider or supplier certifies that it meets, and continues to meet, and CMS verifies that it meets, and continues to meet, all of the following requirements: (1) Compliance with title XVIII of the Act and applicable Medicare regulations. (2) Compliance with Federal and State licensure, certification, and regulatory requirements, as required, based on the type of services, or supplies the provider or supplier type will furnish and bill Medicare. (3) Not employing or contracting with individuals or entities that meet either of the following conditions: (i) Excluded from participation in any Federal health care programs, for the provision of items and services covered under the programs, in violation of section 1128 A(a)(6) of the Act. (ii) Debarred by the General Services Administration (GSA) from any other Executive Branch procurement or nonprocurement programs or activities, in accordance with the Federal Acquisition and Streamlining Act of 1994, and with the HHS Common Rule at 45 CFR part 76 (d) Reporting requirements for physicians, nonphysician practitioners, and physician and nonphysician practitioner organizations. Physicians, nonphysician practitioners, and physician and nonphysician practitioner organizations must report the following reportable events to their Medicare contractor within the specified timeframes: (1) Within 30 days - (i) A change of ownership; (ii) Any adverse legal action; or (iii) A change in practice location. (2) All other changes in enrollment must be reported within 90 days. On [DATE] at 9:00 AM, upon arrival of the surveyors to the facility, the surveyor observed a facility sign, Complete Care at the Harborage that had a name that did not correspond with the CMS licensed, approved name and provider registered name The Harborage. Once the survey team entered the facility, there were numerous displayed signs with the same name Complete Care at the Harborage. The facility name displayed on the entrance area of the facility and in the administration office area, Complete Care at the Harborage did not correspond with the CMS(Center for Medicaid and Medicare Services) licensed and approved name of The Harborage. On [DATE] at 10:43 AM, the State Surveyor met with the Licensed Nursing Home Administrator (LNHA), Director of Nursing (DON), for Entrance Conference. During the discussion the facility LNHA informed the surveyor that the facility was purchased by Complete Care in [DATE] and, that's when the facility name changed. On [DATE] at 11:16 AM, the surveyor reviewed various documents and facility policies that were provided by the LNHA that were titled, Complete Care at the Harborage. The documents provided showed that the facility name currently in use did not match the facility's licensed name. The facility name, Complete Care at the Harborage utilized was not approved by CMS. The Surveyor reviewed the facility license which documented, Harborage, The as the facility name. The license issued by the New Jersey Department of Health (NJDOH) Division of Certificate of Need and Licensing was issued on [DATE] and expired on [DATE]. On [DATE] at 10:40 AM, the state surveyor met with the Regional Administrator who explained that an email would be sent from the company paralegal explaining the authorization of the facility name change by the Department of Health (DOH). On [DATE] at 11:27 AM, an email was received from the company paralegal that included an attached letter from the DOH dated [DATE]. The DOH letter attached explained, The Department of Health (Department) has reviewed the applications for the transfer of ownership interests in the above mentioned facilities. Based on the application and responses to completeness questions, the Department is authorizing the above transfers of ownership to proceed. The documentation on page 4 of the DOH letter stated, Although the new owner is authorized to operate the facility following the transaction, the Department will not issue the license under the new ownership until the items listed below are received and reviewed by staff from the Department. The letter continues to list a number of items that need to be submitted for the NJDOH to issue a new license for the new owners allowing them to change the name of the facility. On [DATE] at 1:47 PM, the surveyor discussed the DOH letter with the Regional Clinical Specialist who stated, No other documentation was available for name change approval only sale approval. The Regional Clinical Specialist agreed that the facility name change had not been approved and the facility license is still for The Harborage. On [DATE] at 1:52 PM, the Surveyor met with the facility LNHA, DON, Regional Administrator, Regional Clinical Specialist and Regional Nurse to discuss the deficient practice of utilizing the facility name Complete Care at the Harborage without NJDOH Licensure approval. No further information or documentation was provided to the survey team to refute these findings. NJAC 8:39-5.1 (a)
CONCERN (D)

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

Infection Control (Tag F0880)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on observation, interview, and record review, it was determined that the facility failed to maintain proper infection control practices to mitigate the spread of infection for 3 of 36 Residents ...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, interview, and record review, it was determined that the facility failed to maintain proper infection control practices to mitigate the spread of infection for 3 of 36 Residents observed, Resident #92, #39, and #228. The deficient practice was observed on 2 out of 4 facility floors during medication administration observation. This deficient practice was evidenced by the following: 1. On 4/18/23 at 8:45 AM, the Surveyor observed medication administration (med pass) on the 5th floor, Vent Unit performed by a Registered Nurse (RN). The State Surveyor observed the RN prepare the crushed medication for a gastric tube (gtube), ventilator dependent Resident, Resident #92 without washing her hands. The surveyor requested that the RN check Resident #92's vitals due to the physician parameter order. The RN proceeded to check Resident #92's vitals without sanitizing the stethoscope before or after use on this compromised Resident. The RN put on gloves without sanitizing or washing her hands and retrieved gtube administration supplies (container filled with water and bulb syringe) from the resident's bathroom. The RN placed the gtube supplies on the Resident's over bed table without cleaning the surface. The RN opened Resident #92's blanket, exposing the resident's gastric tubing lying on a towel. The RN removed the towel and placed it on top of the blanket. The RN then shut Resident #92's feed and removed the feed tubing from the gtube attachment placing it on the contaminated towel. The RN did not place a protective cap on the end of the feed tubing to protect it from contamination. On 4/18/23 at 9:36 AM, the RN proceeded to administer the medication to Resident #92 without sanitizing/washing her hands or changing her gloves. The surveyor observed the RN pour water into the crushed medication cups. She then poured the medication into the gtube and used the plunger, stored on the contaminated towel to aide in the flow of the medication through the gtube. This process continued throughout the med pass with continued storage of the plunger on the contaminated towel and at times on the contaminated over bed table without any clean barrier used. When the RN completed the administration of the medication to Resident #92, the surveyor interviewed the RN. The RN acknowledged that her administration procedure was not sanitary and could expose compromised Resident #92 to infection. The RN stated that she should have washed her hands prior to glove use, changing gloves when they were contaminated, like touching the feeding machine or towel. The RN realized that the overbed table and towel used were contaminated and should have not been used to store sanitary items, gastric tubing end without it being capped, and the plunger. 2. On 4/18/23 at 9:59 AM, the surveyor noted that the 4th floor Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) sanitized her hands prior to preparing medication for Resident #39. The LPN administered the medication to Resident #39 and continued to Resident #228 med pass without sanitizing/washing her hands. 3. On 4/18/23 at 10:06 AM, the surveyor observed the LPN prepare medication for Resident #228 without sanitizing/washing her hands. The surveyor requested that the LPN check Resident #228's vitals due to the physician parameter orders. The LPN proceeded to check Resident #228's vitals without sanitizing the stethoscope before or after use on this resident. Review of the Administering Medication Policy documented as reviewed 2/2023, under 12., Staff shall follow established facility infection control procedures (e.g, handwashing, antiseptic techniques, gloves, isolation precautions, etc.) for administration of medications, as applicable. Review of Handwashing/Hand Hygiene Policy documented as reviewed 2/2023, under 7., Use an alcohol-based hand rub containing at least 70% alcohol; or, alternatively, soap and water for the following situations: b. Before and after direct contact with residents; c. Before preparing or handling medications; f. Before donning sterile gloves; i. After contact with a resident's intact skin; l. After contact with objects (e.g., medical equipment) in the immediate vicinity of the resident; m. After removing gloves. Continued review of the Handwashing/Hand Hygiene Policy under 9. The use of gloves does not replace hand washing/hand hygiene. Integration of glove use along with routine hand hygiene is recognized as the best practice for preventing healthcare-associated infections. On 4/20/23 at 1:52 PM, the surveyor met with the Director of Nursing, Licensed Nursing Home Administrator (LNHA), Regional LNHA and Transitional Regional Nurse to discuss the infection control breaches. No further information was provided. NJAC 8:39 - 19.4(a)
Apr 2021 1 deficiency
CONCERN (D)

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

Infection Control (Tag F0880)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on observation, interview and record review, it was determined that the facility failed to follow appropriate measures to prevent and control the spread of infection on the COVID-19 positive uni...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, interview and record review, it was determined that the facility failed to follow appropriate measures to prevent and control the spread of infection on the COVID-19 positive unit. This deficient practice was for 1 of 35 residents reviewed, Resident #31, as evidenced by the following: On 04/15/21 at 10:50 AM in the COVID-19 unit the surveyor observed personal protective equipment (PPE) hanging on Resident #31's door and a STOP sign on the door which read strict isolation of contact and droplet precautions, wear full PPE of gown, gloves, N95 respirator covered with a surgical mask and goggle/shield/safety glasses required for all persons entering room, wash hands/use hand sanitizer when entering and leaving room. The surveyor interviewed the Registered Nurse Unit Manager (RNUM) who stated that this resident was COVID-19 positive. Resident #31 was in the bed, located inside the resident's room. The surveyor reviewed Resident #31's medical records which revealed the following: According to the Resident Face Sheet, Resident #31 was admitted to the facility with diagnoses that included Pneumonia and Respiratory Failure. There was a Physician's Order dated 4/8/2021 for strict isolation until further order, caregiver/staff is to wear N95 mask with surgical mask covering, strict droplet precaution with eye protection and strict contact precautions with gown and gloves for the Diagnosis of COVID-19 positive. On 4/20/21 at 10:30 AM, the surveyor observed a Laboratory Technician (LT) enter the COVID-19 unit with a rolling cart holding laboratory supplies. The LT went to Resident #31's room and put on the necessary PPE before entering the resident's room. The LT left the rolling cart in hallway outside of the resident's room. At 10:34 AM, the surveyor observed the LT exit the resident's room, without removing the contaminated PPE and with her contaminated gloved hands retrieved supplies from the rolling cart. At 10:35 AM, the RNUM came down the hallway and stood next to the surveyor. In the presence of the RNUM, the surveyor observed the Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) put on the necessary PPE and enter Resident #31's room with the LT. The LT was still wearing the same PPE. At 10:36 AM, the RNUM and the surveyor observed the LPN and the LT exit the resident's room. The LPN removed her PPE prior to exiting the resident's room and performed hand hygiene using the alcohol-based hand rub (ABHR) mounted on the wall outside of the resident's room. The LT exited the resident's room at the same time as the LPN. The LT did not remove her contaminated PPE and with her contaminated gloved hands, grabbed more items from her rolling cart and entered the resident's room again. At 10:38 AM, the RNUM and the surveyor observed the LT exit the resident's room. The LT removed her contaminated gown prior to exiting the resident's room yet did not remove her contaminated gloves. The LT, with her contaminated gloved hands, was holding laboratory supplies from inside the resident's room and placed them inside of a bag located on the rolling cart. The LT then removed her gloves and did not perform hand hygiene. The LT took a pen, which was in a cup with other pens on the rolling cart and wrote something on a yellow piece of paper. The LT placed the pen back into the cup, grabbed the handles of the rolling cart and walked toward exit of the COVID-19 unit. The LT opened the plastic partition to exit the COVID-19 unit and was stopped by the RNUM and the surveyor. At 10:45 AM, in the presence of the RNUM, the surveyor interviewed the LT who stated that she did not remove her contaminated PPE while going in and out of Resident #31's room to get supplies from her rolling cart. The LT stated it was not an issue because her rolling cart was in the hallway, not in the resident's room. The surveyor asked why there was no hand hygiene performed after removing her gloves and the LT stated, I don't know where the bathroom is to wash my hands. The RNUM told the LT that there was ABHR mounted on the wall outside of each resident room for hand hygiene purposes. At 10:50 AM, in the presence of the RNUM, the surveyor interviewed the LPN who stated that she did in fact leave the resident's room with the LT and the LT should have removed all of her PPE and should have performed hand hygiene. A 10:55 AM, in the presence of the RNUM, the surveyor interviewed the Infection Preventionist (IP) who stated that the LT should have followed facility policy and procedure which included removing her PPE and performing hand hygiene while exiting the resident's room. On 4/20/21 at 11:15 AM, the surveyor discussed the above concerns with the Administrator and Director of Nursing (DON). The DON stated that the LT was in the facility to perform a blood draw for Resident #31 and that the LT should have followed the facility policy and procedure regarding PPE use and hand hygiene after removing PPE when exiting a COVID positive resident's room. The surveyor reviewed the policy and procedure titled HMNR Post-Acute COVID-19 Pandemic Preparedness Infection Control Plan which was updated 4/6/21. The policy and procedure indicated that a COVID-19 positive resident will be placed on strict contact and droplet precautions requiring full PPE, including eye protection, N95 or higher respirator and gown and gloves added when entering resident rooms and PPE will be donned prior to entering the room and removed before leaving the room. The surveyor reviewed the facility postings titled How to safely remove personal protective equipment on Resident # 31's door, which indicated that gloves and gown front and sleeves are contaminated and to wash hands or use an alcohol-based hand sanitizer immediately after removing all PPE. N.J.A.C. 8:39-19.4(a)
Understanding Severity Codes (click to expand)
Life-Threatening (Immediate Jeopardy)
J - Isolated K - Pattern L - Widespread
Actual Harm
G - Isolated H - Pattern I - Widespread
Potential for Harm
D - Isolated E - Pattern F - Widespread
No Harm (Minor)
A - Isolated B - Pattern C - Widespread

Questions to Ask on Your Visit

  • "What changes have you made since the serious inspection findings?"
  • "Can I speak with families of current residents?"
  • "What's your RN coverage like on weekends and overnight?"

Our Honest Assessment

Strengths
  • • No fines on record. Clean compliance history, better than most New Jersey facilities.
Concerns
  • • Multiple safety concerns identified: 1 life-threatening violation(s). Review inspection reports carefully.
  • • 20 deficiencies on record, including 1 critical (life-threatening) violation. These warrant careful review before choosing this facility.
Bottom line: Mixed indicators with Trust Score of 73/100. Visit in person and ask pointed questions.

About This Facility

What is Complete Care At Harborage Llc's CMS Rating?

CMS assigns COMPLETE CARE AT HARBORAGE LLC an overall rating of 5 out of 5 stars, which is considered much above average nationally. Within New Jersey, this rating places the facility higher than 99% of the state's 100 nursing homes. This rating reflects solid performance across the metrics CMS uses to evaluate nursing home quality.

How is Complete Care At Harborage Llc Staffed?

CMS rates COMPLETE CARE AT HARBORAGE LLC's staffing level at 2 out of 5 stars, which is below average compared to other nursing homes. Staff turnover is 48%, compared to the New Jersey average of 46%.

What Have Inspectors Found at Complete Care At Harborage Llc?

State health inspectors documented 20 deficiencies at COMPLETE CARE AT HARBORAGE LLC during 2021 to 2024. These included: 1 Immediate Jeopardy (the most serious level, indicating potential for serious harm or death) and 19 with potential for harm. Immediate Jeopardy findings are rare and represent the most serious regulatory concerns. They require immediate corrective action.

Who Owns and Operates Complete Care At Harborage Llc?

COMPLETE CARE AT HARBORAGE LLC is owned by a for-profit company. For-profit facilities operate as businesses with obligations to shareholders or private owners. The facility is operated by COMPLETE CARE, a chain that manages multiple nursing homes. With 247 certified beds and approximately 218 residents (about 88% occupancy), it is a large facility located in NORTH BERGEN, New Jersey.

How Does Complete Care At Harborage Llc Compare to Other New Jersey Nursing Homes?

Compared to the 100 nursing homes in New Jersey, COMPLETE CARE AT HARBORAGE LLC's overall rating (5 stars) is above the state average of 3.3, staff turnover (48%) is near the state average of 46%, and health inspection rating (4 stars) is above the national benchmark.

What Should Families Ask When Visiting Complete Care At Harborage Llc?

Based on this facility's data, families visiting should ask: "What changes have been made since the serious inspection findings, and how are you preventing similar issues?" "Can you walk me through typical staffing levels on day, evening, and night shifts?" "Can I visit during a mealtime to observe dining assistance and food quality?" "How do you handle medical emergencies, and what is your hospital transfer rate?" These questions are particularly relevant given the facility's Immediate Jeopardy citations and the below-average staffing rating.

Is Complete Care At Harborage Llc Safe?

Based on CMS inspection data, COMPLETE CARE AT HARBORAGE LLC has documented safety concerns. Inspectors have issued 1 Immediate Jeopardy citation (the most serious violation level indicating risk of serious injury or death). The facility has a 5-star overall rating and ranks #1 of 100 nursing homes in New Jersey. Families considering this facility should ask detailed questions about what corrective actions have been taken since these incidents.

Do Nurses at Complete Care At Harborage Llc Stick Around?

COMPLETE CARE AT HARBORAGE LLC has a staff turnover rate of 48%, which is about average for New Jersey nursing homes (state average: 46%). Moderate turnover is common in nursing homes, but families should still ask about staff tenure and how the facility maintains care continuity when employees leave.

Was Complete Care At Harborage Llc Ever Fined?

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

Is Complete Care At Harborage Llc on Any Federal Watch List?

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