BUCKINGHAM AT NORWOOD, THE

100 MCCLELLAN STREET, NORWOOD, NJ 07648 (201) 768-6222
For profit - Corporation 240 Beds EXCELCARE Data: November 2025 3 Immediate Jeopardy citations
Trust Grade
0/100
#311 of 344 in NJ
Last Inspection: November 2024

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

Overview

Buckingham at Norwood received a Trust Grade of F, indicating significant concerns about the facility's overall quality and care. With a state ranking of #311 out of 344, they fall in the bottom half of nursing homes in New Jersey, and they are #27 out of 29 in Bergen County, meaning there are very few local options that perform better. The facility's trend is worsening, with issues increasing from 6 in 2023 to 15 in 2024, which raises alarms about their quality of care. Although staffing is average with a turnover rate of 29%, which is lower than the state average, the facility has concerning fines totaling $126,693, suggesting ongoing compliance issues. Specific incidents include a non-certified nursing aide providing care without proper training and critical failures in infection control, such as not cleaning glucometers, which puts residents at risk for infections. Despite having good RN coverage, these serious deficiencies highlight both strengths and significant weaknesses in the facility.

Trust Score
F
0/100
In New Jersey
#311/344
Bottom 10%
Safety Record
High Risk
Review needed
Inspections
Getting Worse
6 → 15 violations
Staff Stability
✓ Good
29% annual turnover. Excellent stability, 19 points below New Jersey's 48% average. Staff who stay learn residents' needs.
Penalties
✓ Good
$126,693 in fines. Lower than most New Jersey facilities. Relatively clean record.
Skilled Nurses
✓ Good
Each resident gets 47 minutes of Registered Nurse (RN) attention daily — more than average for New Jersey. RNs are trained to catch health problems early.
Violations
⚠ Watch
27 deficiencies on record. Higher than average. Multiple issues found across inspections.
★☆☆☆☆
1.0
Overall Rating
★★★☆☆
3.0
Staff Levels
★★★★☆
4.0
Care Quality
★☆☆☆☆
1.0
Inspection Score
Stable
2023: 6 issues
2024: 15 issues

The Good

  • 4-Star Quality Measures · Strong clinical quality outcomes
  • Low Staff Turnover (29%) · Staff stability means consistent care
  • Full Sprinkler Coverage · Fire safety systems throughout facility
  • No fines on record
  • Staff turnover is low (29%)

    19 points below New Jersey average of 48%

Facility shows strength in quality measures, staff retention, fire safety.

The Bad

1-Star Overall Rating

Below New Jersey average (3.2)

Significant quality concerns identified by CMS

Federal Fines: $126,693

Well above median ($33,413)

Significant penalties indicating serious issues

Chain: EXCELCARE

Part of a multi-facility chain

Ask about local staffing decisions and management

The Ugly 27 deficiencies on record

3 life-threatening 1 actual harm
Nov 2024 15 deficiencies 1 IJ (1 facility-wide)
CRITICAL (L)

Immediate Jeopardy (IJ) - the most serious Medicare violation

Deficiency F0728 (Tag F0728)

Someone could have died · This affected most or all residents

⚠️ Facility-wide issue

Based on interviews, and a review of pertinent facility documents, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure that a non-certified Nursing Aide (NA #1) received the required training and com...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on interviews, and a review of pertinent facility documents, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure that a non-certified Nursing Aide (NA #1) received the required training and competencies needed prior to receiving their own assignment and rendering resident care which included but not limited to; bathing, toileting, transferring, feeding, personal hygiene, and grooming. This was identified for 1 of 9 NAs reviewed (NA#1) who provided direct care to residents on 5 of 5 nursing units. NA #1 was hired on 6/17/24, as a Hospitality Aide. NA #1 began independent resident care assignments on 7/03/24, and was enrolled in a state approved Nurse Aide in Long-Term Care Facilities Training and Competency Evaluation Program (NATCEP) that began on 7/15/24, and worked 69 shifts with no evidence of completing the required skills and competencies prior to providing resident care. The facility's failure to ensure all NAs were trained with the appropriate competencies and skills required prior to receiving an independent resident care assignment posed a likelihood that serious injury, harm, impairment, or death could occur to residents since untrained staff were providing resident care. This resulted in an Immediate Jeopardy (IJ) situation. The IJ began on 7/03/24, after NA #1 was assigned as a NA on the 2 North nursing unit. The facility Administration was notified of the IJ on 11/01/24 at 5:44 PM. The facility submitted an acceptable Removal Plan (RP) on 11/06/24 at 3:42 PM. The survey team verified the implementation of the RP during the continuation of the on-site survey on 11/07/24. The evidence was as follows: A review of the facility provided Position Title: Nursing Assistant (NA) job description dated August 2005, included; the Nursing Assistant performs various resident care activities and related nonprofessional services essential to caring for the personal needs and comfort of resident .Job skills and requirements .must have knowledge of procedures and techniques in administering simple treatments and providing related bedside resident care services .must understand standard techniques used in providing personal services and in caring for equipment and supplies . A review of the undated facility provided Hospitality Aide job description included; a Hospitality Aide is responsible for assisting in the care of residents in a healthcare or long-term care facility. This may include helping patients with activities of daily living, serving meals, cleaning rooms, and providing companionship and emotional support. Key responsibilities: serve meals [ .] not allowed to feed; maintain a clean and organized living space for residents .greeting guests and aiding with their needs not allowed to change or bathe/shower residents .answer call light and report the request(s) to nurse or CNA .pass out water . On 10/29/24 at 11:02 AM, during the entrance conference with the Licensed Nursing Home Administrator (LNHA), Registered Nurse/Unit Manager (RN/UM), and Assistant Administrator (AA), the surveyor asked if the facility utilized non-certified Nurse Aides (NAs), and the Director of Nursing (DON) responded yes. The surveyor also asked if the NAs were providing direct care to residents, and the LNHA stated that the NAs were not providing direct care because they were not done in school, or did not have a license yet. The LNHA stated the NAs were only passing water and helping to transport residents. The LNHA further stated that he was unsure of how many NAs were in the facility and that he would provide a list. On 10/29/24 at 01:10 PM, the LNHA provided the surveyor with a list of NAs who worked at the facility. NA #1 was included on the list with a date of hire (doh) of 6/17/24. On 10/30/24 at 01:14 PM, the surveyor reviewed NA #1's employee file which revealed the following: -Human Resources New Hire Form: doh 6/17/24. Position: Hospitality Aide, hourly, full time with benefits, scheduled hours 7:00 AM to 3:00 PM (7-3). -Job Title and Description: Hospitality Aide. Key responsibilities: did not include direct care. Signed by NA #1 on 6/17/24. -Job Description, Position Title: Nursing Assistant (NA), signed by NA#1 on 10/06/24. -School letter dated 5/15/24: This letter is to certify NA #1 will be attending the CNA training course at [name of school redacted] starting July 15th, 2024 to [August] 15th, 2024, Monday through Friday from 9:00 AM to 2:30 PM. Ninety hours were required in order to complete this program. Signed by the School Director (SD). -Personnel Change Form: doh 6/17/24, today's date 10/09/24, change effective date 10/06/24. Nature of change: reclassification, new title: Nurse Aide. Signed by Human Resources (HR): changes completed 10/09/24. Further review of NA #1's employee file did not include documented evidence that NA #1 completed the 16 hours or 90 hours of required education, training, and competencies in order to provide direct care to residents. A review of NA #1's time sheets provided by the Human Resource Regional Director (HRRD #1) revealed NA #1 worked the following: -From 6/17/24 to 7/14/24, NA #1 worked the 7:00 AM to 3:00 PM (7-3) shift Monday through Friday. In addition, NA #1 worked the 7-3 on 6/29/24; the 7-3 and 3:00 PM-11:00 PM (3-11) double shifts on 7/04/24, and the 7-3 and 3-11 double shifts on 7/13/24. -From 7/15/24 to 8/15/24, NA #1 worked the 7-3 shift Monday through Friday. In addition, NA #1 worked the 7-3 and 3-11 double shifts on 7/19, 7/29, 7/31, 8/05, 8/09, and 8/14/24. NA #1 also worked on 7/27/24 and 8/03/24, the 7-3 shift. A review of the corresponding Certified Nursing Aide (CNA) assignments sheets provided revealed the following: On the 7/01/24, 7-3 shift, NA #1 was independently assigned to Assignment #2 which included 13 residents in total and showers for three residents (rooms: 128 A, 136 A, and 138 A). A review of the additional CNA assignment sheets confirmed NA #1 worked on all five nursing units with independent resident care assignments that corresponded with their timesheets. According to NA #1's school letter, NA #1 was attending the CNA school Monday through Friday from 9:00 AM to 2:30 PM, beginning 7/15/24 through 8/15/24. According to the facility's CNA assignment sheets and NA #1's time card, NA #1 was working at the facility providing resident care during the same dates and time NA #1 was supposed to be attending school. On 10/31/24 at 9:49 AM, the surveyor conducted a telephone interview with NA #1, who stated she was unsure when she started and ended nurse-aide training school. NA #1 confirmed that she was not currently enrolled in school and did not complete school. NA #1 stated that she was unable to finish the school program because she was at the facility working double shifts most of the time. NA #1 further stated that when she started working in the facility, she had three weeks maybe of orientation following a CNA, and then afterwards she had her own independent resident care assignment providing direct care which included; washing, toileting, feeding, and transferring residents from bed to wheelchair and vice versa. NA #1 stated that according to HRRD #1, she was not allowed to return to work until she was able to provide documentation that she completed the required NATCEP program because the facility did not have those documents. On 10/31/24 at 12:02 PM, the surveyor interviewed HRRD #1 and HRRD #2. HRRD #1 stated that according to the information received from the school, NA #1 was scheduled to start on 7/15/24. HRRD #1 continued that NA #1 would have completed their 16 hours of competency skills on 7/18/24. HRRD #2 stated that NA #1 could provide resident direct care supervised by a CNA. HRRD #2 also stated in regards to NA #1's title change in October, that on 7/15/24, NA #1's title should have changed then from Hospitality Aide to NA because she was enrolled in school, and the delay in title change was an error. At that time, the facility was unable to provide documentation that NA #1 completed their competency skills. HRRD #1 and HRRD #2 did not respond to surveyor inquiry how the facility would know NA#1 completed their competency skills with no documentation. On 10/31/24 at 01:51 PM, the surveyor interviewed the RN/UM, who stated that NA #1 went to school, did not pass, or take the test, and cannot be a CNA. The surveyor then reviewed with the RN/UM the CNA assignments for the 2 North unit where NA #1 on 10/8, 10/11, 10/14, 10/15, 10/16, and 10/18/24, was assigned with room numbers below NA #1's name and the surveyor asked what that meant. The RN/UM responded that the assignments indicated that NA#1 was assigned to provide direct care to those residents in the corresponding rooms. The RN/UM confirmed NA #1 was not supposed to have an assignment because she was a NA, and it was the nurses in the unit who assigned NA#1 to a resident care assignment. On 10/31/24 at 02:24 PM, HRRD #1 and HRRD #2 provided a letter from NA#1's school dated 10/31/24, that included Sorry she (NA #1) did not complete her program. She missed the Test one and the Final. Additionally, she failed to pay her balance. She did not complete the class. The letter was signed by the SD. On that same date and time, HRRD #1 confirmed that NA #1 should not have an assignment on their own. The surveyor showed HRRD #1 and HRRD #2 the CNA assignment sheets where NA #1 had resident care assignments, and they both acknowledged that NA #1 should not have had their own care assignment. On 10/31/24 at 3:25 PM, the surveyor reviewed the CNA Assignment sheets with the 7-3 Registered Nurse (RN) and the 3-11 Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) in the 2 North nursing unit. The RN confirmed that NA #1 worked independently with assigned residents providing direct care on 7/03, 7/17, and 7/18/24, for the 7-3 shift. The LPN confirmed that NA #1 worked independently with assigned residents providing direct care on 10/4, 10/11, and 10/15/24, during the 3-11 shift. At that same time, both nurses stated that as per facility practice, they (nurses) assigned the aides when they received the schedule for the day on their shifts. Both further stated that it did not matter if they were CNAs or NAs, both aides had their own assigned residents and assignments to provide direct care, i.e. feeding, toileting, transferring, and bathing/washing of the residents. The RN confirmed that NA #1 had their own assignments and provided direct care independently. The surveyor asked how they knew that NA #1 could work independently on their assignment, and both the RN and LPN stated that when they received the schedule for their shifts, they divided the assignments accordingly and nobody told them, they just knew. On 11/01/24 at 8:13 AM, the surveyor followed up with HRRD #2 regarding the requested policies for Hospitality Aides and Nursing Aides. The surveyor also requested the facility's policy regarding the onboarding process. HRRD #2 stated she would get back to the surveyor. On 11/01/24 at 8:21 AM, the surveyor asked the DON what the facility's process for onboarding NAs was, and the DON stated the usual process, was the NA applied, a criminal background check was performed, health physicals and testing was done, and the facility verified they were in school. The DON stated the facility needed to receive the documentation that the NA was attending school. She further stated, I think when they're in school, they have to take the skills test they have to submit the skills test and whatever they are doing in school. On that same date and time, the surveyor asked the DON why it was important that the facility received documentation that the NA completed their skills test, and the DON stated because the NAs needed to be competent to do the care. The surveyor also asked the DON if the facility provided competencies skill to the NAs, and the DON stated that there was no specific time when the facility provided or checked NAs competency skills. She further stated that if NA brought their skills test from school, the NA could provide direct care as soon as the facility received it. The DON confirmed the skills test and competencies should be included in their employee file. The surveyor asked the DON if she checked the NAs' files to ensure they had their completed requirements, and the DON stated that the nurses and herself checked the files. On 11/01/24 at 9:32 AM, HRRD #2 stated that the facility did not have a policy for Hospitality Aides and NA; that the facility followed their job description. On 11/01/24 at 10:40 AM, the surveyor interviewed HRRD #1, who stated that she was responsible for ensuring all required newly hired employee documents were together; ran background checks; called the NA for orientation; and entered all the NA's information into the system. HRRD #1 stated that it was the Staffing Coordinator's (SC) responsibility to verify the NA's school requirements and documents prior to date of hire and resident care. The SC was also responsible for ensuring a copy of the verification was included in the NA's employee file. HRRD #1 confirmed NA #1 did not have the skills test and NA #1 should not have been providing direct resident care. HRRD #1 stated the SC was out of the facility on leave. On 11/01/24 at 11:19 AM, the surveyor asked the LNHA what the facility required the NAs to submit prior to hire and be able to provide direct resident care, and the LNHA stated he was not involved in the NA onboarding process. The LNHA stated his role as the administrator was to approve and sign documents for the onboarding of newly hired employees so he was unaware of what was included in the process. On 11/04/24 at 9:39 AM, the surveyor met with the LNHA, DON, and Regional Director of Operations (RDO). The DON stated that the facility was only responsible for receiving the information from the NA that they were enrolled in school; that we go by the information provided by the NA. An acceptable Removal Plan (RP) on 11/06/24 at 3:42 PM, indicated the action the facility will take to prevent serious harm from occurring or recurring. The facility implemented a corrective action plan to remediate the deficient practice including NA #1 was removed from employee schedule pending confirmation of successfully passing exam; staff education on hiring Hospitality Aides and the process for hiring and scheduling Nursing Aides; DON reviewed all current NA onboarding requirements; and DON reviewed all NAs to confirm they had the required competency skills. The survey team verified the implementation of the Removal Plan during the continuation of the on-site survey on 11/7/24. N.J.A.C. 8:39-43.1 (a)(2,3); 43.2(a)(1,3)(b)
CONCERN (D)

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

Resident Rights (Tag F0550)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on observation, interview, record review, and review of pertinent facility documents, it was determined the facility failed to treat a resident with respect and dignity in a manner and in an env...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, interview, record review, and review of pertinent facility documents, it was determined the facility failed to treat a resident with respect and dignity in a manner and in an environment that promotes maintenance or enhancement of residents' quality of life specifically by not providing a.) breakfast meal in a timely manner for one (1) of nine (9) residents in 2 South dining area and b.) privacy during eye consultation and/or treatment for one (1) of eight (8) residents in 1 South dining area. The deficient practice was evidenced by the following: 1. On 10/31/24 at 8:25 AM, the surveyor observed the breakfast in the 2 South dining room. The surveyor observed nine residents inside the dining room, one Recreation Aide (RA), one Director of Recreation (DoR), and one Quality Assurance Corporate Aide (QACA). The three facility staff were all standing, the DoR and the QACA were talking inside the dining room. Upon entry to the dining room, there was a resident on one table with no breakfast tray seated in a wheelchair, next table were four residents with no breakfast tray, and last table were another four residents with their breakfast trays. At the table where there were breakfast trays, there was one Certified Nursing Aide (CNA) feeding one of the residents. Next to the resident with no breakfast tray, seated on the table by themselves was the food truck with one breakfast tray covered. On that same date and time, the surveyor asked the facility employees who was the breakfast tray on the food truck. The QACA checked the breakfast tray, read the diet slip in the tray, and informed the surveyor that the tray was for Resident #25. Resident #25 was the one seated by themselves at one of the tables. The surveyor then asked why Resident #25's breakfast tray was not served to the resident. The CNA responded that she was still feeding the other resident on another table which was why Resident #25 had to wait to be fed. The CNA confirmed that Resident #25 was also a feeder. The QACA then immediately performed hand hygiene with the use of alcohol-based hand rub (ABHR), took Resident #25's tray, sat with the resident, and started feeding the resident. At that time, the surveyor asked when the food truck was delivered to the dining room and why the other resident had no breakfast tray. The QACA asked the CNA, and the CNA stated that it was around 8:10 AM that the 1st breakfast truck came. The CNA confirmed that at 8:10 AM residents at one table were served breakfast at that time and that the 2nd breakfast truck would come soon. On that same date at 8:34 AM, the Registered Nurse/Unit Manager (RN/UM) entered the dining room. The surveyor asked the RN/UM how long the residents should wait for their breakfast tray to be served when they were available. The RN/UM stated that they should immediately provide the resident with their breakfast tray if they were available. The surveyor then notified the RN/UM of the above findings and observations with Resident #25's breakfast tray which was not provided until the surveyor's inquiry. On 10/31/24 at 8:40 AM, the surveyor and the RN/UM observed that food truck #2 came and the remaining residents received their breakfast trays in the 2 South dining room. Four out of nine residents received their breakfast trays after 30 minutes while the rest of the five residents had started eating. 2. On 10/31/24 at 8:49 AM, both the surveyor and the RN/UM went to the 1st-floor dining room in 1 South. The surveyor asked the RN/UM how long the residents should wait for their breakfast tray, when the 1st food truck came at 8:10 AM at 2 South, and was 30 minutes an appropriate time for the residents should wait for their breakfast while other residents were eating in the same room. The RN/UM stated No, the tray should come earlier. On that same date and time, inside the 1 South dining room, there were a total of seven residents during breakfast. Two residents were done with their breakfast and the rest were still eating their meals. Resident #67 was seated at one table by themselves and just finished their meal. A person came near Resident #67 and immediately donned (applied) gloves, took a piece of equipment, and was about to use the equipment near the resident's eye. The surveyor asked the RN/UM who was the person with Resident #67. The RN/UM immediately approached the person and addressed the person as a doctor. The RN/UM informed the doctor to remove his gloves and to have the eye consultation in the resident's room. Afterward, the surveyor interviewed the RN/UM. The RN/UM stated that the person was the eye doctor. The RN/UM further stated that the doctor should not wear gloves and start treating the resident in the dining room. On 11/04/24 at 12:05 PM, the surveyor in the presence of the survey team interviewed the Regional Infection Preventionist Nurse (RIPN) and notified the above findings and concerns. The RIPN stated that the eye doctor should provide privacy during consultation and treatment, and not wear gloves in the dining room. On 11/06/24 at 11:19 AM, the survey team met with the Licensed Nursing Home Administrator (LNHA), Director of Nursing (DON), and Regional Director of Operations (RDO). The surveyor notified the facility management of the above concerns and findings. On 11/07/24 at 11:31 AM, the survey team met with the LNHA, DON, Assistant Administrator (AA), and the RIPN. The RIPN stated that facility staff and the eye doctor were educated. A review of the facility's Serving a Meal Policy with a revision date of 11/2023 that was provided by the DON revealed that it is the policy of the facility to serve meals that meet the nutritional needs of residents. Policy Explanation and Compliance Guidelines: diets should be served in accordance with the physician's order. Residents should be encouraged to eat in the dining room, however, requests to remain in the room should be honored A review of the facility's Resident Rights Policy with a revision date of 11/2024 that was provided by the RIPN revealed: Resident rights. The resident has the right to a dignified existence, self-determination, and communication with and access to persons and services inside and outside the facility. Respect and dignity. The resident has a right to be treated with respect and dignity. On 11/07/24 at 01:29 PM, the survey team met with the LNHA, DON, RDO, Regional Clinical Operations, and AA for the Exit Conference, and there was no additional information provided by the facility management. NJAC 8:39 - 4.1(a)11, 12, 16, 28
CONCERN (D)

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

MDS Data Transmission (Tag F0640)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on the interview and record review, it was determined that the facility failed to electronically transmit the Minimum Data Set (MDS), an assessment tool used to facilitate the management of care...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on the interview and record review, it was determined that the facility failed to electronically transmit the Minimum Data Set (MDS), an assessment tool used to facilitate the management of care of all residents, within the 14th calendar day of the resident's admission (admission date plus 13 calendar days) in accordance with the Center's for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) Resident Assessment Instrument (RAI) Manual. This deficient practice was identified for three (3) of 38 residents (Resident #125, #132, and #212) reviewed for resident assessment. The deficient practice was evidenced by the following: 1. On 11/04/24 at 9:50 AM, the surveyor observed Resident #125 lying in bed with eyes open and unable to answer the surveyor's inquiry. On 11/04/24 at 11:00 AM, the surveyor reviewed the hybrid (paper and medical) records of Resident #125 and revealed: The admission Record (AR; an admission summary) documented that Resident #125 was admitted to the facility with diagnoses that included but were not limited to encephalopathy (a disease that affects the brain). The most recent comprehensive MDS (cMDS) with an Assessment Reference Date (ARD; the last day of the observation period) of 02/04/24, reflected that Resident #125 had a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of 0 (zero) out of 15, indicating severe cognitive impairment. The cMDS was completed on 02/14/24. The assessment was more than 13 days after the entry date on 01/28/24. A review of the MDS 3.0 Final Validation Report dated 02/21/24 given by the MDS Coordinator/Registered Nurse (MDSC/RN) on 11/04/24 revealed that The Assessment Completed Late: For this admission assessment (AO310A equals 01), ZO500B (completion date) was more than 13 days after A1600 (entry date). 2. On 11/04/24 at 10:27 AM, the surveyor reviewed the medical records of Resident #132 and revealed: The AR documented that Resident #132 was admitted to the facility with diagnoses that included but were not limited to unspecified dementia (memory loss), unspecified severity, without behavioral disturbance, psychotic (mental illness) disturbance, mood disturbance, and anxiety. Resident #132's most recent cMDS assessment, with an ARD of 5/17/24, reflected that Resident #132 had a BIMS score of 7 out of 15, indicating severely impaired cognition. The cMDS was completed on 5/30/24, more than 13 days after the entry date, 5/10/24. A review of the MDS 3.0 Final Validation Report dated 6/10/24 given by the MDSC/RN on 11/04/24 revealed that The Assessment Completed Late: For this admission assessment (AO310A equals 01), ZO500B (completion date) was more than 13 days after A1600 (entry date). 3. On 11/04/24 at 10:27 AM, the surveyor reviewed the medical records of Resident #212 and revealed: The AR documented that Resident #212 was admitted to the facility with diagnoses that included but were not limited to rhabdomyolysis (a condition in which muscle tissue breaks down). Resident #212's most recent cMDS assessment, with an ARD of 10/17/24, reflected that Resident #212 had a BIMS score of 8 out of 15, indicating moderate cognition impairment. The cMDS was completed on 11/03/24, more than 13 days after the entry date, 10/10/24. A review of the MDS 3.0 Final Validation Report dated 11/4/24 given by the MDSC/RN on 11/04/24 revealed that The Assessment Completed Late: For this admission assessment (AO310A equals 01), ZO500B (completion date) was more than 13 days after A1600 (entry date). On 11/07/24 at 12:57 PM, the surveyor interviewed the MDSC/RN regarding the above concern. The MDSC/RN acknowledged that the admission assessment was not completed on time and should have been completed within 14 days from the entry date. The MDSC/RN stated that the facility followed the RAI (Resident Assessment Instrument) Manual (a tool that helps gather information about a resident's strengths and needs, used to create an individualized care plan). According to the CMS's RAI Version 3.0 Manual of October 2024, it was revealed on pages 5-2. CH (chapter) 5: Submission and Correction of the MDS Assessments. 5.2 Timeliness Criteria: In accordance with the requirements long-term care facilities participating in the Medicare and Medicaid programs must meet the following conditions: Completion Timing: For the admission assessment, the MDS Completion Date (Z0500B) must be no later than 13 days after the Entry Date (A1600). NJAC 8:39-11.2(e)
CONCERN (D)

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

Assessment Accuracy (Tag F0641)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview and record review, it was determined that the facility failed to accurately reflect the resident status in th...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview and record review, it was determined that the facility failed to accurately reflect the resident status in the Minimum Data Set (MDS), an assessment tool used to facilitate the management of care in accordance with the federal guidelines for two (2) of 38 residents (Resident #125, and #212) reviewed for the accuracy of MDS coding. This deficient practice was evidenced by the following: 1. On 11/04/24 at 9:50 AM, the surveyor observed Resident #125 lying in bed with eyes open and unable to answer the surveyor's inquiry. On 11/04/24 at 11:00 AM, the surveyor reviewed the hybrid (paper and medical) records of Resident #125 and revealed: The admission Record (AR; an admission summary) documented that Resident #125 was admitted to the facility with diagnoses that included but were not limited to encephalopathy (a disease that affects the brain). Resident #125's most recent comprehensive MDS (cMDS), with an Assessment Reference Date (ARD; the last day of the observation period) of 02/04/24, reflected that Resident #125 had a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of 0 (zero) out of 15, indicating severe cognitive impairment. Section O - Influenza Vaccine, A. Did the resident receive the influenza vaccine in this facility for this year's influenza vaccination season? 0. No. C. Influenza vaccine not received, state reason: 5. Not offered. And Pneumococcal Vaccine A. Is the resident's Pneumococcal Vaccination up to date? 0. No. B. If Pneumococcal Vaccine not received, state reason: 1. Not eligible-medical contraindication. A review of quarterly MDS (qMDS) dated [DATE] in section O- Influenza Vaccine, A. Did the resident receive the influenza vaccine in this facility for this year's influenza vaccination season? 0. No. C. Influenza vaccine not received, state reason: 5. Not offered. And Pneumococcal Vaccine A. Is the resident's Pneumococcal Vaccination up to date? 0. No. B. If Pneumococcal Vaccine not received, state reason: 1. Not eligible-medical contraindication. A review of recent qMDS dated [DATE] in section O- Influenza Vaccine, A. Did the resident receive the influenza vaccine in this facility for this year's influenza vaccination season? 0. No. C. Influenza vaccine not received, state reason: 5. Not offered. And Pneumococcal Vaccine A. Is the resident's Pneumococcal Vaccination up to date? 0. Yes. A review of the Resident Annual Influenza Vaccine Consent Form dated 01/28/24, given by the Regional Infection Preventionist Nurse (RIPN) on 11/07/24, revealed that the resident representative's (RR's) written check off and signature: I do not Consent for the vaccine be given to me or to the person named below for whom I authorized to sign. A review of the form titled Pneumococcal Vaccine -Informed Consent dated 01/28/24, given by the RIPN on 11/07/24, revealed that the RR's written check off and signature: I do not Consent for the vaccine be given to me or to the person named below for whom I authorized to sign. 2. On 11/04/24 at 10:27 AM, the surveyor reviewed the medical records of Resident #212 and revealed: The AR documented that Resident #212 was admitted to the facility with diagnoses that included but were not limited to rhabdomyolysis (a condition in which muscle tissue breaks down). Resident #212's most recent cMDS assessment, with an ARD of 10/17/24, reflected that Resident #212 had a BIMS score of 8 out of 15, indicating moderate cognition impairment. Section O - Pneumococcal Vaccine A. Is the resident's Pneumococcal Vaccination up to date? 0. No. B. If Pneumococcal Vaccine not received, state reason: 3. Not offered. A review of the form titled Pneumococcal Vaccine -Informed Consent dated 10/11/24, given by the RIPN on 11/07/24, revealed that the RR's with the written check off and signature: I do not Consent for the vaccine to be given to me or to the person named below for whom I authorized to sign. On 11/07/24 at 9:20 AM, the surveyor interviewed the RIPN, who acknowledged the incorrect MDS code. She stated that immunizations were offered to all the residents and staff. On 11/07/24 at 12:57 PM, the team of surveyors interviewed the MDSC/RN regarding the above concern. The MDSC/RN stated that the vaccine information should be reflected in the MDS assessment. The MDSC/RN stated that the facility followed the RAI (Resident Assessment Instrument) Manual (a tool that helps gather information about a resident's strengths and needs, used to create an individualized care plan). According to the CMS (Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services) MDS 3.0 RAI Manual of October 2024, the RAI manual was revealed under Version 3.0 Manual, page O-12, under O0250: Influenza Vaccine. Steps for assessment: 1. Review the resident's medical record to determine whether an influenza vaccine was received in the facility for this year's influenza vaccination season. If the vaccination status is unknown, proceed to the next step. 2. Ask the resident if they received an influenza vaccine outside the facility for this year's influenza vaccination season. If the vaccination status is still unknown, proceed to the next step. 3. If the resident is unable to answer, then ask the same question of the responsible party/legal guardian and/or primary care physician. If influenza vaccination status is still unknown, proceed to the next step. 4. If influenza vaccination status cannot be determined, administer the influenza vaccine to the resident according to standards of clinical practice. On page O-16, under O0300: Pneumococcal Vaccine. Steps for assessment: 1. Review the resident's medical record to determine whether any pneumococcal vaccines have been received .3. If the resident is unable to answer, ask the same question of the responsible party/legal guardian and/or primary care physician. NJAC 8:39-33.2(a)
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0657 (Tag F0657)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on observation, interview, record review, and review of facility provided documents, it was determined that the facility's interdisciplinary team (IDT) failed to ensure the facility policy was f...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, interview, record review, and review of facility provided documents, it was determined that the facility's interdisciplinary team (IDT) failed to ensure the facility policy was followed to ensure the person-centered care plan was revised to attain or maintain the resident's highest practicable physical, mental, and psychosocial well-being and to ensure the resident was (invited to participate) involved in the care planning process. The deficient practice was identified for one (1) of 38 residents reviewed for care planning (Resident #131) and was evidenced by the following: On 10/29/24 at 10:29 AM, during initial tour, the surveyor observed Resident #131 lying in bed in their room. Resident #131 expressed concern with their discharge (d/c) plans. The resident explained that they had been in the facility for several months, was there to receive rehabilitation (rehab) therapy, and did not have a place to stay outside the facility. Resident #131 stated that they had completed rehab therapy and was independent with activities of daily living. The resident stated when they last spoke with the social worker (SW) about d/c planning, the SW stated something about it was not safe for them to be d/c and did not know anything else about their d/c care plan (CP). The resident stated that they could do more things for their self, compared to other residents, and did not want to stay at facility. On 10/30/24 at 11:42 AM, the surveyor reviewed the hybrid (electronic and paper) medical records of Resident #131. The admission Record revealed that Resident #131 had diagnoses that included but were not limited to, Atherosclerotic heart disease (a disease that occurs with the buildup of fats, cholesterol, and other substances in and on the heart's arteries, which may lead to chest pain, shortness of breath and heart attacks), hypertension (high blood pressure), schizophrenia, and type 2 diabetes mellitus (DM). The resident had one emergency contact (EC) listed and they were indicated as the care conference person. A Quarterly MDS assessment, dated 8/08/24, indicated the facility assessed the resident's cognition using a Brief Interview Mental Status (BIMS) test. Resident #131 scored a 13 out of 15, which indicated the resident was cognitively intact. A CP for Resident #131 with a focus related to the resident was for LTC (Long Term Care) vs d/c home to community, was initiated 5/06/24. An intervention with an initiation date of 5/06/24 detailed, Resident #131 and their family will make their wishes known. A social service (SS) note dated 8/12/24 indicated the IDT met for a quarterly care conference for Resident #131. The EC was invited but did not respond to the facility. There was no documentation of the resident being invited to the CP meeting. Additionally, there was no documentation which indicated the resident was present for the CP meeting or was aware of the discussion from the CP meeting. A nurse progress note dated 10/01/24, indicated Resident #131 verbalized not wanting to stay in the facility and desired to be d/c. The SW was informed by the nurse that resident stated they did not want to stay in the facility. The nurse further indicated the SW was to follow up with the resident and their status. There were no additional notes from the SW, or any further notes related to the resident's d/c planning. On 10/30/24 at 12:41 PM, the surveyor interviewed the Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) who was assigned to care for Resident #131. The LPN stated the resident was alert and oriented, independent, and cooperative with staff. The LPN stated that the resident did not have a place to stay, and the plan was for the resident to remain in the facility for LTC. The LPN stated the SW was responsible for following up with the resident regarding their living situation. On 10/30/24 at 01:03 PM, the surveyor interviewed the SW who started working in the facility a couple of months ago about resident care planning. The SW stated care plan meetings were held quarterly and as needed. The CP meeting was attended by the SW, the Director of Nursing (DON), the dietician, recreation staff, the Director of Rehab, the resident, if they were alert and oriented, and the resident representative. The surveyor asked the SW what the process for care planning for a resident was that did not have a place to live. The SW stated the process would be to attempt to find a next of kin or friend who would be able to assist. If no one could be found, the resident had Medicaid and nowhere else to go then they would be transitioned to LTC. The surveyor discussed the concern that Resident #131 expressed they did not want to remain in the facility for LTC and there was no documentation regarding the resident being invited to CP meetings or discussions with the resident about their CP. Additionally, the indicated EC listed had not returned any calls to the facility. The SW confirmed the resident had no place to live and no family or friends involved to help. The SW stated the plan was for the resident to remain for LTC, and discussions with the resident were with Spanish translation. The SW could not speak to referrals or care planning by previous SWs. The SW stated she would review the resident's records and provide additional information. On 10/31/24 at 10:31 AM, the SW met with the surveyor. The SW stated she spoke with the resident yesterday evening to discuss possible d/c plans. The SW stated she discussed with the resident about a referral to another LTC facility as a d/c back to the community at this time would be difficult. The resident was agreeable to the referral to the other facility as it would have a similar resident population who spoke their language and they could continue to assist with a possible community d/c. The SW further stated she explained to the resident it may take some time for the d/c to the other facility to be approved. The surveyor asked if there were any referrals for the resident during the several months the resident was at the facility. The SW stated there were no referrals as the resident was receiving sub-acute rehab therapy. The SW further stated upon admission the resident signed a LTC agreement which indicated the resident would be transitioned to LTC. The surveyor asked if there was any documentation of the resident being invited or participating in their CP meetings. The SW provided hospital d/c notes for the resident and the LTC admission agreement signed by the resident, which was handled by the Admissions department. The SW stated she would provide the SS documentation for Resident #131. A review of the hospital d/c notes for Resident #131 indicated the resident did not have a place to live and would be d/c to the facility from the hospital for SAR [Subacute Rehab]. On 10/31/24 at 11:23 AM, the SW provided SS documentation which included, a SS note written by the SW dated 10/30/24 regarding her discussion with the resident about the referral to another facility. Additionally, there was the SS note by the previous SW on 8/12/24, and a BIMS evaluation by another previous SW, dated 5/3/24. There was no additional documentation provided. On 10/31/24 at 12:50 PM, the surveyor visited Resident #131 in their room who confirmed that the SW spoke with them yesterday. The resident stated they were agreeable with being transferred to another facility as there was a different resident population. The resident verbalized they understood it would still be a LTC facility, and that they would continue to assist with d/c to the community. Resident #131 further explained they understood it may take time. The resident was satisfied and agreeable to the CP. On 11/06/24 at 11:19 AM, the surveyor notified the Licensed Nursing Home Administrator (LNHA), the Director of Nursing (DON), and the Regional Director of Operations (RDO) of the concern for Resident #131 not being invited to participate in their care planning. There was no verbal response from the facility at this time. On 11/07/24 at 11:31 AM, the DON, LNHA, and a regional LNHA, met with the survey team. The DON stated Resident #131 did not have a place to stay when they arrived at facility and had not previously expressed not wanting to be at facility. The DON continued that the SW went to the resident, was referred to other facility and had since been d/c. The surveyor asked the DON about SW documentation when care plan meeting with residents. The DON stated that the SW was responsible for initiating CP meetings and would invite residents/resident representatives to participate in the meeting. The DON acknowledged it should be documented in the resident's medical records when a resident was invited to CP meetings and participated in CP discussions with the SW. There was no additional information provided by the facility. The surveyor reviewed the facility's policy titled, Discharge Planning Process Policy, with a last review date of November 2024. Under Policy Explanation and Compliance Guidelines it documented: . 1. The facility will support each resident in the exercise of his or her right to participate in his or her care and treatment, including planning for d/c . 3. If d/c to community is determined to not be feasible, the facility will document in the clinical record who made the determination and why . 8. The facility will document any referrals to local contact agencies or other appropriate entities made for the purpose of the resident's interest in returning to the community . 11. The evaluation of the resident's d/c needs and d/c plan will be completely documented on a timely basis in the clinical record . The surveyor reviewed the facility's policy titled, Comprehensive Care Plans, with a last review date of September 2024. Under Policy Explanation and Compliance Guidelines it documented: .4. The comprehensive CP will be prepared by an IDT team, that includes, but not limited to .e. The resident and the resident's representative, to the extent practicable . The surveyor reviewed the facility's policy titled, Resident Rights, with a last review date of November 2024. Under Residents Rights Acknowledgement, Planning and implementing care, it documented: .The resident has the right to be informed of, and participate in, his or her treatment including .b. the right to participate in the development and implementation of his or her person-centered plan of care, including but not limited to .the right to participate in the planning process, including the right to identify individuals or roles to be included in the planning process, the right to request meetings and the right to request revisions to the person-centered plan of care . NJAC 8:39-4.1(a); 27.1(a)
CONCERN (D)

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

Quality of Care (Tag F0684)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Complaint # NJ167164 and #167919 Based on observation, interview, record review, and review of pertinent facility documentation, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure a resident receive...

Read full inspector narrative →
Complaint # NJ167164 and #167919 Based on observation, interview, record review, and review of pertinent facility documentation, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure a resident received treatment and care in accordance with professional standards of practice and facility policies and procedures for one (1) of 38 residents, Resident #360, reviewed for quality of care. 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 registered professional nurse is defined as diagnosing and treating human responses to actual and potential physical and emotional health problems, through such services as case-finding, health teaching, health counseling, and provision of care supportive to or restorative of life and wellbeing, and executing medical regimens as prescribed by a licensed or otherwise legally authorized physician or dentist. Reference: New Jersey Statutes Annotated, Title 45, Chapter 11. Nursing Board. The Nurse Practice Act for the State of New Jersey states: The practice of nursing as a licensed practical nurse is defined as performing tasks and responsibilities within the framework of case finding; reinforcing the patient and family teaching program through health teaching, health counseling, and provision of supportive and restorative care, under the direction of a registered nurse or licensed or otherwise legally authorized physician or dentist. On 10/31/24 at 12:44 PM, the surveyor reviewed a facility reported event investigation for Resident #360 who was no longer a resident at the facility. A report dated 9/01/23 was submitted to the Department of Health (DOH) for an event that occurred on 8/30/23. The Resident's representative (RR) reported to the facility regarding the care of Resident #360 and wounds found on the resident's right foot. The investigation included written statements from nursing staff, a summary and conclusion as well as in-service education provided to the Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN). The summary of the facility's investigation detailed Resident #360 was found on 8/29/23 with ulcers to the dorsum [top of] right foot, near the right toes, the right 5th toe, and sole of the right foot. The wounds were noted with serosanguineous (contains both blood and serum, the liquid part of blood) drainage. The nurse practitioner (NP) examined the resident the same day. The NP ordered x-rays of the foot, intravenous (IV) antibiotics, a wound consult, podiatry consult, and infectious disease (ID) consult. The physician then called and gave the order for Resident #360 to be sent to the hospital emergency room (ER) for further evaluation. The RR was also notified. The resident was admitted to the hospital after ER evaluation with a diagnosis of osteomyelitis (an inflammation of bone caused by an infection). The resident returned to the facility on 9/09/23. The conclusion of the facility's investigation determined that weekly skin checks had not been completed for two weeks prior to the wounds' identification. Additionally, nursing management were to conduct weekly audits to ensure that weekly skin checks would being completed on time and accurately documented. The education in-service provided to the LPN included review of the importance of completing weekly skin checks, poor outcomes of a resident's condition if skin checks were not completed, and the importance of reporting any new findings including communication with the physician and RR. The surveyor reviewed the paper and electronic medical record (EMR) of Resident #360. The admission Record (a summary of important information about the resident) documented the resident had diagnoses that included but were not limited to, quadriplegia (a condition that causes a person to lose all or most motor function in their arms, hands, trunk, legs and pelvic organs), major depressive disorder, contracture (a permanent tightening of the muscles, tendons, skin, and nearby tissues that causes the joints to shorten and become very stiff) of muscle/joint, peripheral vascular disease (PVD; a circulatory condition in which narrowed blood vessels reduce blood flow to the limbs), neuromuscular dysfunction of bladder (a condition that causes bladder control issues due to a brain, spinal cord or nerve problem), and hypertension. A quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS), an assessment tool used to facilitate the management of care, dated 6/20/23, indicated the facility assessed the resident's cognition using a Brief Interview Mental Status (BIMS) test. Resident #360 scored a 14 out of 15, which indicated the resident was cognitively intact. In Section G (Functional Status) of the MDS, Resident #360 was coded requiring one person assist with activities of daily living (ADLs) such as bed mobility, transfer, dressing, eating, toilet use, and personal hygiene. The resident was coded as: dependent on staff for bed mobility and toilet use; needing extensive assistance with personal hygiene and dressing; and limited assistance for eating. Additionally, Resident #360 was coded for impairment in range of motion to both lower extremities. A physician's order (PO) dated 01/06/22 documented bunny boots heel protector/apply to both heels while in bed every shift for protection. A PO dated 01/06/22 documented offload heels with one pillow under calves while in bed every shift for skin integrity. A PO dated 3/16/23 documented to apply moisturizer cream to the resident's legs everyday every day shift for skin care/dryness. A PO dated 1/6/22 documented skin assessment weekly every Wednesday on 7-3 shift every day shift for monitoring. A review of the Evaluation section of the EMR revealed there was one Skin Evaluation documentation completed on 8/02/23 for August 2023. There was no other skin evaluation completed for the month. A physician progress note (PN) dated 8/29/24 at 1:00 PM by the NP detailed then nurse reported the resident had a wound to their right foot and the resident was assessed. After initial plan of orders for treatment including x-rays, IV antibiotics, and consults, the primary physician ordered for the physician to be sent to the ER for further evaluation. A nurses' PN written by the LPN dated 8/29/24 at 02:26 PM, revealed the resident was found with a wound to the right foot, it was cleaned with normal saline solution and reported to the primary physician. The primary physician ordered for the resident to be transferred to the hospital ER for further evaluation and the resident was transferred at 2:00 PM. A review of August 2023 PN revealed there were no notes prior to August 29th regarding the resident's skin assessment or refusal by the resident to complete. A care plan with an initiation date of 6/11/2020 had a focus of risk for impaired skin integrity related to the resident's immobility, PVD, history of pressure ulcers, and refusal of care. Interventions of the care plan included but were not limited to: Perform routine skin assessments, date initiated 6/11/2020; and Provide skin care per facility guidelines and PRN (as needed), date initiated 6/11/2020. On 11/06/24 at 9:55 AM, the surveyor interviewed the LPN who had cared for the resident and signed the weekly skin assessments in August 2023. The LPN recalled Resident #360 and stated the resident was alert and wheelchair bound. The resident was out of bed on Monday through Thursday and from Friday to Sunday preferred to stay in bed watching television. The LPN stated Resident #360 was cooperative with care for the most part but refused care occasionally. The LPN further explained the resident hands and feet were a little contracted and allowed staff to assess them. The surveyor asked about assessing the resident's skin. The LPN replied that the Certified Nurse Assistant (CNA) would provide morning care to resident and notified the nurses of any skin impairment. The nurses performed weekly skin assessments, checking head to toe and documented in the EMR of the findings. The surveyor asked about when the resident was found with wounds and had to be sent to the hospital. The LPN recalled the resident was found with a wound to their foot that was oozing prior to being sent to the hospital. The LPN could not recall specific dates or times and stated he found the resident's sock was sticky, removed their sock, found wounds to their toes, and reported to the NP who was visiting. The LPN could not recall any additional details. On 11/06/24 at 10:27 AM, the surveyor interviewed the Director of Nursing (DON) about Resident #360's investigation. The DON confirmed that the incident occurred prior to her and the current Licensed Nursing Home Administrator (LNHA) starting at the facility. The surveyor asked about any additional information related to the investigation. The DON stated she would review what was on file and could not speak to the investigation that was conducted by the previous administration. On 11/06/24 at 11:19 AM, the surveyor notified the LNHA, the DON, and the Regional Director of Operations (RDO) of the concern that there were no skin evaluations documented for the two weeks prior to the wounds to the resident's foot was identified by the staff. There was no verbal response by the facility at this time. On 11/07/24 at 11:31 AM, the DON, the LNHA, and the regional LNHA met with the survey team. There was no additional information or verbal response provided by the facility. The DON stated they could not speak to specifics as it was during the previous administration's time. The surveyor reviewed the undated facility policy titled Skin Check Policy. Under Procedure it specified, . 2. Skin checks will be conducted by CNA's during daily care .3. Skin checks by Licensed Nurses will be conducted weekly on all residents in addition to daily checks by CNA's .4. Findings will be documented in the Weekly Skin Evaluation form and the Interdisciplinary Notes . N.J.A.C. 8:39-3.2 (a), (b); 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

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

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview, record review, and review of other pertinent facility documentation, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure the necessary respiratory care and services of residents that were receiving oxygen and nebulizer, according to the standard of clinical practice and the facility's policy and procedure, specifically a.) that respiratory equipment was stored in accordance with facility policy and infection control measures for two (2) of two (2) residents reviewed for respiratory care, Resident #210 and #213, b.) clarify the oxygen therapy order and ensure staff followed the appropriate hand hygiene and use of personal protective equipment (PPE) for a resident with contact precautions and oxygen posted sign for one (1) of one (1) of resident, Resident #213, reviewed for tracheostomy care. 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 registered professional nurse is defined as diagnosing and treating human responses to actual and potential physical and emotional health problems, through such services as case-finding, health teaching, health counseling, and provision of care supportive to or restorative of life and wellbeing, and executing medical regimens as prescribed by a licensed or otherwise legally authorized physician or dentist. Reference: New Jersey Statutes Annotated, Title 45, Chapter 11. Nursing Board. The Nurse Practice Act for the State of New Jersey states: The practice of nursing as a licensed practical nurse is defined as performing tasks and responsibilities within the framework of case finding; reinforcing the patient and family teaching program through health teaching, health counseling, and provision of supportive and restorative care, under the direction of a registered nurse or licensed or otherwise legally authorized physician or dentist. 1. On 10/29/24 at 10:35 AM, the surveyor observed Resident #210 inside their room seated in a wheelchair. The resident was cognitively intact and informed the surveyor that they were at the facility for rehabilitation. The surveyor observed the nebulizer (neb) mask was not properly stored and was placed on top of the nightstand table near the window next to the neb machine. The date of the neb mask was 10/28/24. At that time, the resident informed the surveyor that the nurse administered neb to the resident and confirmed the neb mask on top of the nightstand was not properly stored and should have been inside a bag. The surveyor reviewed the medical records of Resident #210 and revealed: The admission Record (AR; an admission summary) reflected that the resident was admitted to the facility with diagnoses that included but were not limited to other asthma (a condition in which a person's airways become inflamed, narrow, and swell, and produce extra mucus, which makes it difficult to breathe), unspecified diastolic (congestive) heart failure, and essential (primary) hypertension (occurs when abnormally high blood pressure that's not the result of a medical condition). The most recent comprehensive Minimum Data Set (cMDS) with an assessment reference date (ARD) of 10/04/24, under Section C Cognitive Patterns, reflected on a brief interview for mental status (BIMS) score of 15 out of 15 which showed that the resident was cognitively intact. The cMDS also included that the resident received respiratory therapy for 225 minutes in a seven-day look-back period (the time period over which the resident's condition or status was captured by the MDS assessment). A review of the October 2024 Order Summary Report (OSR) revealed a physician's order (PO) for the following: -order date 10/01/24 for Ipratropium-Albuterol Inhalation Solution 0.5-2.5 (3) MG/3ML (3 milligrams/3 milliliters) 3 ml inhale orally every 6 hours for wheeze. -order date 9/28/24 to Change neb administration set up (tubing, nasal cannula/mask, etc) weekly one time a day every Mon (Monday). The above order for Ipratropium-Albuterol inhalation was transcribed and plotted to the October 2024 electronic Medication Administration Record (eMAR) and signed by nurses as administered at 0000 (12 midnight), 0600 (6 AM), 1200 (12 noon), and 1800 (6 PM). On 10/31/24 at 9:07 AM, the surveyor interviewed the Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN). The LPN informed the surveyor that the neb mask should be stored in a plastic bag when not in use. The surveyor then notified the LPN of the above concern with the resident's neb mask observed on 10/29/24 which was not properly stored. 2. On 10/29/24 at 10:17 AM, the surveyor interviewed the LPN in the Penthouse unit. The LPN informed the surveyor that there was no resident on contact precaution (intended to prevent transmission of infectious agents, including epidemiologically important microorganisms, which are spread by direct or indirect contact with the patient or the patient's environment). The LPN stated that there were residents on EBP (Enhanced Barrier Precautions), residents who had tube feeding (TF), wounds, and tracheostomy (a procedure to help air and oxygen (O2) reach the lungs by creating an opening into the trachea (windpipe) from outside the neck). He further stated that the Staff and visitors must wear PPE, i.e. gown, gloves, and mask (when tracheostomy or splashes) when providing direct care like wound care morning care, and toileting for EBP residents. The LPN stated that Resident #213 was on EBP due to TF and tracheostomy (trach). On 10/29/24 at 10:26 AM, the surveyor observed Resident # 213's room with a Stop sign, Contact Precaution sign, PPE hung outside the door, and O2 in use sign. The surveyor observed the resident was lying on the bed. The Recreation Aide (RA) was inside the room without PPE, exited the resident's room, and did not perform hand hygiene. The posted Contact precaution sign included information that whoever enters and exits the room must perform hand hygiene, and enter with a gown, gloves, and mask. On 10/29/24 at 10:30 AM, the surveyor asked LPN again if Resident #213 was on contact precaution and what kind of infection. The surveyor also notified the LPN of the above concerns that there was a posted sign for contact precautions outside the door of the resident. The LPN stated that he would get back to the surveyor and verify the records. On 10/29/24 at 10:42 AM, the surveyor interviewed the LPN and asked again about the resident's posted contact precaution sign and the LPN confirmed the resident on contact precaution for positive MRSA (Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus is a group of gram-positive bacteria that are genetically distinct from other strains of Staphylococcus aureus. MRSA is responsible for several difficult-to-treat infections in humans) in the trach and nares. He stated that staff and visitors must use complete PPE that included mask, gown, and gloves when entering the room and perform hand hygiene. At that time, the surveyor notified the LPN of the concern regarding the RA. The LPN immediately called the RA and education was provided. The RA confirmed that she did not put on PPE before entering the resident's room and informed the LPN that she did not touch anything when she entered the room. The LPN told the RA that she had to read the posted sign and that meant she had to do hand hygiene before entering put on PPE, remove PPE before exiting, and perform again hand hygiene. On 10/29/24 at 11:02 AM, the surveyor met with LNHA in the presence of two other surveyors, the Assistant Administrator (AA), and a Registered Nurse/Unit Manager (RN/UM). The LNHA and the RN/UM informed the surveyor that there were transmission-based precautions (TBP; Transmission-based precautions are used when patients already have confirmed or suspected infections) other than COVID which was one resident with MRSA in the Penthouse unit. The surveyor reviewed the medical records of Resident #213 and showed: The AR reflected that the resident was admitted to the facility with diagnoses that included but were not limited to nontraumatic intracerebral hemorrhage (a common subtype of stroke with a poor prognosis, high mortality, and long-term morbidity) unspecified, chronic respiratory failure (a condition that occurs when the lungs cannot get enough O2 into the blood or eliminate enough carbon dioxide from the body) unspecified with hypoxia (an absence of enough O2 in the tissues to sustain bodily functions) or hypercapnia (a buildup of carbon dioxide in bloodstream), and tracheostomy status. The most recent cMDS with an ARD of 10/28/24, under Section C BIMS score of 00 out of 15 showed that the resident's cognition was severely impaired. The cMDS also included that the resident received respiratory therapy for 375 minutes in a seven-day look-back period. A review of the personalized care plan (CP) showed a focus CP for MRSA in trach that was created on 10/22/2024. The CP interventions included but were not limited to contact isolation, educate resident/family/caregivers regarding the importance of hand washing, and instruct family/visitors/caregivers to wear disposable gowns and gloves during physical prolonged contact with the resident, and discard in the appropriate receptacle and wash hands before leaving the room that was initiated on 10/22/24. A review of the October 2024 OSR revealed a PO for the following: -order date 10/21/24 for Ipratropium-Albuterol Solution 0.5-2.5 (3) MG/3ML 3 ml inhale orally every 6 hours for SOB (shortness of breath). -order date 10/21/24 for Isolation /Contact precaution in Single Room for MRSA every shift for MRSA. -order date 10/21/24 to administer humidified air every shift to ensure that the water chamber and/or water bag are not allowed to run out of sterile water administer humidified air every shift via [name] machine at (20 ) degrees Celsius (4) L (liters)/minute ( )% O2 on at all times. The above order for Ipratropium-Albuterol was transcribed and plotted to the October 2024 eMAR and signed by nurses as administered at 12 midnight, 6 AM, 12 noon, and 6 PM. The above order for Contact Precaution was transcribed and plotted to the October 2024 eMAR and signed by nurses at 7-3 Day shift, 3-11 Evening shift, and 11-7 Night shift from 10/22 through 10/29/24 7-3 shift. The above order to administer humidified air was transcribed and plotted to the October 2024 electronic Treatment Administration Record (eTAR) and signed by nurses at 7-3 Day shift, 3-11 Evening shift, and 11-7 Night shift from 10/21 through 10/31/24 7-3 shift. On 10/31/24 at 8:57 AM, the surveyor interviewed the LPN. The LPN informed the surveyor that Resident #213's contact precaution for MRSA was discontinued and just forgot to remove the signs when the surveyor observed it on 10/29/24 when the RA exited the room. He further stated that the physician clarified that there was a history of MRSA and no active MRSA in the nares and trach. The LPN also stated that the order should have been an EBP and not contact precaution on 10/29/24. He further stated that still, the RA should have performed hand hygiene before exiting the resident's room. On 10/31/24 at 9:00 AM, the surveyor and the Unit Clerk (UC) entered the resident's room and both observed the resident lying on the bed with a visitor at the bedside. The resident was awake but nonverbal. The surveyor also observed the neb mask was not in use, not inside a bag, and not stored properly. The neb mask was on top of the neb machine on top of the nightstand table, and the neb mask tubing was dated 10/28/24. The resident's O2 was set at 35 FIO2 (the fraction of inspired oxygen (FiO2) is the concentration of O2 in the gas mixture) attached to a humidified bottle via trach. On 10/31/24 at 9:03 AM, the surveyor interviewed the LPN regarding Resident #213's O2 order and neb mask. The surveyor asked the LPN what was the order for O2 of the resident. The LPN checked the electronic medical records and showed: administer humidified air every shift ensure that water chamber and/or water bag are not allowed to run out of sterile water administer humidified air every shift via [name] machine at (20) degrees Celsius (4) L/minute ( )% O2 on at all times. The surveyor asked what was the 35 in the humidified bottle of the resident's O2 meant. The LPN stated that it was not in the order. The LPN further stated that the PO for O2 was incomplete, and it should have been clarified. At that same time, the LPN stated that the Respiratory Therapist (RT) comes in once a week and will be at the facility tomorrow. He further stated that he would call and verify the order with the physician. The LPN stated that the neb mask when not in use should be stored in a bag and he will notify the other shift about it that should be in a bag. On 11/04/24 at 12:05 PM, the surveyor in the presence of the survey team interviewed the Regional Infection Preventionist Nurse (RIPN) regarding the facility's standard of practice and procedure with neb mask or other respiratory care equipment and supplies in the resident's room when not in use how it should be stored. The RIPN stated that the neb mask when not in use should be inside a bag and changed weekly by the 11-7 shift nurse. She further stated that she had to verify what specific date they change it. The surveyor then notified the RIPN of the above concerns and findings about the neb mask not being stored properly for Residents#210 and #213. The RIPN stated that the neb mask when not in use should be stored inside a bag for infection control. On that same date and time, the surveyor also asked if the resident had posted a sign for contact precautions by the door and what would be the expectation for the staff and visitors to do. The RIPN stated that it was expected for visitors and staff to don (put on) PPE prior to entry room. The RIPN further stated that they should go to the nurse to verify the posted signs and instructions on what to do. She also stated that visitors and staff should perform hand hygiene prior to entering and exiting the room. The RIPN stated that for the contact precaution sign and concerns about Resident #213, the RA should have followed the posted sign to perform hand hygiene before entering and leaving the room and donned PPE. The RIPN also stated that the status of the resident should have been clarified and updated with either Contact or EBP. She further stated that RA did not put on PPE and did not perform hand hygiene while Resident #213 had an order and posted signs for contact precautions. The RIPN also stated that there was no negative adverse effect. Furthermore, the RIPN informed the surveyor that the RT came and discussed the O2 order and clarified the order. The RIPN further stated that according to the RT, the FIO2 at the time of observation had nothing to do with the resident's O2 intake and had no negative effect on the resident. At that same time, the surveyor asked the RIPN what the expectation from visitors and staff for residents on EBP would be. The RIPN stated that it was expected that PPE was required on high contact care, and best practice to do hand hygiene prior to and before exiting the room. On 11/06/24 at 11:19 AM, the survey team met with the LNHA, Director of Nursing (DON), and Regional Director of Operations (RDO). The surveyor notified the facility management of the above concerns and findings. On 11/07/24 at 11:31 AM, the survey team met with the LNHA, DON, AA, and RIPN. The DON stated that Resident #210 neb was not bagged because it was air drying. The RIPN stated that it was best practice after use to clean the mask with soap and water and put it on top of a clean paper towel, and once dry store it in the bag. The facility management acknowledged that the neb mask upon the surveyor's observation was not on a clean paper towel, it was directly placed in the resident's environment which was the nightstand table and neb machine. On that same date and time, the RIPN stated regarding Resident #213, the facility immediately corrected the concerns about O2 orders and respiratory equipment use and obtained appropriate order for the trach resident. She further stated that the facility will initiate a performance improvement plan. The RIPN further stated that the order for contact precaution of Resident #213 should have been clarified to change it to EBP, otherwise, the RA should have followed the order and posted a sign for contact precaution. A review of the facility's Nebulizer Therapy Policy with a revised dated 10/2023 that was provided by the DON revealed: Policy: It is the policy of this facility for neb treatments, once ordered, to be administered by nursing staff as directed using proper technique and standard precautions. Policy Explanation and Compliance Guidelines: 2. Care of the Equipment: g. Once completely dry, store the neb cup and the mouthpiece in a zip lock bag. A review of the facility's Transmission-Based Precautions with a revised date of 7/23/24 that was provided by the DON revealed: Policy: Definitions: TBP are group of infection prevention and control practices that are used in addition to standard precautions for residents who may be infected or colonized with infectious agents that require additional control measures to prevent transmission effectively. There are three categories of TBP: contact, droplet, and airborne. Policy Explanation and Compliance Guidelines: 3. Contact Precautions- a. Intended to prevent transmission of infectious agents including epidemiologically important microorganisms, which are spread by direct or indirect contact with the resident or the resident's environment . d. Donning PPE upon room entry and discarding before exiting the room is done to contain pathogens, especially those that have been implicated in transmission through environmental contamination . A review of the facility's Contact Precautions posted sign that was provided by the DON showed: Everyone must: Clean their hands, including before entering and when leaving the room. Providers and Staff Must also: Put on gloves before room entry. Discard gloves before room exit. Put on gown before room entry. Discard gown before room exit . A review of the facility's Enhanced Barrier Precautions Policy with a revised date of 3/07/2024 that was provided by the DON revealed: Procedure: b. Perform hand hygiene before entering and when leaving the room. A review of the facility's Tracheostomy Care with a revision date of 9/2024 that was provided by the DON showed: Policy: The facility will ensure that residents who need respiratory care, including tracheostomy care and tracheal suctioning, are provided such care consistent with professional standards of practice, the comprehensive person-centered care plan, and resident goals and preferences. Policy Explanation and Compliance Guidelines: 4. Based upon the resident assessment, attending PO, and professional standards of practice, the facility collaboration with the resident/resident's representative will develop CP that includes appropriate interventions for respiratory care. On 11/07/24 at 01:29 PM, the survey team met with the LNHA, DON, RDO, Regional Clinical Operations, and AA for the Exit Conference, and facility management did not provide any additional information. NJAC 8:39-11.2(a)(b); 19.4(a); 27.1(a)
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0725 (Tag F0725)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on observation, interview, record review, and review of pertinent facility documentation, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure a.) sufficient nursing staff and b.) incontinence c...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, interview, record review, and review of pertinent facility documentation, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure a.) sufficient nursing staff and b.) incontinence care was provided for two (2) of two (2) residents (Residents #67 and #214) in a timely manner, during the incontinence tour. This deficient practice was evidenced by the following: 1. On 10/29/24 at 9:04 AM, the survey team entered the facility and met with the Receptionist. The surveyor observed a posted Nursing Home Resident Care Staffing Report (NHRCSR) dated 10/29/24 Day Shift, 7:00 AM-3:00 PM (7-3), current Census 158, total of 13 CNAs, and staff to resident ratio of 1 CNA:12.2 Residents. On 10/29/24 at 10:21 AM, the surveyor observed Resident #140 lying on the bed with the responsible party (RP) at the bedside. The RP informed the surveyor that there were no care issues except that the facility was short of staff. The RP stated that yesterday morning, only one Certified Nursing Aide (CNA) worked in the unit (Penthouse) for a total of 18 residents. The RP further stated that it had been a struggle at the facility especially on the weekends. A review of the provided nursing schedule for 10/28/24 revealed census 158, Penthouse unit 18 residents, and one CNA. On 10/30/24 at 8:25 AM, the Receptionist provided a copy of the NHRCSR's census and staff-to-resident ratio, and revealed the following: -NHRCSR 10/26/24 (Saturday) 7-3 Day Shift: census 159, 1 RN:32.6 Residents, 1 LPN:30.3 Residents, 1 CNA:15.9 Residents -NHRCSR 10/26/24 (Saturday) 3:00 PM-11:00 PM (3-11) Evening Shift: census 159, 1 RN:24 Residents, 1 LPN:36.9 Residents, 1 CNA:19.9 Residents -NHRCSR 10/26/24 (Saturday) 11:00 PM-7:00 AM (11-7) Night Shift: census 159, 1 RN:66.9 Residents, 1 LPN:37.4 Residents, 1 CNA:22.7 Residents -NHRCSR 10/27/24 (Sunday) Day Shift: census 159, 1 RN:33 Residents, 1 LPN:37.4 Residents, 1 CNA:19.9 Residents -NHRCSR 10/27/24 (Sunday) Evening Shift: census 159, 1 RN:37.4 Residents, 1 LPN:30.3 Residents, 1 CNA:22.7 Residents -NHRCSR 10/27/24 (Sunday) Nigh Shift: census 159, 1 RN:70.7 Residents, 1 LPN:36.9 Residents, 1 CNA:22.7 Residents On 11/04/24 at 6:26 AM, the surveyor entered the facility in the presence of Registered Nurse #1 (RN#1). There was no receptionist at the desk. The surveyor observed the posted NHRCSR dated 11/03/24 with the census of 158 and revealed the following information: -Night Shift, 11-7 shift, -Staff Category: RN, #of Staff: 3, Start & End Times: 11 PM-7 AM, Staff to Resident Ratio: 1 RN:47.7 Residents -Staff Category: LPN, #of Staff: 3, Start & End Times: 11 PM-7 AM, Staff to Resident Ratio: 1 LPN:48.6 Residents - Staff Category: CNA, #of Staff: 6, Start & End Times: 11 PM-7 AM, Staff to Resident Ratio: CNAS:26.3 Residents On 11/04/24 at 6:30 AM, the surveyor met with the RN Supervisor (RNS) from the 11-7 shift in the 1 South unit. The RNS informed the surveyor that the census from midnight was 161 and stated the following: -1 West=census 18 with 1 LPN and 1 CNA -2 North=census 47 with 1 nurse and 1CNA -2 South=census 37 with 1 LPN and 1CNA -1 South=census 40 with 1 nurse and 1CNA -Penthouse=census 18 with 1 RN and 1CNA A review of the facility's assignments of the CNAs by unit that was provided by the DON showed: -11/03/24 Sunday total census of 161 -11-7 Penthouse=1 CNA and 1 LPN On 11/04/24 at 6:55 AM, the surveyor interviewed LPN#1 from 1 South in the nursing station. The LPN informed the surveyor that she was the assigned nurse at 1 South for the 11-7 shift last night (Sunday), and confirmed that there was one nurse and 1 CNA (CNA#1). The LPN stated that usually there were 2-3 CNAs at the 11-7 shift. The LPN stated that for the last three months probably 3x it happened that only one CNA worked for the 11-7 shift. She further stated that it usually happened during weekends but not on weekdays. On 11/04/24 at 7:35 AM, the surveyor interviewed LPN#2 from 1 West. LPN#2 informed the surveyor that he was the 11-7 nurse last night (Sunday, 11/03/24). The LPN stated that the 1 [NAME] census was 18, one nurse (himself) and one CNA (CNA#2). The LPN further stated that was the usual staffing at 1 West, one nurse and one CNA. 2. On 11/04/24 at 6:42 AM, the surveyor and the RNS went to Resident # 67's room, with the door closed. There was a strong smell of urine outside the door. The surveyor asked the RNS and she confirmed that there was a smell of urine. Upon entry to the room, CNA#1 was inside the room providing morning (am) care to Resident #67. The surveyor asked the RNS to check the used diaper of the resident and the incontinence pad. The RNS, inside the resident's toilet room, showed the surveyor two soaked and wet diapers (yellow), a white bedsheet, and a blue chuck (cloth type) soaked and wet urine. The surveyor asked the RNS if the resident should have a double diaper and the RNS responded that they were not allowed to wear double diapers and CNA should not do that. The RNS confirmed that the double diaper and incontinence pads (sheet and the blue chuck) were soaking wet. During an interview with CNA#1, the CNA confirmed that she was the only CNA for the 11-7 shift. The CNA was unable to further talk to the surveyor because she had to finish the am care. Outside the resident's room, the surveyor interviewed the RNS. The RNS stated that the resident was cognitively impaired and incontinent of both bladder & bowel elimination. She further stated that the resident should not have double diaper. The RNS had no answer when asked by the surveyor why Resident #67 was soaking wet. On 11/04/24 at 6:50 AM, the surveyor and the RNS went to Resident #214's room and observed CNA#3 almost finish with am care with the resident. The surveyor asked the RNS and the CNA where the used diaper of the resident was. The RNS showed the surveyor the used diaper and the diaper was soaking wet with urine. The surveyor asked the RNS about the diaper and the RNS acknowledged that the diaper was soaking wet. At that time, the surveyor interviewed CNA#3. The CNA stated that she was the only CNA in the unit for the 11 PM-7 AM shift and had all residents in their assignment. CNA#3 was unable to state how many total residents. The surveyor asked how many times she had to change residents in the unit, and she stated that she should change them at least 2x in a shift. She further stated that she started the 1st round of incontinence care at 11:15 PM and then the next round at 3:45 AM and that she needed to start early in order to finish all residents. The CNA acknowledged it was hard for one CNA for the entire unit. Outside the resident's room, the surveyor interviewed the RNS. The RNS informed the surveyor that Resident #46 and Resident #214 were both cognitively impaired and incontinent. She further stated that Resident #214 was recently admitted maybe 2 or 3 weeks ago. The RNS informed the surveyor that there was a total of 37 residents in 2 South unit with 1 LPN and 1 CNA, and CNA#3 had all 37 residents in her assignment. The surveyor asked for a copy of the schedule for 11 PM-7 AM and the assignment and she stated that she will get back to the surveyor. On 11/06/24 at 11:19 AM, the survey team met with the Licensed Nursing Home Administrator (LNHA), Director of Nursing (DON), and Regional Director of Operations (RDO). The surveyor notified the facility management of the above concerns with staffing and concerns with the incontinence care tour that Residents#67 and #214 were soaking wet. On 11/07/24 at 11:31 AM, the survey team met with the LNHA, DON, Assistant Administrator (AA), and the Regional Infection Preventionist Nurse (RIPN). The DON stated that the residents should not be soaking wet. A review of the facility's Incontinence Policy with a revised date of 8/2023 that was provided by the DON revealed: Policy: Based on the resident's comprehensive assessment, all residents who are incontinent will receive appropriate treatment and services. Policy Explanation and Compliance Guidelines: 4. Residents that are incontinent of bladder or bowel will receive appropriate treatment to prevent infections and to restore continence to the extent possible. On 11/07/24 at 01:29 PM, the survey team met with the LNHA, DON, RDO, RCO, and AA for the Exit conference. The facility did not provide additional information and did not refute the findings. NJAC 8:39-25.2(a,b)
CONCERN (D)

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

Staffing Information (Tag F0732)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on observation, interview, and review of pertinent facility documentation, it was determined that the facility failed to post the accurate Nursing Home Resident Care Staffing Report daily for th...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, interview, and review of pertinent facility documentation, it was determined that the facility failed to post the accurate Nursing Home Resident Care Staffing Report daily for three (3) of seven (7) days. This failure could affect the knowledge of the availability of staff to care for the residents, resident representative, and visitors. This deficient practice was evidenced by the following: On 10/29/24 at 9:04 AM, the survey team entered the facility and met with the Receptionist who instructed surveyors to use the stand-alone thermometer and fill out the paper for COVID screening. The surveyor observed a posted Nursing Home Resident Care Staffing Report (NHRCSR) dated 10/29/24 Day Shift, 7 AM-3 PM, current census of 158 that included 13 CNAs (Certified Nursing Aides) with staff to resident ratio of 1 CNA:12.2 Residents. On 10/29/24 at 9:20 AM, the Registered Nurse Supervisor (RNS) informed the surveyor in the presence of the survey team that the census (total number of residents) was 156. On 10/30/24 at 8:17 AM, the surveyor entered the facility and met with the Receptionist who provided a copy of the NHRCSR dated 10/30/24. The NHRCSR dated 10/30/24 census was 158 and revealed the following information: -Day Shift 7 AM-3 PM -1 RN (Registered Nurse):26.9 Residents, -1 LPN (Licensed Practical Nurse):17.7 Residents, -11 CNA, 1 CNA:14.4 Residents. On 10/30/24 at 12:18 PM, the surveyor interviewed the Licensed Nursing Home Administrator (LNHA) in the presence of another surveyor regarding staffing. The surveyor verified and asked the LNHA what the asterisk meant in the schedule that was previously provided to the surveyor. The surveyor showed the schedule dated 10/29/24. The LNHA stated the asterisk meant that they were noncertified nursing aides (NA). On that same date and time, the surveyor asked the LNHA why there was a discrepancy with the submitted Nursing schedule for 10/29/24 for a total of 11 CNAs, and on the posted NHRCSR it showed that there were 13 CNAs in the 7-3 Day shift on 10/29/24. The LNHA counted the CNAs and the NAs in the schedule for 10/29/24. The LNHA stated that two NAs equals one CNA. The surveyor then asked the LNHA, if two NAs equal one CNA, it was not accurate for the 13 CNAs because the schedule had a total of seven NAs for the 7 AM-3 PM shift. At that same time, the surveyor asked the LNHA why there was a discrepancy on the census list provided during entrance conference and what was posted on 10/29/24 NHRCSR. The LNHA had no answer. Furthermore, the surveyor asked the LNHA who was responsible for posting the NHRCSR, and he said it was the Staffing Coordinator (SC). On 10/30/24 at 12:34 PM, the surveyor interviewed the SC in the presence of the two surveyors, and the Regional Clinical Operation (RCO). The SC informed the surveyor that she was covering for the full-time SC for almost two weeks. She further stated that she was also a Unit Clerk (UC). The UC stated that the full-time SC was on vacation since 10/11/24 and will be back in December. On that same date and time, the surveyor asked the UC what the facility's process with regard to NHRCSR was. The UC informed the surveyor that when she comes in at 8 AM, go online to check payroll to determine who clocked in, goes to the NHRCSR site, and puts the numbers according to the clocked-in of the staff. She stated that for example, for 10/30/24 today, the UC will review the 10/29/24 punches (time in and out of staff), and then estimate from 10/29/24 information the information that will be entered for 10/30/24 for census and staff that was why the census and number of staff did not match when the surveyor observed the posted NHRCSR on 10/29/24 because those information were from the day before. At that time, the RCO stated that to the UC that was not how it should be done. The RCO acknowledged that the posted NHRCSR should be accurate and not estimated. The surveyor asked the UC how she came up with 13 CNAs for 10/29/24 for the Day shift. The UC stated that according to what was explained to her by the full-time SC before, she counted NAs (the one with an asterisk while checking the paper for 10/29/24), and two NAs equal one CNA. The RCO also stated that it was not correct to count two NAs equal to one CNA, and that education would be provided to the UC. A review of the provided Nursing schedule of the LNHA on 10/29/24 at 12:10 PM revealed: -Week 2, Tuesday, 10/29/24: total of 11 CNAs A review of the provided Nursing schedule of the LNHA on 10/30/24 at 02:02 PM revealed: -Week 2, Wednesday, 10/30/24: total of 9 CNAs A review of the provided alphabetical list and census list of the LNHA on 10/29/24 at 10:20 AM showed a total census of 156 from midnight census. A review of the provided alphabetical list and census list of the LNHA on 10/31/24 at 9:55 AM showed a total census of 158 from midnight census. On 11/04/24 at 6:26 AM, the surveyor entered the facility in the presence of the Registered Nurse (RN). There was no Receptionist at the desk. The surveyor observed the posted NHRCSR dated 11/03/24 with the census of 158 and revealed the following information: -Night Shift, 11-7 shift, -Staff Category: RN, #of Staff: 3, Start & End Times: 11 PM-7 AM, Staff to Resident Ratio: 1 RN:47.7 Residents -Staff Category: LPN, #of Staff: 3, Start & End Times: 11 PM-7 AM, Staff to Resident Ratio: 1 LPN:48.6 Residents - Staff Category: CNA, #of Staff: 6, Start & End Times: 11 PM-7 AM, Staff to Resident Ratio: 1 CNA:26.3 Residents On 11/04/24 at 6:30 AM, the surveyor met with the RNS from the 11-7 shift in the 1 South unit. The RNS informed the surveyor that the census from midnight was 161 and stated the following: -1 West=census 18 with 1 LPN and 1 CNA -2 North=census 47 with 1 nurse and 1 CNA -2 South=census 37 with 1 LPN and 1 CNA -1 South=census 40 with 1 nurse and 1CNA -Penthouse=census 18 with 1 RN and 1 CNA A review of the facility's assignments of the CNAs by unit that was provided by the DON showed: -11/03/24 Sunday total census of 161 -11-7 Penthouse=1 CNA and 1 LPN -11-7 1 West=1 CNA and 1 RN -11-7 1 South=1 CNA and 1 LPN -11-7 2 South=1 CNA and 1 LPN -11-7 2 North=1 CNA and 1 RN On 11/06/24 at 11:19 AM, the survey team met with the LNHA, Director of Nursing (DON), and Regional Director of Operations (RDO). The surveyor notified the facility management of the above concerns with the posted NHRCSR discrepancies on 10/29, 10/30, and 11/03/24. On 11/07/24 at 9:29 AM, the DON provided a copy of the NHRCSR and stated that the top portion of the form which showed Notice to Consumer was what the facility followed for posting Nurse Staffing report and there was no other policy. A review of the Notice to Consumer from the NHRCSR revealed: P.L. 2005 c. 21, $1, 2 and 3 (the Act), approved on January 24, 2005, codified at N.J.S.A 26L2H-5f, 5g, and 5h, required long-term care facilities, commonly known as nursing homes, licensed in accordance with the Health care Facilities Planning Act, N.J.S A 26:2H-1 et seq., to post and make available to the public direct resident care staffing levels within the facilities and to report staffing level information to the Department. This information shall be displayed in a place where residents and the general public can easily view it. On 11/07/24 at 11:31 AM, the survey team met with the LNHA, DON, Assistant Administrator (AA), and the Regional Infection Preventionist Nurse (RIPN). The DON stated that the facility followed the guidelines in posting the NHRCSR that was previously provided and explained to the surveyor. The surveyor asked the facility management should the posted NHRCSR be accurate. The DON stated that it depends, and it changes, but updated daily by SC (also known as the UC). The DON further stated that on Friday the UC does the prediction and if there was a call out then she communicated to the supervisor and the supervisor should update the staffing the same day. On 11/07/24 at 01:29 PM, the survey team met with the LNHA, DON, RDO, RCO, and AA for the Exit conference. The facility did not provide additional information and did not refute the findings. N.J.A.C. 8:39-41.2 (a)(b)(c)(d)
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, record review, and review of other facility documentation, it was determined that the facility ...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview, record review, and review of other facility documentation, it was determined that the facility failed to administer the medication to Resident #45 due to unavailability of the medication. The deficient practice was identified for one (1) of four (4) residents (Resident #45) observed during medication administration. The Resident did not received medication for mood disorder at the prescribed time. The deficient practice was evidenced by the following: On 11/04/24 at 7:50 AM, the surveyor observed the Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) prepared medication (med) of Resident #45. The LPN was unable to administer the med Seroquel 12.5 mg (milligram) to the Resident due to unavailability. The LPN acknowledged that the Seroquel 12.5 mg was not available in the med cart. The LPN informed the surveyor that she would call the pharmacy to deliver the med as soon as possible (ASAP). The surveyor reviewed the medical record of Resident #45. The admission Record revealed that the resident was admitted to the facility and had a diagnoses of Alzheimer's Disease (condition that causes a gradual decline in cognitive abilities, such as thinking, remembering, and reasoning.) The quarterly Minimum Data Sets (MDS) dated [DATE] revealed a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of 07 out of 15 which indicated that the resident's cognitive status was severely impaired. A review of the November 2024 electronic Medication Administration Record (eMAR) revealed that Seroquel 12.5 mg at 9:00 AM was not administered as scheduled on 11/04/24. Further review of the November 2024 eMAR revealed that the Seroquel was administered at 01:39 PM on 11/04/24. A physician order (PO) dated 11/04/24 revealed an order to administer the Seroquel 12.5 mg when the med becomes available. A review of the med delivery receipt copy revealed that the last med delivery for Seroquel 12.5 mg was on 10/24/24. On 11/06/24 at 11:30 AM, the surveyor notified the Director of Nursing (DON), the Licensed Nursing Home Administrator (LNHA), and the Regional Director of Operations (RDO) of the above concern that the Seroquel 12.5 mg med was not available for Resident #45 during med administration observation. NJAC 8:39-29.6
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0757 (Tag F0757)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on observation, interview, record review, and review of facility documentation, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure that the resident did not receive an unnecessary medication f...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, interview, record review, and review of facility documentation, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure that the resident did not receive an unnecessary medication for one (1) of five (5) residents reviewed, (Resident #73). The deficient practice was evidenced by the following: The surveyor reviewed Resident #73's electronic medical record (EMR) which revealed the following: Resident #73's admission Record (an admission summary) reflected that the resident was admitted to the facility with diagnoses which included but were not limited to chronic kidney disease, (when the kidneys are damaged and can't filter blood the way they should) and urinary tract infection. Resident #73's most recent comprehensive Minimum Data Set (MDS), an assessment tool used to facilitate the management of care, dated 10/15/24, reflected that the resident had a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS), a tool used to screen and identify cognitive condition, score of 0 out of 15, which indicated that Resident #73 was severely cognitively impaired. The resident's list of medications reflected a Physician's order (PO) for Vancomycin Oral Suspension, 50 mg/ml (milligram/milliliter), give 2.5 ml by mouth four times a day for c-diff (inflammation of the colon caused by the bacteria Clostridium difficile). Originally ordered for a duration of ten (10) days that was started on 10/09/24. The list also revealed an order for Cefadroxil 500 mg (an antibiotic) that was given twice a day between the dates of 9/25/24 through 10/01/24. A review of the manufacturer indications for Vancomycin (an antibiotic used treat infections) revealed that when used orally, Vancomycin can be used to treat an intestinal infection caused by a bacteria called Clostridium (c-diff). The resident's EMR revealed a lab (laboratory) test result for C.DIFF TOXINS dated 10/11/24 that reflected a result of NEGATIVE. The resident's progress notes revealed that there were no documented evidence of the justification of continued use of the antibiotic Vancomycin. A physician progress note dated 10/08/24 at 12:43 PM marked as late entry with a created date of 11/06/24 at 12:51 PM, created and entered after surveyor inquiry, that reflected I was informed by the nurses that the patient is having bloody diarrhea, with mucos. patient was on PO antibiotics post laceration, labs showed leukocytosis on 10/6. C diff is suspected, will start vancomycin, patient at risk of bowel perforation if not treated. discuss with his family and the nursing staff, patient had bloody mucous discharge, will follow up labs vancomycin 125 mg q (every) 6 hours for 10 days. encourage fluid intake. A physician progress note dated 10/12/24 at 8:04 AM marked as late entry with a created date of 11/07/24 at 8:12 AM and entered after surveyor's inquiry that reflected follow up note. patient with po antibiotics for one week for hands wounds, presented with diarrhea and leukocytosis and bloody mucos stool there was difficulty in collecting the stool , because its is absorbed in the diaper. specimen was collected from the diaper four days after starting the vancomycin, will continue with vancomycin since the bloody stool stopped, no more diarrhea, patient leukocytosis improved. patient mental status improved. patient was on po antibiotics bloody mucos diarrhea worsening of mental status leukocytosis collection technique was from the diaper 4 days after starting treatment. risk of delaying the treatment outweigh the benefit. The surveyor reviewed the facility Antibiotic Stewardship Binder. The binder revealed a tracking sheet with the resident's name. The tracking sheet reflected documentation under the resident's name of Presumptive CDiff, LABS NEGATIVE TO CDIFF and the order for Vancomycin. The binder also revealed an Infection Surveillance Checklist. The checklist revealed, under Table 5, a written note that reflected negative labs and awaiting on physician's response, and a checked box that reflected Diarrhea: > 3 liquid or watery stools above what is normal for the resident within 24h (hour). On 11/06/24 at 12:12 PM, the surveyor interviewed the Regional Infection Preventionist Nurse (RIPN). The RIPN stated that the physician should document justification of use of antibiotics and follow up should occur to de-escalate or continue the antibiotic. She also stated that the antibiotic stewardship surveillance form or progress form should contain follow up for justification of use of the antibiotic with negative test result. The physician should document the reason for continuing or the nurse should document reason given by the physician for continuing the antibiotic. On 11/06/24 at 01:36 PM the surveyor interviewed the RIPN. The RIPN showed the surveyor a paper copy of the lab results with a note that matches a note in the resident's EMR that nurse called the physician and the physician stated to continue the Vancomycin. No reason was observed on the copy that was shown to the surveyor. The RIPN stated that the physician has put in the resident's EMR a LATE ENTRY documentation. The RIPN agreed that this documentation was after the surveyor's inquiry. A review of the facility's Antibiotic Stewardship Program Policy, dated 9/2022 revealed: Policy reflected under #4. Line v. All prescriptions for antibiotics shall specify the dose, duration, and indication for use. Line vi. Reassessment of empiric antibiotics is conducted after 2-3 days for appropriateness and necessity, factoring in results of diagnostic test, laboratory reports, and/or changes in the clinical status of the resident. On 11/07/24 at 01:07 PM, the survey team met with the Licensed Nursing Home Administrator (LNHA). The LNHA stated there was no further information to be provided. N.J.A.C. 8:39-27.1(a)
CONCERN (E)

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

Abuse Prevention Policies (Tag F0607)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

Based on interview and review of pertinent documentation provided by the facility, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure reference checks were completed for five (5) out of eight (8) ne...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on interview and review of pertinent documentation provided by the facility, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure reference checks were completed for five (5) out of eight (8) newly hired staff prior to their start date of employment. This deficient practice was evidenced by the following: The surveyor reviewed eight randomly selected new employee files. The review for reference checks for five of the eight new employees revealed the following: -Staff #1's file, a Registered Nurse (RN) who was hired on 5/27/24, revealed only 1 reference check in their file. -Staff #2's file, a RN who was hired on 9/10/24, revealed only 1 reference check in their file. - Staff #3's file, a Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA) who was hired on 10/30/23, revealed no reference checks in their file. - Staff #4's file, a CNA, who was hired on 10/16/23, revealed no reference checks in their file. - Staff #5's file, a CNA, who was hired on 10/16/23, revealed no reference checks in their file. On 11/06/24 at 01:21 PM, the surveyor interviewed the Human Resources Regional Director (HRRD) who stated if the facility was unable to reach the provided reference in the staff's file, they would ask the staff to provide another reference person. The HRRD also stated if the newly hired employee had no work history, they would require a personal reference as part of the background check. On 11/07/24 at 11:15 AM, the HRRD confirmed to the surveyor that the 5 newly hired staff did not have a reference background check completed. On 11/07/24 at 12:39 PM, the surveyor informed the Licensed Nursing Home Administrator, Director of Nursing, and Infection Preventionist regarding the above concern. There was no additional information provided by the facility. The surveyor reviewed the undated facility's policy titled New Hire Process revealed, NOTE: **Some New Hires will be urgent, the below MUST be done in this order and communication MUST be strong, otherwise no credentials will be created**. Further review of the policy revealed under the 3rd step, HR (Human Resources) to complete the below: Once Application and Applicant safe form is cleared: .send reference form. N.J.A.C. 8:39-9.3 (a), (b)
CONCERN (E)

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

Deficiency F0658 (Tag F0658)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

6. On 10/29/24 at 10:25 AM, the surveyor observed Resident #144 lying in bed, awake, alert and not verbally responsive to surveyor's greeting. The surveyor observed a med cup filled with a mixture of ...

Read full inspector narrative →
6. On 10/29/24 at 10:25 AM, the surveyor observed Resident #144 lying in bed, awake, alert and not verbally responsive to surveyor's greeting. The surveyor observed a med cup filled with a mixture of meds and apple sauce on the overbed table. The Resident's Representative (RR) stated that they were the one who would give the meds to the resident. On 10/29/24 at 10:30 AM, the surveyor interviewed LPN #3 who was assigned to care for Resident #144. The LPN acknowledged that he left the meds for 9 AM scheduled meds mixed in the cup with applesauce on the Resident's overbed table. The LPN stated that the RR would give the meds to the resident. The surveyor asked what meds were on the cup. The LPN showed the surveyor the eMAR which included the following meds that were in the cup: Lexapro 10 mg (antidepressant), Acetaminophen 500 mg 2 tabs (pain med) and Memantine 10 mg (med for Dementia). The surveyor and LPN#3 went to the resident's room. The surveyor observed the RR administered the meds in the cup with applesauce to the resident under the supervision of the LPN after surveyor's inquiry. On 10/29/24 at 10:40 AM, the surveyor interviewed the RN/UM about med administration protocols. The surveyor notified the RN/UM of the above observation of meds left at the bedside of Resident #144. The RN/UM stated a RR needed to be assessed for the capability of administering meds to a resident and it should be care planned. The RN/UM further stated meds must be given an hour or an hour after the med was scheduled to be given. The surveyor and the RN/UM went to speak with LPN #3. The LPN confirmed to the RN/UM that the med was left at the bedside. The RN/UM educated LPN #3 about not leaving meds at bedside and ensuring meds were administered timely as per PO. On 11/04/24 at 11:05 AM, the surveyor reviewed the hybrid medical records of Resident #144. The AR revealed that Resident #144 was admitted to the facility and had diagnoses that included but were not limited to, atrial fibrillation and dementia (condition that causes a gradual decline in cognitive abilities, such as thinking, remembering, and reasoning). The cMDS with an ARD of 9/14/24 revealed the facility assessed the resident's cognition using a BIMS test. Resident #144 scored a 99, which indicated the resident was unable to complete the interview. The OSR included a PO dated 10/29/24 which indicated, may combine all crushable meds (according to manufacturer's guidelines) at one time mixed in (applesauce, pudding, etc.) every shift. A care plan (CP), initiated on 10/29/24 revealed that Resident #144's RR preferred to give meds after meals. There was no documented evidence that resident had a CP that the RR will administer meds. On 11/06/24 at 11:30 AM, the surveyor notified the DON, the LNHA, and RDO about the above concerns. On 11/07/24 at 11:50 AM, the DON, LNHA, and RIPN met with the survey team. The DON stated that family was educated not to give meds and that in-service education was conducted regarding med administration. A review of the facility's Medication Administration Policy with a revision date of 9/2023 that was provided by the RIPN revealed: Policy: Meds are administered by licensed nurses, or other staff who are legally authorized to do so in this state, as ordered by the physician and in accordance with professional standards of practice, in a manner to prevent contamination or infection. Policy Explanation and Compliance Guidelines: 8. Obtain and record vital signs, when applicable or per PO. When applicable, hold med for those vital signs outside the physician's prescribed parameters . 10. Review MAR to identify med to be administered . 15. Observe resident consumption of med . On 11/07/24 at 01:29 PM, the survey team met with the LNHA, DON, RDO, Regional Clinical Operations, and AA for the Exit Conference, and facility management did not provide any additional information and did not refute the findings. NJAC 8:39-11.2(b), 27.1 (a), 29.2(d) 3. On 10/30/24 at 12:23 PM, the surveyor observed Resident #117 eating lunch in the dining room. The surveyor reviewed Resident #117's hybrid medical records that revealed the following: The AR reflected that the resident was admitted to the facility with diagnoses that included Dementia, depression, hypertension, and DM. The qMDS with an ARD of 9/15/24, reflected that Resident #117 had a BIMS score of 00 out of 15, which indicated that the resident's cognition was severely impaired. A review of the Order Summary Report (OSR) reflected that Resident #117 had an active PO dated 9/21/24 for a med: Midodrine HCL (hydrocholoride) Oral Tab 5 mg- Give 1 tab by mouth three times a day for low BP HOLD for SBP [systolic BP] greater than 140 with a start date of 9/22/24. The corresponding PO was transcribed into the September 2024 through November 2024 eMAR. Further review of the September - November 2024 eMARs for Resident #117 revealed that nurses signed and reflected a checkmark which means that the med was administered when the med should have been held for a SBP that was greater than 140 according to the PO, for the following dates and times: Date Time SBP 9/22 9 AM 145/76 9/24 1:00 PM (1 PM) 153/85 10/2 5 PM 146/84 10/10 5 PM 146/84 10/12 5 PM 146/78 10/18 5 PM 145/84 10/29 5 PM 145/84 11/1 5 PM 146/84 During an interview with the surveyor on 11/06/24 at 10:06 AM, Registered Nurse #1 (RN#1) stated that the Midodrine was for hypotension (for low BP) and if the BP was higher than 140, then we would not give the med. RN#1 further stated that after 30 minutes, she would re-check BP and if the BP was high (greater than 140) then she would hold the med and notify the physician. During an interview with the surveyor on 11/06/24 at 10:14 AM, Licensed Practical Nurse/Unit Manager (LPN/UM) stated that we would hold the med if SBP was outside the parameters and notify the doctor. The LPN/UM further stated if the med was given for SBP > 140 (greater than 140), then she would notify the physician and DON. The surveyor informed the LPN/UM of the above concerns. The LPN/UM acknowledged that it was considered a med error. On 11/06/24 at 11:19 AM, the surveyor discussed the above concerns with the LNHA, DON and RDO of the above concerns. The DON stated that the expectation from the nurses was to follow the protocol and the med should have held when the SBP was outside the parameters. A review of the facility provided Job Descriptions for Position Title: Registered Nurse and Licensed Practical Nurse reflected under Responsibilities/Accountabilities: *Dispenses med and performs treatments, as requested, and in accordance with policies and procedures; * Adhere to all facility policies and procedures. On 11/07/24 at 11:32 AM, the survey team met with the LNHA, DON, Regional Infection Preventionist Nurse (RIPN), and Regional Administrator. The DON stated that the nurses should check and follow the parameters before administering the BP meds. The DON acknowledged that it was a med error. On 11/07/24 at 01:30 PM, the survey team met with LNHA, DON, RIPN, RDO, Regional Administrator for an exit conference. The facility did not refute the findings. Based on observation, interview, record review, and review of other pertinent facility provided documentation, it was determined that the facility failed to a.) follow the physician orders with regard to medications (meds) with parameters for five (5) of five (5) residents (Residents #28, #117, #131, #140, and #142) and b.) ensuring meds administered to a resident were not left at the bedside for one (1) of 38 residents (Resident #144 ), according to the standard of clinical practice. 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 registered professional nurse is defined as diagnosing and treating human responses to actual and potential physical and emotional health problems, through such services as case-finding, health teaching, health counseling, and provision of care supportive to or restorative of life and wellbeing, and executing medical regimens as prescribed by a licensed or otherwise legally authorized physician or dentist. Reference: New Jersey Statutes Annotated, Title 45, Chapter 11. Nursing Board. The Nurse Practice Act for the State of New Jersey states: The practice of nursing as a licensed practical nurse is defined as performing tasks and responsibilities within the framework of case finding; reinforcing the patient and family teaching program through health teaching, health counseling, and provision of supportive and restorative care, under the direction of a registered nurse or licensed or otherwise legally authorized physician or dentist. 1. On 10/31/24 at 9:45 AM, the surveyor reviewed the hybrid (electronic and paper) medical records of Resident #28. The admission Record (AR; admission summary) revealed that Resident #28 had diagnoses that included but were not limited to, End stage renal [Kidney] disease, hyperlipidemia (high levels of fats in the blood), and atherosclerotic heart disease (a disease that occurs with the buildup of fats, cholesterol and other substances in and on the heart's arteries, which may lead to chest pain, shortness of breath and heart attacks). A quarterly Minimum Data Set (qMDS) an assessment tool used to facilitate management of care, with an Assessment Reference Date (ARD) of 9/22/24, indicated the facility assessed the resident's cognition using a Brief Interview Mental Status (BIMS) test. Resident #28 scored a 12 out of 15, which indicated the resident had moderate cognitive impairment. A physician's order (PO) dated 9/28/24 documented hydralazine oral tablet (tab) 50 mg (milligram), give 1(one) tab by mouth two times a day every Monday, Wednesday, Friday, and Sunday for hypertension (high blood pressure) Hold if BP < 140 [Blood Pressure less than 140]. The medication (med) was scheduled to be administered at 9:00 AM (9 AM) and 5:00 PM (5 PM). A PO dated 9/28/24 documented hydralazine oral tab 50 mg, give 1 (one) tab by mouth two times a day every Tuesday, Thursday, and Saturday for hypertension Hold if BP < 140. The med was scheduled to be administered at 5:00 AM (5 AM) and 5 PM. A review of the October 2024 electronic Medication Administration Record (eMAR) revealed the nurses signed the hydralazine med as administered on 10/07/24 at 9 AM and 5 PM, 10/13/24 at 9 AM and 5 PM, and 10/27/24 at 9 AM. For these identified entries the BP was documented to be less than 140 and the hydralazine medication should have been held per the PO. On 10/31/24 at 10:19 AM, the surveyor interviewed Licensed Practical Nurse #1 (LPN#1) about the administration of meds with parameters. LPN #1 stated the vital signs, such as BP, would be checked first and the med's parameters should be followed as ordered by the physician. The surveyor reviewed with LPN #1 the hydralazine order entries in the October 2024 eMAR and the identified entries for the med administered outside of the orders' parameters. LPN #1 stated the med should not have been given as the med should have held per PO. On 10/31/24 at 01:13 PM, the surveyor interviewed the Registered Nurse Unit Manager (RN/UM) about the administration of meds with parameters. RN/UM stated if a med's parameters related to BP, the nurse would check the BP prior to administering the med and would hold the med according to the PO. RN/UM further explained it was expected that the nurses followed the PO. The surveyor reviewed with the RN/UM the identified hydralazine entries that were administered outside of the order parameters on the October 2024 eMAR. The RN/UM acknowledged the med should have been held by nurses according to the PO. 2. On 11/06/24 at 9:03 AM, the surveyor reviewed the hybrid medical records of Resident #131. The AR revealed that Resident #131 had diagnoses that included but were not limited to, Atherosclerotic heart disease, hypertension (high blood pressure), and type 2 diabetes mellitus (DM). A qMDS with an ARD of 8/08/24, indicated the facility assessed the resident's cognition using a BIMS test. Resident #131 scored a 13 out of 15, which indicated the resident was cognitively intact. A PO dated 9/10/24 documented Humalog Kwik pen subcutaneous solution pen-injector 100 Units/milliliters (Units/ml), inject 3 units subcutaneously before meals for DM three times a day before meals. Hold for glucose (blood sugar) below 110. The med was scheduled to be administered at 7:30 AM, 11:30 AM and 4:30 PM. A review of the October 2024 eMAR revealed the nurses signed the Humalog medication as administered when the blood sugar (BS) was less than 110 on the following entries: -On 10/02/24 at 4:30 PM with a documented BS of 87. -On 10/05/24 at 7:30 AM with a documented BS of 103. -On 10/14/24 at 7:30 AM with a documented BS of 95. -On 10/15/24 at 7:30 AM with a documented BS of 85. -On 10/17/24 at 11:30 AM with a documented BS of 103. -On 10/27/24 at 11:30 AM with a documented BS of 84. On 11/06/24 at 9:40 AM, the surveyor reviewed with the RN/UM the humalog entry on the October 2024 eMAR of Resident #131. The RN/UM acknowledged the PO were not being followed and stated when the BS was less than 110 the med should have been held. On 11/06/24 at 11:19 AM, the surveyor notified the Licensed Nursing Home Administrator (LNHA), the Director of Nursing (DON) and the Regional Director of Operations (RDO) of the concerns that the PO for the identified meds with parameters for Resident #28 and Resident #131 were not being followed. The DON acknowledged it was expected for the nurses to follow the PO. On 11/07/24 at 11:31 AM, the LNHA, the DON, and a regional LNHA met with the survey team. The DON stated the nurses received disciplinary action and education on the importance of following med parameters as ordered by the physician. There was no additional information provided by the facility. 4. On 10/29/24 at 10:21 AM, the surveyor observed posted signs outside Resident # 140's room for oxygen (O2) in use, EBP (enhanced barrier precautions), and PPE (personal protective equipment) box hung outside the door. The resident was lying in bed with a nasal cannula (a device that delivers extra O2 through a tube and into the nose) and O2 at 2LPM (liters per minute) attached to the concentrator (a device for O2). The surveyor reviewed the hybrid medical records of Resident #140. The AR revealed that the resident was admitted to the facility that included a medical diagnosis that was not limited to essential hypertension (high blood pressure that is not due to another medical condition), chronic kidney disease, and DM. According to the comprehensive Minimum Data Set (cMDS) with an ARD of 10/12/24, Section C Cognitive Patterns revealed a BIMS score of 11 out of 15 which reflected that the resident's cognitive status was moderately impaired. A review of the PO with an order date of 10/23/24 for Midodrine HCl oral tab 5 mg give 1 tab via G-Tube (gastrostomy tube) three times a day for hypotension Hold if SBP>120 (systolic blood pressure less than 120) mmHg (millimeter of mercury) The above orders for Midodrine were transcribed to the October 2024 eMAR. There were five events that the med was administered beyond the parameters and did not follow the PO as shown below: Date Time Blood Pressure 10/26/24 9 AM 129/75 (SBP 129) 10/26/24 1 PM 128/72 (SBP 128) 10/26/24 5 PM 127/78 (SBP 127) 10/27/24 9 AM 126/72 (SBP 126) 10/27/24 1 PM 126/72 (SBP 126) On 10/31/24 at 9:08 AM, the surveyor notified LPN#2 of the above findings and concerns with the Midodrine. The LPN stated that the PO for Midodrine parameters not to administer the med if the SBP was above 120 should be followed. 5. On 10/29/24 at 10:31 AM, the surveyor observed a posted sign for EBP and PPE hung outside the door. Inside the resident's room, Resident #142 was in bed asleep. The surveyor reviewed the medical records of Resident #142. The AR showed that the resident was admitted to the facility that included a medical diagnosis that was not limited to essential hypertension, unspecified atrial fibrillation (an irregular, often rapid heart rate that commonly causes poor blood flow), and DM. The cMDS with an ARD of 8/12/24, Section C Cognitive Skills for Daily Decision Making was coded #2 which reflected that the resident's cognition was moderately impaired. A review of the PO order date 10/04/24 for Amlodipine Besylate Oral Tab 10 mg Give 1 tab by mouth one time a day for HTN (hypertension) Hold if SYS<110 OR HR<60 (systolic less than 110 or heart rate less than 60) The above order for Amlodipine was transcribed to October 2024 eMAR. There were four events in the med was administered beyond the parameters and did not follow the PO as shown below: Date Time Blood Pressure HR 10/17/24 9 AM 119/71 56 10/20/24 9 AM 121/66 58 10/23/24 9 AM 113/70 59 10/25/24 9 AM 115/68 59 Further review of the October 2024 eMAR showed an order date of 10/04/24 for Losartan Potassium Oral Tab 100 mg Give 1 tab by mouth one time a day for HTN Hold if SYS<110 OR HR<60. The above order for Losartan was transcribed to October 2024 eMAR. There were four events in the med was administered beyond the parameters and did not follow the PO as shown below: Date Time Blood Pressure HR 10/17/24 9 AM 119/71 56 10/20/24 9 AM 121/66 58 10/23/24 9 AM 113/70 59 10/25/24 9 AM 115/68 59 On 10/31/24 at 9:08 AM, the surveyor notified LPN#2 of the above findings and concerns with the Amlodipine and Losartan. The LPN stated that the PO for Amlodipine and Losartan parameters not to administer the meds if the SBP was above 110 and HR below 60 should be followed. The LPN acknowledged that he was the nurse who signed the eMAR on 10/17, 10/20, 10/23, and 10/25/24 at 9 AM. On 11/06/24 at 11:19 AM, the survey team met with the LNHA, DON, and RDO. The surveyor notified the facility management of the above concerns and findings. On 11/07/24 at 11:31 AM, the survey team met with the LNHA, DON, Assistant Administrator (AA), and RIPN. The DON stated that the PO for parameters should have been followed by nurses.
CONCERN (E)

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

Deficiency F0761 (Tag F0761)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

2. On 11/04/24 at 11:47 AM, the surveyor, in the presence of the med nurse on duty, inspected the med cart located on the 1 [NAME] Unit. The surveyor observed one (1) foil package of Budesonide (Pulmi...

Read full inspector narrative →
2. On 11/04/24 at 11:47 AM, the surveyor, in the presence of the med nurse on duty, inspected the med cart located on the 1 [NAME] Unit. The surveyor observed one (1) foil package of Budesonide (Pulmicort) nebulizer solution (a steroid inhalant liquid used with a mechanical nebulizer to treat asthma) with no date documented on the foil package when opened containing one (1) remaining vial. The surveyor also observed three (3) loose unidentified tablets in the bottom of the second drawer of the med cart. The surveyor asked the med nurse if she could identify the tablets. The med nurse stated she could not. The surveyor asked the med nurse if there was a date identifying when the foil package of Budesonide was opened. The med nurse stated there was no date visible. The med nurse disposed of the unidentified tablets and undated foil package in the presence of the surveyor. The surveyor then accessed and inspected the med storage room (med room) and med refrigerator on the 1 [NAME] Unit in the presence of the med nurse. The surveyor observed a vial of influenza vaccine stored inside the refrigerator, and a refrigerator temperature log located on the outside of the refrigerator. The temperature log reflected documentation of internal temperatures once per day. The surveyor, in the presence of the med nurse, inspected the med cart located on the Penthouse Unit. The surveyor also observed one (1) box of Ipratropium/Albuterol (DuoNeb) nebulizer solution (an inhalant liquid used with a mechanical nebulizer to treat asthma), which contained one (1) open foil packet with no date documented on the foil package when opened containing two (2) remaining vials. The surveyor also observed one (1) loose unidentified tablet in the bottom of the second drawer of the med cart. The surveyor asked the med nurse if she could identify the tablet. The med nurse stated she could not. The surveyor asked the med nurse if there was a date identifying when the foil package of DuoNeb was opened. The med nurse stated there was no date visible. The med nurse disposed of the unidentified tablet and undated foil package in the presence of the surveyor. The surveyor, with the assistance of the Unit Manager, accessed and inspected the med room and med refrigerator located on the 2 South Unit. The surveyor observed a thermometer inside the med refrigerator that reflected a temperature of 30 degrees Fahrenheit. The surveyor also observed meds stored in the refrigerator. The surveyor observed a temperature log located on the outside of the refrigerator. The temperature log reflected an entry of 40 degrees Fahrenheit for 11/04/24. The surveyor reviewed the manufacturer packaging and labeling for Ipratropium/Albuterol nebulizer solution. The product packaging and labeling reflected under Storage Conditions: Once removed from the foil pouch, the individual vials should be used within one week. The surveyor reviewed the Budesonide manufacturer label and packaging which specified for Budesonide, once the foil pouch was opened, use ampules within (two) 2 weeks of opening. The surveyor reviewed the CDC (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention) guidelines for vaccine storage which reflected for Monitoring Vaccine Temperatures, to ensure the safety of vaccines, the storage unit minimum and maximum temperatures should be checked and recorded at the start of each workday. If using a TMD that does not display minimum and maximum temperatures, then the current temperature should be checked and recorded a minimum of two times (at the start and end of the workday). On 11/06/24 at 11:45 AM, the surveyor, in the presence of the survey team, met with the LNHA, DON and RDO. The surveyor discussed the concerns with med storage. On 11/06/24 at 01:11 PM, the surveyor conducted an interview with the facility Consultant Pharmacist (CP) by telephone. The CP stated they were covering for the regular CP who was out on leave. The surveyor asked the CP if DuoNeb and Budesonide foil packs should be dated when opened. The CP stated, yes, they should have a date when opened. The surveyor asked the CP what the appropriate temperature range for med storage refrigerator was. The CP stated normal refrigerator temperature should be between 36 to 46 degrees Fahrenheit. The surveyor asked the CP how the refrigerator temperature should be monitored when storing flu vaccines. The CP stated that they were unsure if it was once or twice a day, but twice a day would be a good practice. On 11/07/24 at 11:31 AM, the survey team met with the LNHA, DON, Regional Infection Preventionist Nurse (RIPN), and AA. The RIPN stated that educational in-services were implemented for dating of meds. On 11/07/24 at 01:07 PM, the survey team met with the LNHA. The LNHA stated there is no further information to be provided. A review of the facility's policy titled Medication Storage dated 9/2024 that was provided by the DON revealed: The Policy reflected on the first line, Meds housed on our premises are stored in the pharmacy and/or med rooms according to the manufacturer's recommendations. Under line 4. Refrigerated Products, b. Temperatures are maintained within 36-46 degrees F. The policy did not reflect anything regarding loose, unlabled or unidentifiable meds. NJAC 8:39-29.4(d)(g) Based on observation, interview, and review of pertinent facility documents, it was determined that the facility failed to a.) properly store medication (med) for one (1) of 38 residents, Resident #210, and b.) ensure that medications (meds) were stored and labeled appropriately for two (2) of four (4) med carts inspected and two (2) of four (4) med storage rooms inspected located on four (4) of five (5) nursing units according to facility's policy and standard of clinical practice. 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 registered professional nurse is defined as diagnosing and treating human responses to actual and potential physical and emotional health problems, through such services as case-finding, health teaching, health counseling, and provision of care supportive to or restorative of life and wellbeing, and executing medical regimens as prescribed by a licensed or otherwise legally authorized physician or dentist. Reference: New Jersey Statutes Annotated, Title 45, Chapter 11. Nursing Board. The Nurse Practice Act for the State of New Jersey states: The practice of nursing as a licensed practical nurse is defined as performing tasks and responsibilities within the framework of case finding; reinforcing the patient and family teaching program through health teaching, health counseling, and provision of supportive and restorative care, under the direction of a registered nurse or licensed or otherwise legally authorized physician or dentist. 1. On 10/29/24 at 10:35 AM, the surveyor observed Resident #210 inside their room seated in a wheelchair. The resident was cognitively intact and informed the surveyor that they were at the facility for rehabilitation. The surveyor observed three containers of meds on top of the drawers, L-Lysine (an essential amino acid; a supplement) 1000 mg (milligram), Vitamin D3 (supplement supports healthy bones and glowing skin, boosts immunity, and promotes heart health) 2000IU (2000 international unit), and Vitamin B12 (supplement; is important for protein metabolism) 1000 mcg (microgram). The resident was in a private room by themselves. The resident stated that they were taking those home meds Vit D3 and Vit B12 once a day while at the facility for a while (unable to state the exact date). On 10/29/24 at 10:45 AM, the surveyor asked the Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) for the resident's list of meds in the electronic Medication Administration Record (eMAR). The LPN showed the surveyor the resident's meds inside the medication (med) cart that belonged to Resident #210. The provided copies of the resident's meds and actual meds in the med cart for Resident #210 revealed that the resident had no order for L-lysine, Vitamin D3, and Vitamin B12. At that same time, the surveyor notified the LPN about the concerns that the resident had three containers of meds not properly stored. The LPN stated that he was unaware that the resident had meds on their own at the bedside. The LPN confirmed that there were no orders for L-lysine, Vitamin D3, and Vitamin B12 meds. The LPN further stated that there should be no meds left or stored in the resident's room. The surveyor reviewed the medical records of Resident #210 and revealed: The admission Record (AR; an admission summary) reflected that the resident was admitted to the facility with diagnoses that included but were not limited to other asthma (a condition in which a person's airways become inflamed, narrow, and swell, and produce extra mucus, which makes it difficult to breathe), unspecified diastolic (congestive) heart failure, and essential (primary) hypertension (occurs when abnormally high blood pressure that's not the result of a medical condition). The most recent comprehensive Minimum Data Set (cMDS) with an assessment reference date (ARD) of 10/04/24, under Section C Cognitive Patterns, reflected on a brief interview for mental status (BIMS) score of 15 out of 15 which showed that the resident was cognitively intact. On 11/06/24 at 11:19 AM, the survey team met with the Licensed Nursing Home Administrator (LNHA), Director of Nursing (DON), and Regional Director of Operations (RDO). The surveyor notified the facility management of the above concerns and findings. On 11/07/24 at 11:31 AM, the survey team met with the LNHA, DON, Assistant Administrator (AA), and the Regional Infection Preventionist Nurse (RIPN). The DON stated that the facility was considered a regulated environment and acknowledged that meds should be properly stored. A review of the Medication Storage Policy with a revised date of 10/2023 that was provided by the DON revealed: Meds housed on our premises are stored in the pharmacy and/or med rooms according to the manufacturer's recommendations. All meds are stored in designated areas which are sufficient to ensure proper sanitation, temperature, light, ventilation, moisture control, segregation, and security . On 11/07/24 at 01:29 PM, the survey team met with the LNHA, DON, RDO, Regional Clinical Operations, and the AA for the Exit Conference, and facility management did not provide any additional information.
CONCERN (F)

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

Deficiency F0868 (Tag F0868)

Could have caused harm · This affected most or all residents

Based on the interview and review of pertinent facility documentation, the facility failed to have the Infection Preventionist present for three (3) of three (3) quarterly Quality Assurance Performanc...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on the interview and review of pertinent facility documentation, the facility failed to have the Infection Preventionist present for three (3) of three (3) quarterly Quality Assurance Performance Improvement (QAPI) meetings. This failure had the potential to affect all 156 residents who currently live in the facility. The deficient practice was evidenced by the following: On 10/29/24 at 11:02 AM, the surveyor met with the Licensed Nursing Home Administrator (LNHA), Assistant Administrator (AA), and the Registered Nurse/Unit Manager during an Entrance Conference meeting. The LNHA confirmed that day census (total number of residents) of 156. The LNHA stated that it was the Regional Infection Preventionist Nurse (RIPN) the facility's Infection Preventionist (IP), and the LNHA was unsure when the RIPN started to be the IP. The surveyor asked for the IP timeline since the last recertification (7/14/23), and the LNHA responded that he would get back to the surveyor. On 11/06/24 at 01:48 PM, the Director of Nursing (DON) provided the last three-quarters of QAPI Attendance sheets and revealed the following: QAPI Attendance: 5/29/24=the LNHA, Medical Director (MD), DON, Pharmacy Consultant (PC), and other Interdisciplinary Team (IDT) signed the QAPI Attendance sheet. There was no documented evidence in the sign-in sheet that the IP attended the meeting. 7/23/24=the LNHA, MD, DON, IDT, and vendor representatives signed the QAPI Attendance sheet. There was no documented evidence in the sign-in sheet that the IP attended the meeting. 10/22/24=the LNHA, MD, DON, IDT, and vendor representatives signed the QAPI Attendance sheet except for the IP. There was no documented evidence that the IP attended the meeting. A review of the facility's QAPI Time and Date schedule revealed: 4/23/24=1st QAPI Report due (January 2024-March 2024) 7/23/24=2nd QAPI Report due (April 2024-June 2024) 10/23/24=3rd QAPI Report due (July 2024-September 2024) 01/25/25=4th QAPI Report due (October 2024-December 2024) On 11/06/24 at 02:06 PM, the surveyor interviewed the RIPN who informed the surveyor that she recently assumed the IP position of the facility in October 2024. The surveyor asked for the IP timeline since the last recertification, signed job description, and certification for IP and she said she would get back to the surveyor. At that same time, the surveyor asked the RIPN to confirm who was the IP in the submitted copies for QAPI attendance sheets on 5/29/24, 7/23/24, and 10/22/24. The RIPN confirmed that there were no IPs on the last three quarters' QAPI attendance sheets. On 11/07/24 at 9:35 AM, two surveyors met with the LNHA for a QAPI interview. The surveyor notified the LNHA of the above findings and concerns that there were no IPs attended the last three quarters QAPI meeting which was confirmed as well by the RIPN as the attendance sheets were reviewed. The surveyor asked the LNHA who reported about infection control in the QAPI meeting in the absence of the IP, and the LNHA responded that it was the DON who reported about the facility's infection control. The LNHA acknowledged that the facility did not comply with the requirement that the designated IP should be dedicated solely to the IPCP (Infection Prevention Control Program). A review of the facility's QAPI Plan that was provided by the LNHA did not include information that must be composed of at a minimum who the QAPI Committee was. On 11/07/24 at 01:29 PM, the survey team met with the LNHA, DON, Regional Director of Operations, Regional Clinical Operations, and AA for the Exit conference. The facility did not provide additional information and did not refute the findings. NJAC 8:39-33.1(b)
Jul 2023 4 deficiencies 1 IJ
CRITICAL (J)

Immediate Jeopardy (IJ) - the most serious Medicare violation

Infection Control (Tag F0880)

Someone could have died · This affected 1 resident

Based on observations, interview, and policy review, the facility failed to clean and disinfect glucometers per the manufacturer's recommendation. This facility failure to properly clean and disinfect...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observations, interview, and policy review, the facility failed to clean and disinfect glucometers per the manufacturer's recommendation. This facility failure to properly clean and disinfect multi-use glucometers has the potential to increase the likelihood of transmission of blood-borne pathogens for two of 30 residents (Resident (R) 351 and R 11) receiving blood sugar monitoring. On 7/13/23 at 2:59 PM, the Administrator and the Director of Nursing (DON) were notified of immediate jeopardy (IJ) in the following area: at F880-: Infection Control. The Immediate Jeopardy began on 07/13/23 when the licensed nursing staff failed to properly clean and disinfect multi-use glucometers for R351 observed on 07/12/23 and R11 observed on 07/13/23. The facility provided an acceptable plan for removal of the immediate jeopardy at F880 on 07/14/23 at 1:45 PM. On 07/14/23 at 3:00 PM, the immediacy was removed after the plan was verified to have been implemented. The deficient practice remained at a scope and severity of a D (Isolated, no actual harm with potential for more than minimal harm) The removal plan included: Administrator completed a root cause analysis. Director of Nursing/designee began education on 07/13/23 at 3:30 PM and will continue until education on disinfecting the glucometer per facility policy with the competency to show return demonstration and comprehension and will continue education until all nurses have been educated. Compliance on competencies to determine knowledge will be audited/monitored for completion by the Director of Nursing or designee weekly for four weeks, every two weeks for two months and monthly for three months. Audits will be discussed during Quality Assurance Performance Improvement (QAPI) meeting. Regional Director of Nursing/designee completed hand washing education and competency to show return demonstration and comprehension on 07/13/23 and will continue until all nursing staff have been educated prior to the next shift. The Director of Nursing identified all residents at risk, and those residents requiring blood glucose monitoring. A full house audit was completed on residents receiving blood glucose monitoring to ensure there are no known blood-borne infections with the identified residents. All glucometers were removed from the medication carts and disinfected according to the facility policy on 07/13/23. All medicine carts were disinfected with the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) approved disinfecting solution. The removal plan was verified through interviews and observations. On 07/14/23, on the 2 North Unit at 2:29 PM; 1 [NAME] unit at 2:30 PM; 2 South unit at 2:51 PM; Penthouse unit at 3:00 PM; and 1 South Unit at 3:01 PM licensed nursing staff were interviewed regarding the removal plan and facility expectations for the cleaning/disinfecting of resident glucometers. The staff were able to verbalize the process for cleaning, with the correct number of disinfecting wipes and type, to be used. Findings include: During observation on the One [NAME] Unit on 07/12/23 at 4:46 PM, Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) 2 was observed to remove a multi-use glucometer kit from the medicine cart located in the hallway. The glucometer kit contained a blood glucose meter, blood sugar test strips, lancets, and testing solution which were stored in a zippered pouch. LPN2 took the glucometer kit into R351's room, donned gloves, and performed R351's blood sugar test. With her gloves still on, LPN2 returned the glucose meter and container of test strips to the zippered pouch and left R351's room failing to remove her gloves and perform hand hygiene prior to leaving R351's room. LPN2 placed the glucometer kit on top of the medication cart located in the hallway and removed her gloves and performed hand hygiene at that time. After observing LPN2 document R351's blood sugar results in the electronic medical record, continued observation revealed LPN2 placed the glucometer kit in the medication cart drawer without cleaning or sanitizing it. During interview via telephone of LPN2 on 7/13/23 at 11:41 AM, LPN2 stated that before use the glucometer should be disinfected with a wipe from the purple container (Micro-Kill One Germicidal Alcohol Wipes). After use, she wipes everything before it is used for the next resident. LPN 2 stated one wipe is used to wipe front, back, and side of the glucometer. LPN2 stated gloves should be removed, and hands washed with soap and water after performing a blood glucose test. LPN2 confirmed that she failed to remove her gloves and sanitize her hands after performing R351's blood glucose test and prior to leaving the resident's room. LPN2 further confirmed she left R351's room after performing the blood glucose test and discarded her gloves at the medication cart. LPN2 would not confirm that she failed to clean and sanitize the glucometer before placing it back into the medication cart. During an interview on 07/12/23 at 4:54 PM the Penthouse Unit regarding cleaning and disinfection of glucometers, LPN4 stated that prior to performing a blood glucose test, he wipes the glucometer with an alcohol swab and after performing the blood glucose test, he wipes the glucometer with an alcohol swab. During an interview on 07/12/23 at 5:16 PM, LPN Unit Manager for the One [NAME] Unit (LPN1) stated that after glucometer use, staff should clean the glucometer with antiseptic bleach wipes and let sit for 1 minute. When asked about the policy and procedure for disinfecting glucometers, LPN1 was unable to locate it. During observation and interview on 07/13/23 at 7:33 AM, on the One South Unit, LPN5 performed a blood sugar test on R11. After performing the blood sugar test, LPN5 cleansed the glucose meter with a Micro-Kill One Germicidal Alcohol Wipe. LPN5 then wrapped the glucose meter in a Micro-Kill One Germicidal Alcohol Wipe and stated he lets it dry and then puts it away. Review of residents receiving blood glucose monitoring provided by the DON on 07/13/23 revealed there were 30 residents in the facility that used shared glucometers, and there were no residents with a confirmed blood-borne pathogen infection, such as Hepatitis B, Hepatitis C, or HIV infection. Observation of medication carts on 07/12/23, 07/13/23, and 07/14/23, revealed germicidals available for cleaning and disinfecting glucometers were: Micro-Kill One Germicidal Alcohol Wipes and Micro-Kill Bleach Germicidal Bleach Wipes. The alcohol wipes kill most pathogens after 1 minute. Continued review of the manufacturer's information revealed the alcohol wipes did not kill clostridioides difficile (C. difficile) spores. The bleach wipes kill most pathogens after one minute, and the C. difficile spore after 3 minutes. Therefore, if a resident has a C. difficile infection, the alcohol wipes were not effective in killing the C. difficile spore placing other residents at risk of contamination. Review of the manufacturer's guidelines entitled, Cleaning and Disinfecting Procedures for the Meter revealed: Cleaning Instructions: Cleaning is the removal of visible dirt and debris. Whenever your glucose meter is dirty, clean the outside of the meter with a new CaviWipes towelette or an EPA-registered disinfecting wipe. The cleaning process does not reduce the risk for transmission of infectious diseases. Disinfection Instructions: The meter must be disinfected between patient uses by wiping it with a CaviWipe towelette or EPA-registered disinfecting wipe in between tests and be cleaned prior to disinfecting. The Disinfection process reduces the risk of transmitting infectious diseases if it is performed properly. Review of the facility's policy and procedure, Glucometer Disinfection dated 01/2012, and revised on 05/2023 revealed: Under Policy Explanation and Compliance Guidelines The facility will ensure blood glucometers will be cleaned and disinfected after each use and according to manufacturer's instructions for multi-resident use. If the manufacturers are unable to provide information specifying how the glucometer should be cleaned and disinfected, then the meter should not be used for multiple patients. The glucometers should be disinfected with a wipe pre-saturated with an EPA registered healthcare disinfectant that is effective against, at the minimum, HIV, Hepatitis C and Hepatitis B virus. Glucometers should be cleaned and disinfected after each use and according to manufacturer's instructions regardless of whether they are intended for single resident or multiple resident use. Under Procedure the following is included after obtaining blood sampling: Remove and discard gloves, perform hand hygiene prior to exiting room. Reapply gloves is there is visible contamination of the device or if the resident is HIV or Hepatitis B or C positive. Retrieve (2) disinfectant wipes from container. Using first wipe, clean first to remove heavy soil, blood and/or other contaminants left on the surface of the glucometer. After cleaning, use second wipe to disinfect the glucometer thoroughly with the disinfectant wipe, following the manufacturer's instructions. Discard disinfectant wipe in waste receptacle. Perform hand hygiene. The facility's policy and procedure does not specify whether to use the alcohol wipe or bleach wipe. NJAC 8:39-19.4(a)1
CONCERN (D)

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

Assessment Accuracy (Tag F0641)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on observation, interview, and record review it was determined the facility failed to accurately assess one of 32 residents (Resident (R) 101) functional range of motion. Failure to code the MDS...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, interview, and record review it was determined the facility failed to accurately assess one of 32 residents (Resident (R) 101) functional range of motion. Failure to code the MDS correctly can lead to inaccurate federal reimbursements and inaccurate assessment and care planning of the resident. Findings include: During observation on 07/10/23 at 3:24 PM, R101 was sitting in the wheelchair located in the resident's room. R101 was observed with contractures of the right upper extremity wrist and elbow. A splinting device was not observed on the resident. R101 was not interviewable. Review of R101's admission Record, located in the Profile tab of the electronic medical record (EMR) revealed an admission date of 09/17/20 with diagnoses that included history of a cerebral vascular accident with a right upper extremity contracture. Review of R101's electronic quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS), located in the MDS tab of the EMR with an Assessment Reference Date (ARD) date of 06/24/23, documented R101 had no impairment of the upper extremities. On 07/12/23 at 3:08 PM, Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) 6 was interviewed. LPN6 stated R101 had a stroke prior to admission and was paralyzed on the right side. LPN6 stated R101 was unable to extend his right fingers and therefore tried to eat with the left hand. On 07/12/23 at 3:44 PM, the MDS coordinator stated that she did not complete quarterly MDS assessments referenced above, and that the per diem MDS Coordinator completed those assessments. The surveyor requested that the MDS coordinator set up an interview with the per diem MDS Coordinator, however, that interview was never set up. Additional information provided by the MDS coordinator was a Braden Evaluation dated 12/23/23 that included the following documentation: Mobility: No limitation. Review of the RAI Manual, dated 10/01/19, indicated, Intent: The intent of G0400 is to determine whether functional limitation in range of motion (ROM) interferes with the resident's activities of daily living or places him or her at risk of injury. Item Rationale Health-related Quality of Life o Functional impairment could place the resident at risk of injury or interfere with performance of activities of daily living. Planning for Care o Individualized care plans should address possible reversible causes such as de-conditioning and adverse side effects of medications or other treatments. Upper Extremity - includes shoulder, elbow, wrist, and fingers. NJAC 8:39-11.1(e)1,2
CONCERN (D)

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

Comprehensive Care Plan (Tag F0656)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on observation, interview, and record review the facility failed to develop and implement a care plan for one of 32 sampled residents (Resident (R) 101) with measurable goals and interventions t...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, interview, and record review the facility failed to develop and implement a care plan for one of 32 sampled residents (Resident (R) 101) with measurable goals and interventions to care for and manage the resident's right upper extremity contracture. Findings include: During observation of R101 on 07/10/23 at 3:24 PM, resident was sitting in the wheelchair located in the resident's room. R101 was observed with contractures of the right upper extremity wrist and elbow. A splinting device was not observed on the resident. Review of R101's admission Record, located in the Profile tab of the electronic medical record (EMR) revealed an admission date of 09/17/20 with diagnoses that included history of a cerebral vascular accident with a right upper extremity contracture. Review of the 10/20/20 Physician Progress Notes located in the Progress Notes tab of the EMR revealed a Rehabilitation Initial Evaluation which documented that R101 had a history of a cerebral vascular accident (CVA) with a right upper extremity contracture. Under Assessment and Plan the physician documented: PT/OT [physical therapy/occupational therapy] to focus on core strengthening, stretching, contracture management, bed mobility, transfers, toileting, ADLs [activities of daily living], balance and gait training, endurance training, DME [durable medical equipment] assessment, modalities prn [as needed] for pain control . CVA hx [history], associated RUE [right upper extremity] elbow and wrist flexion contracture: -therapy program as above, will consider bracing for further management. Review of the 06/23/23 Internal Medicine Progress Note located in the Miscellaneous tab of the EMR revealed R101 had a contracture of the right elbow joint and a right flexion contracture of the right wrist. Review of R101's Order Summary Report located in the Orders tab of the EMR revealed R101 did not have a physician's order for care and management of the resident's right upper extremity contracture. Review of R101's Care Plan located in the Care Plan tab of the EMR revealed R101 did not have a care plan with measurable goals and interventions for the care and management of R101's right upper extremity contracture. On 07/12/23 at 3:08 PM, Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) 6 was interviewed. LPN6 stated R101 was unable to extend fingers and therefore, tried to eat with the left hand. LPN6 stated R101 was not currently receiving restorative therapy. On 07/12/23 at 3:31 PM, additional information was requested from the Director of Nursing related to the care and management of R101's RUE contracture. There was no plan for care and/or management of R101's right upper extremity contracture. Review of the facility's Restorative Nursing Program Policy dated 12/2012 and revised 01/2023, revealed that restorative nursing programs may be initiated when a resident is discharged from formalized physical, occupation, or speech therapy. Residents may be placed on a restorative program at the discretion of the nursing and/or Interdisciplinary Care Plan (IDCP) team, if appropriate. A resident may be started on a restorative program when he or she is admitted to the facility with restorative needs, whether or not they are a candidate for formalized therapy, or when restorative needs arise during the course of their long-term stay. The restorative nursing program's focus is to maintain mobility and maximize independence with activities of daily living. The decision to discontinue a resident from a particular restorative program must come from the IDCP team. The reason should be documented in the medical record. NJAC 8:39-11.2(e)2 NJAC 8:39-27.1(a)
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0688 (Tag F0688)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on observation, interview, and record review, it was determined the facility failed to accurately assess and implement interventions for the care and management of contractures for one of one re...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, interview, and record review, it was determined the facility failed to accurately assess and implement interventions for the care and management of contractures for one of one resident (Resident (R) 101) reviewed for position, mobility. This failure created the potential for further preventable decline in range of motion. Findings include: During observation of R101 on 07/10/23 at 3:24 PM, R101 was sitting in the wheelchair located in the resident's room. R101 was observed with contractures of the right upper extremity wrist and elbow. A splinting device was not observed on the resident. R101 was not interviewable. Review of R101's admission Record, located in the Profile tab of the electronic medical record (EMR) revealed an admission date of 09/17/20 with diagnoses that included history of a cerebral vascular accident with a right upper extremity contracture. Review of the 10/20/20 Physician Progress Notes located in the Progress Notes tab of the EMR revealed the Rehabilitation Initial Evaluation which documented R101 had a history of a cerebral vascular accident (CVA) with a right upper extremity contracture. Under Assessment and Plan the physician documented: PT/OT [physical therapy/occupational therapy] to focus on core strengthening, stretching, contracture management, bed mobility, transfers, toileting, ADLs [activities of daily living], balance and gait training, endurance, DME [durable medical equipment] assessment, modalities prn [as needed] for pain control . CVA hx [history], associated RUE [right upper extremity] elbow and wrist flexion contracture: -therapy program as above, will consider bracing for further management. Review of R101's Order Summary Report located in the Orders tab of the EMR revealed the resident had the following physician's order dated 12/17/20: Right AFO (ankle-foot orthosis) location: right lower extremity every day shift to prevent contractures. Right AFO on when ambulating with nursing staff. Cleanse area and dry well before and after. Further review of the Order Summary Report revealed the resident did not have a physician's order for care and/or management of the resident's right upper extremity contracture. Review of R101's Care Plan located on the Care Plan tab of the EMR revealed a care plan initiated on 01/18/22 for management of a right foot drop. Further review of the care plan revealed no focus with goals or interventions related to R101's right upper extremity contracture. Review of the 06/23/23 Internal Medicine Progress Note located in the Miscellaneous tab of the EMR revealed that the resident has a contracture of the right elbow joint and a right flexion contracture of the right wrist. On 07/12/23 at 3:08 PM, Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) 6 was interviewed. LPN6 stated R101 had a stroke prior to admission and was paralyzed on the right side. LPN6 stated R101 was unable to extend his right fingers and therefore tried to eat with the left hand. LPN6 recalled R101 had restorative therapy in the past, however, R101 was not currently receiving restorative therapy. On 07/12/23 at 3:31 PM, additional information was requested from the Director of Nursing (DON) related to the care and management of R101's RUE contracture. There was no plan for care and/or management of R101's right upper extremity contracture. During an interview on 07/13/23 at 1:10 PM, the DON revealed R101 was on a restorative program in the past. The DON confirmed R101 did not have a current order for restorative care related to R101's right upper extremity contracture. The DON did not know why the resident was no longer on a program. Review of the facility's Restorative Nursing Program Policy dated 12/2012 and revised 01/2023, revealed that restorative nursing programs may be initiated when a resident is discharged from formalized physical, occupation, or speech therapy. Residents may be placed on a restorative program at the discretion of the nursing and/or Interdisciplinary Care Plan (IDCP) team, if appropriate. A resident may be started on a restorative program when he or she is admitted to the facility with restorative needs, whether or not they are a candidate for formalized therapy, or when restorative needs arise during the course of their long-term stay. The restorative nursing program's focus is to maintain mobility and maximize independence with activities of daily living. The decision to discontinue a resident from a particular restorative program must come from the IDCP team. The reason should be documented in the medical record. NJAC 8:39-27.1(a) NJAC 8:39-27.2(m)
Feb 2023 2 deficiencies 1 IJ
CRITICAL (J) 📢 Someone Reported This

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

Immediate Jeopardy (IJ) - the most serious Medicare violation

Accident Prevention (Tag F0689)

Someone could have died · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** COMPLAINT#: NJ161036, NJ161038 Based on interviews, medical records reviews, and review of other pertinent facility documentatio...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** COMPLAINT#: NJ161036, NJ161038 Based on interviews, medical records reviews, and review of other pertinent facility documentation on 2/3/2023, 2/6/2023, 2/7/2023, and 2/14/2023, it was determined that the facility failed to appropriately supervise and monitor a severely cognitively impaired resident (Resident #2), with a known history of wandering, and Aggressive Behavior. The facility failed to ensure Resident #2, who has a known diagnosis of Unspecified Dementia, Unspecified Severity, Without Behavioral Disturbance, Psychotic Disturbance, Mood Disturbance, Anxiety, Syncope, Collapse, Unspecified Lack of Coordination, and Wandering In Diseases Classified plan of care was implemented for monitoring the Resident's location every shift and as needed and to document observed behaviors and attempted intervention in the Behavior log, on 1/4/2023 on the 3-11 shift, at approximately 8:00 p.m. to 8:30 p.m., when the Resident was last seen by Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA #2) and Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN #2) in the dining room, watching television through approximately 9:30 p.m. when Resident #2 was seen again standing in the hallway by the Nurse's station with swelling and bruising to the left side of the face by LPN #1. LPN #1 notified LPN #2, the Resident's assigned Nurse, of the injuries. 911 was called, and the Resident was sent to the emergency room (ER), admitted , and hospitalized with a Subdural Hematoma. The facility also failed to follow its policies titled Abuse, Neglect and Exploitation, Behavioral Health Services, Documentation In Medical Record, and Incident/Accident Reporting. The facility's failure to keep Resident #2 safe on 1/4/2023 placed Resident #2 and all other residents with a history of wandering, aggressive behaviors, and falls who require monitoring/supervision at risk for an injury of unknown origin and in an Immediate Jeopardy (IJ) situation. This IJ was identified and reported to the facility's Licensed Nursing Home Administrator (LNHA) and Director of Nursing (DON) on 2/7/2023 at 2:08 p.m. The Administrator was presented with the IJ template that included information about the issue. This Immediate Jeopardy ran from 1/4/2023 when Resident #2 was last seen at approximately 8:00 p.m. to 8:30 p.m., through approximately 9:30 p.m. when LPN #1 saw the Resident with injuries. On 2/14/2023, the Surveyors did a revisit to verify the Removal Plan was implemented. The facility implemented the Removal Plan, which included educating Staff on elopement, behavior monitoring, documenting behaviors, wandering with behaviors, updating the care plan for each Resident, and rounding every two hours. So, the noncompliance remained on 1/4/2023 at a lower scope and severity for no actual harm with the potential for more than minimal harm that is not immediate jeopardy. This deficient practice was identified for 1 of 4 residents ( Resident #2) and was evidenced by the following: According to the Facility Reportable Event (FRE), a New Jersey Department of Health (NJDOH) document used by healthcare facilities to report incidents with an event date of 01/04/2023 and a time of event of 9:30 p.m., revealed the following: On 01/04/2023 at approximately 9:30 p.m., Resident #2 was noted wandering the hallway on the adjacent unit, the Nurse [LPN #1] escorted patient [Resident] back to assigned unit and alerted primary Nurse that patients [Resident's] face noted with swelling and bruising. The FRE also revealed Resident #2 initially stated that someone hit him/her, then later said someone threw something at him/her. Resident #2 was sent to the hospital, admitted with a subdural hematoma, and has not returned to the facility. According to the admission Record (AR), Resident #2 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses which included but were not limited to Unspecified Dementia, Unspecified Severity, Without Behavioral Disturbance, Psychotic Disturbance, Mood Disturbance, and Anxiety, Syncope, and Collapse, Unspecified Lack of Coordination and Wandering In Diseases Classified Elsewhere. According to the Minimum Data Set (MDS), an assessment tool dated 10/13/2022, Resident # 2 had a Brief Interview of Mental Status (BIMS) score of 00/15, which indicated the Resident had severely impaired cognition. The MDS also showed Resident #2 only needed supervision with all Activities of Daily Living (ADLs), and the Resident had a wander/elopement alarm. A review of the Resident's Care Plan (CP) initiated on 1/11/2021 revealed under Focus: that Resident #2 is an elopement risk/wanderer AEB (as evidenced by) the Resident wanders aimlessly, Significantly intrudes on the privacy of other residents by entering their room. Under Goal, indicated Resident will not leave facility unattended through the review date. Target Date 1/11/2023. Under Interventions included: Assess for fall risk, Distract Resident from wandering by offering pleasant diversions, structured activities, food conversation, television, book, Monitor location every shift and as needed, Document wandering Behavior and attempted diversional interventions in Behavior log, Wander alert: . Left ankle q (every) shift . Exp 10/2023/Monitor and document placement of wander guard q shift. Further review of Resident #2's CP initiated 09/10/2020, included under Focus: Resident #2 has potential to demonstrate physical and verbal behaviors AEB pushing another resident and yelling r/t (related/to) Confusion and Dementia with Behavioral Disturbance. Under Goal, included: Resident will not harm self or others through the review date, Target Date 1/11/2023. Under Interventions: included: Analyze of key times, places, circumstances triggers, and what de-escalates Behavior and document, Assess and address for contributing sensory deficits, Cognitive Assessment, Evaluate for side effects of medications, Monitor (every shift). Document observed Behavior and attempted interventions, Monitor/document/report to MD (Medical Doctor) of danger to self, and others, Psychiatric/Psychogeriatric consult as indicated, Room change to from 2 North 268B to 2 South 243B, Will continue to encourage and provide opportunities for active participation in acts of interest & socialization w (with)/peers. A review of Resident #2's Incident Reports (IRs) revealed the following: On 3/21/2022 at 3:00 a.m., revealed Under Incident Description (ID),: the Resident was asleep in bed. VSWNL (vital signs within normal limits), no s/s of distress. The Resident slept well until 3 a.m. (3:00 a.m.). The IR showed the Resident was noted walking in the hallway, holding his/her right arm. The Nurse asked the Resident to show the arm, pulled up the long sleeve sweater, and skin discoloration was noted in the Resident's arm, with no opening to the skin and no bleeding. Resident #2 was alert with confusion. The IR further showed a nurse asked Resident #2 what happened, but the Resident could not say. He/She was unable to give a Description. The Supervisor and Physician were notified. The Resident was administered pain medication with positive results. Under Predisposing Situation Factors: revealed wanderer. Under Other Info (information) revealed, Resident is on behavior monitoring due to medication increased to 75mg (milligrams). On 07/15/2022 at 11:23 p.m., revealed Under ID: Nursing Description: Activity aide reported to the nurse resident's Lt [left] hand bruise. No open wound or discharge was noted. Under Resident Description,: . Notes dated 7/16/2022 revealed Conclusion S/P (status/post) (after) Left-Hand Discolored Area: Activity aide called the Nurse as she noted a discolored area to the Resident's left hand; he/she is able to move the hand with no c/o [complaint] of pain at this time. According to the IR, the NP (Nurse Practitioner) was called and made aware and ordered an x-ray of the L left hand to r/o (rule/out) a fx (fracture)/family was made aware of above. The IR also included that Resident #2 was awake and confused to place and time/he/she ambulated freely around the unit. He/She would wander into other residents' rooms and be redirected by the Staff not to go into other residents' rooms. Resident #2 has the tendency to wheel other residents around and out of the dining room. The Resident has been observed hitting the door frame with his/her hand and the handle of the w/c (wheelchair) as he/she exits the dining room. The Resident receives an anticoagulant medication po [by mouth] and is at a higher risk of discoloring his/her skin by hitting an object. Resident #2 is reminded /redirected often by the Nurse and spoken to not to be wheeling or removing anyone from the dining room, but due to the Resident's decreased cognition r/t [related/to] Dementia; he/she continues to wheel residents into the hallway. The IDCP (interdisciplinary) team met and concluded this discolored area was not due to any abuse as Resident #2 has been noted to hit the hand on the door frame, which caused the discolored area to the hand. Further review of the IR showed the X-ray results were negative for a fx (fracture), and the Resident continued to deny any pain. He/She should not be wheeling the residents out of the DR (Dining Room). The CP was reviewed and updated. On 1/4/2023 at 10:43 p.m., written by LPN #2 revealed Under ID: Nursing Description: Unwitnessed occurrence at 9:30 p.m., LPN #1, RN advised LPN #2, LPN that he saw 2 South resident (Resident #2) ambulating by 2N nurse station and brought him/her to 2S (South), that is when her Nurse (LPN #2) notice the left side of [Resident 2's] check [cheek] was swollen with discoloration to the bridge of his/her nose and under his/her left eye. The IR also showed that Resident #2 spoke another language which was translated by the 2N Nurse (LPN #1). According to the IR, Resident #2 was unsure of how the injuries happened. The Resident refused skin assessment and vital signs, and his/her breathing was easy and nonlabored. Staff member stood with the Resident in the 2N dayroom while Dr. [Physician], Nurse Supervisor, and the Resident's family were made aware. A Doctor's [Physician's] order was received to send Resident #2 to the hospital for evaluation. 911 was called, and Resident #2 was transported via [by] ambulance to the Emergency Room. The Resident seemed his/her normal self, alert, confused, and verbally responsive. Able to follow simple commands with little resistance. Under Resident Description: Resident advised she does not know how it happened. A review of Resident #2's Progress Notes (PNs) revealed the following: On 12/1/2022 at 7:44 a.m. written by the Licensed Practice Nurse (LPN #3) revealed, Received elder [Resident] in bed. No s/s [signs/symptoms] of distress[,] [Resident] VSWNL (vital signs within normal limits), no complain [complaint] voiced. [Resident] refused to go back to bed [and was] redirected with negative results. [Resident] stayed in [the 2 North] dining room [and] slept intermittently. Refused x 2 urine collection(s). Wander guard in place. Will continue to monitor. On 12/8/2022 at 6:48 a.m. written by LPN #3 revealed, [Received] Resident in bed asleep no s/s of distress no complain [complaint] voiced. [Resident] stayed in his/her bed until 2 a.m. [2:00 a.m.], then [the] [Resident] wander(ed) in hallways calms (calm), no facial grimacing noted. Resident stayed in [the 2 North] dining room watching a show. The Staff attempted to redirect Resident #2 to his/her room, but the Resident refused. On 12/15/2022 at 8:35 a.m. written by LPN #3 revealed, Received [Resident] sitting in other Resident room eating fruit. [Resident] refused to go back to his/her room, wander in units, get into other residents' ['] room(s), and take other residents' ['] belongings. Several attempts to take supplies from [the] medication cart. Very difficult to redirect and does not follow direction(s). Denied pain or discomfort attempts to sleep in other residents' ['] bed and become [became] aggressive when redirected, yells, scream(s), and curses as per [unit] Staff. After several attempts, [the Resident] agreed to go to [2 North] dining room and stayed there most of [the] shift [,] slept intermittently sitting on a chair. Close monitoring [is] ongoing. Will continue to monitor. On 12/20/2022 at 6:41 a.m., written by LPN #3 revealed, Received [Resident] in bed asleep. [Resident] at 12:30 a.m., [was] noted wandering in [the] 2nd-floor units,[;] [Resident] gets into other residents ['] room and take(s) their belongings, [;] [Resident] became aggressive when this Nurse redirected yells, scream curses as per Staff also attempts to kick, punch and scratch to any staff that redirected, [Resident] is difficult to redirect and does not follow direction, Assist [Resident] to [2 North] dining room. Slept in a chair intermittently. Close monitoring ongoing. On 12/21/2022 at 7:13 a.m. written by LPN #3 revealed, Received [Resident] sitting at the edge of his/her bed. Noted talking with roommate [roommate] in their room, wander[wandering] in units, get into other residents' ['] room(s), and take [taking] other residents' ['] belongings. Several attempts to take supplies from [the] medication cart. [Resident] is very difficult to redirect and does not follow direction. Become aggressive when redirected, yells, screams, and curses as per [unit] Staff. After several attempts, [Resident] agreed to go back to his/her room (and) slept intermittently[,] sitting on a chair. Close monitoring [is] ongoing. Will continue to monitor. On 12/25/2022 at 6:52 a.m., written by LPN #3 revealed, Received [Resident] in bed asleep. [Resident] at 1:30 a.m. [a.m.] noted wandering in [the] 2nd-floor units, [;] [Resident] gets into other residents' room[s] and take[s] their belongings, [Resident] became very aggressive when this Nurse redirected yells, scream, curses as per[unit] Staff also attempts to kick, punch and scratch to any staff that redirected, [Resident] is difficult to redirect and does not follow direction . Assist [Resident] to [2 North] dining room. Slept in a chair intermittently. Close monitoring ongoing. On 12/29/2022 at 7:29 a.m. written by LPN #3 revealed, [Received Resident] in bed asleep no s/s of distress no complain [complaint] voiced. [Resident] stayed in his/her bed until 2 a.m. [2:00 a.m.], then Resident wander(ed) in the hallway calms, no facial grimacing noted. Resident stayed in [2 North] dining room talking with other Resident (s), slept intermittently [in] sitting chair, [and attempted] to redirect to his/her room but refused. Will continue to monitor. On 12/30/2022 at 5:30 a.m. written by LPN #3 revealed, eceived [Received] [Resident] in [2 North] dining room sitting in a chair, no s/s of distress no complain [complaint] voiced. Resident wander(s) in the second-floor unit. Episode x 1 of disturbing other Resident, redirected with positive results, no c/o [complaint] of pain or discomfort, no facial grimacing noted. Resident stayed in the dining room calmly watching . show, slept intermittently sitting in the chair, and was redirected to his/her room with negative results. On 1/3/2023 at 7:44 a.m. written by LPN #3 revealed, Received [Resident] in [2 North] dining room sitting in a chair, no s/s of distress no complain [complaint] voiced. Resident wander(s) in the second-floor unit. Episode x 3 of Resident getting agitated when other [Residents] went to the 2 North dining room, redirected each time with positive results, no c/o [complaint] of pain or discomfort, no facial grimacing noted. Resident stated in the dining room, he/she was calm, watching [2 North] show, slept intermittently sitting in the chair, and was redirected to her room several times with negative results. Refused snacks. Will continue to monitor. On 1/4/2023 at 11:22 p.m., written by the Licensed Practice Nurse (LPN #2), revealed Unwitnessed occurrence- at 8:30 p.m. 2 North Nurse (LPN #1), RN advised 2 South nurse (LPN #2) that he saw 2 South Resident ambulating by 2N (North) nurse station and brought him/her to 2S (South), that is when his/her Nurse (writer) notice the left side of his/her check [cheek] was swollen with discoloration to the bridge of his/her nose and under his/her left eye. The Resident spoke another language and was translated by 2N Nurse (LPN #1). Resident stated he/she is unsure of how it happened. The Resident refused skin assessment and VS (vital signs). Resident break [breath] easy and nonlabored. Staff member stood with Resident in 2N dayroom with Doctor. [Physician], Nurse Supervisor, and family made aware. Received Doctor's order to send Resident out for evaluation. 911 was called and transported [the] Resident out to ER via ambulance. Further review of the PN revealed the Resident seemed to be his/her normal self, alert, confused, and verbally responsive. Able to follow simple commands with little resistance. As requested, a follow-up call was given to the family member and advised her mother/father went to the hospital, and we will follow up with her regarding her mother/father status. On 1/5/2023 at 5:15 a.m., the PNs revealed at 5:00 a.m. A call was placed to the hospital regarding the Resident's status. Resident #2 was admitted DX (diagnosis): Subdural Hematoma. Further review of Resident #2's MR showed no evidence that the CP was followed for monitoring the Resident's location every shift and as needed; to document observed Behavior and attempted intervention and documented in the Behavior log. Also, no evidence was provided during the survey that a behavior log was implemented to document the Resident's Behavior. At the time of the survey, the facility could not provide monitoring sheets or assignment sheets that showed what Staff was assigned to monitor the residents in the dining/day room on 1/4/2023. During an interview on 2/3/2023 at 2:12 p.m., LPN #2 assigned to Resident #2 at the time of the 1/4/2023 incident stated the following: Resident #2 was in the 2 North dining room, the 2 North Nurse, LPN #1, notified me at [the] Nurse's station that something happened to the Resident. LPN #2 explained that he met LPN #1 and Resident #2 in the corridor by the elevator. Resident #2 was sitting on the bench with swelling to the face on the left cheek, [a] bruise by the bridge of [the] nose. He further stated, [the] Resident was calm and could not recall what happened or how it happened. He/she didn't say someone hit me or I fell. The last time I saw him/her was sitting in the dining room at 8:00 p.m.-8:30 p.m. Staff were in there [dining room] monitoring either an aide CNA or a nurse, and other residents were in there, but I don't know what Staff were in there that night. [The] Nurse (RN) brought this to my attention at 9:00 p.m.-9:30 p.m. I don't recall giving him/her meds [medications] or treatment that night. He/She would be sporadic with outbursts. I'm a float nurse . During the same interview, LPN #2 continued to say, Resident #2 got along with his/her roommate. He/She went into other Residents' rooms. I don't recall behaviors with other residents. When asked if there were any altercations with other residents, LPN #2 stated, No, I did not notice any altercation between other residents. The Resident has a wander guard and had it on that night. We monitor all our residents with rounds. The LPN further stated, rounds are done every hour, every half hour, by the Nurse or aide. We redirect [the Resident] from going into other rooms. The CP says to monitor and document; then it should be documented in the Nurse's PN on the computer. As far as I know, there is no behavioral monitoring sheet for him/her. I assessed him/her after the incident, Nursing Supervisor, Doctor [Physician] were made aware, and the family was also made aware. He further stated, between 8:30 p.m.-9:30 p.m.; I don't know where he/she was sitting or where he/she was between this time. I don't know [if] we are supposed to be monitoring all our residents. It's his/her home. He/She walks freely in his/her home. I don't recall the aides' name who worked with me that night. I saw him/her in the dining room sitting in an individual chair between 8:00 p.m.-8:30 p.m. During an interview on 2/3/2023 at 3:23 p.m., when the Surveyor asked about the incident with Resident #2, LPN #1 stated, around 9:00 p.m., after I did med [medication] pass, I saw the Resident standing on the side of the Nurse's station of 2 North. He/She wanders for 24 hours, and then I called over to 2 South Nurse (LPN #1). I didn't hear any yelling prior to seeing the Resident. I didn't hear anything . LPN #1 told the Surveyors that We have schedules of the Staff assigned in the dining room. He stated, it's either [an] aide or Nurse is in the dining room. However, the facility could not provide the assignment schedule during the survey. In the same interview, LPN #1 continued to say, After [the] med pass, I saw him/her, [the] Resident just standing there, took [the] Resident to 2 South, called ambulance and Supervisor. I asked [the] Resident what happened several times, [Resident] gave different answers, [said] bank person coming in, not reasonable. I couldn't understand what he/she was saying; he/she didn't make any sense, [the Resident] story [didn't make any sense]. I called 2 South Nurse (LPN #2) to come [to] get him/her. [Resident #2] just stood there. There was swelling on [the] left side and [a] light bruise on the left cheek area . No crying, [the] Resident said nothing. I just saw [the] face. I didn't check anywhere else. I didn't assess him/her. During a telephone interview on 2/6/2023 at 10:44 a.m., when the Surveyor asked the CNA assigned to Resident #2 about the incident, she stated, I was assigned to the Resident on 1/4/2023; Resident was walking around at 3:30 p.m., at 5:00 p.m. eating in the dining room, then at 8:00 p.m., he/she was sitting, watching TV then I was caring for other residents. Then at 9:40 p.m., Nurse (LPN #2) informed me of the incident. In the same interview, the CNA continued, in [the] dining room; there's the other aide that works on 2 North; I don't know the other aide's name. I was on 2 South with another aide giving care. I only know what I just told you. You need to talk to the DON. I only documented with my statement. When asked by the Surveyor if she documented on the Behavior Log for Resident #2, the CNA stated for monitoring, we do that, but I don't document on the Resident. I only document shower(s) and baths. If assigned to [a] Resident, document every 15 minutes, but I'd have to be told to do it, but I wasn't told to document [the Resident's] Behavior. The Nurse gives me a report on him/her. I don't know if I can see a care plan for him/her. I don't have access to the CP. We [aides] have just ADLs we document. From 8:00 p.m.- 9:00 p.m., I didn't see patient [Resident] because I was providing care. When Surveyor asked the CNA who was monitoring Resident #2 from 8: 00 p.m. through 9:00 p.m., I told [the] Nurse I was giving care. The CNA stated it was only her and the Nurse on the unit. So she assumed the Nurse was monitoring the patient [Resident]. During a second interview on 2/6/2023 at 11:47 a.m., LPN #2 stated, the only documentation I know for residents is the ADL(s) book; I don't know of a behavioral log; as long as the Resident is in the dining room, there should be Staff in there. The Resident was free to walk in this unit, 2 South, and the other unit, 2 North. No one was monitoring him/her. I was not aware. I last saw the Resident at 8:00 p.m.-8:30 p.m. When the Surveyor asked him what does the code 2 mean on the (MAR), the LPN replied, refused. I don't recall where I saw him/her when he/she refused the [9.00 p.m.] medication. If an aide [CNA] went to provide care or take a lunch break, another aide or activities [Staff] would monitor or watch a resident. Another staff should be monitoring him/her. He/She gravitates to the [other] 2 North dayroom. During an interview on 2/6/2023 at 12:30 p.m., in the presence of the Administrator, the DON stated, I know the nurses would monitor behaviors and document in [the] progress notes. The aides [CNAs] would note any behaviors and report it [them] to the Nurse. On the day of [the] incident, [Resident #2] was found in the dining room at 8:30 p.m., [the] last time he/she was seen in [the] dining room. The incident was at approximately 9:30 p.m. The dining room does connect both units. [Resident #2] was seen walking around the unit. Per the documentation, [there was] no aggressive behaviors noted, no need for redirection. In the same interview, the DON stated the Nursing Supervisors and other Nurses stated the patient [Resident] said initially he/she had been beaten up, [someone] hit him/her, then later he/she said someone threw something at him/her, always a different story stayed with the patient [Resident], called the Doctor [Physician], [due to the] extent of injuries, called 911 and sent out to the hospital. It had to have just happened. I don't remember the exact time. Another floor nurse came to help. Both nurses called me. LPN #2 was the Nurse that day. Normally, the Staff, CNAs take turns and monitor residents in the dining room at that time of night. When the Surveyor asked the DON what Staff was assigned to Resident #2 that day/night, the Administrator and DON replied, I can't say who was assigned to the Resident in the dining room that day/night. The DON continued to say, While the patients [residents] are in the dining room, yes, someone, a CNA usually, [is assigned] at that hour or could be a nurse should be in there. During a telephone interview on 2/7/2023 at 11:13 a.m., when asked about the behavioral log, the previous Unit Manager/Licensed Practical Nurse (UM/LPN) stated she created the behavioral log when she was the UM so that Staff could document Resident #2's wandering Behavior. She explained to the Surveyors that the CNAs documented and signed on the Behavior log every shift. When asked where the binder was located and about documenting in the binder, the UM stated the binder was located at the Nurse's station, and the CNAs would document. She said, Resident #2 did not stay in one place, the Resident would wander around the unit, and we [Staff] would divert him/her. If the Resident (Resident #2) went to the elevator or exit, we (Staff) would redirect him/her. Staff will always monitor his/her location during the shift and document any wandering behaviors in the Behavior log. A review of facility policy titled Abuse, Neglect and Exploitation dated 9/2022 revealed the following: Under Policy: included: It is the policy of this facility to provide protection for the health, welfare, and rights of each resident by developing and implementing written policies and procedures that prohibit and prevent abuse, neglect, exploitation and misappropriation of resident property. Under Definitions: included: Staff includes employees, the medical director, consultants, contractors, volunteers, caregivers who provide care and services to residents on behalf of the facility, students in the facility's nurse aide training program and students from affiliated academic institutions, including therapy, social and activity programs. Abuse means the willful infliction of injury, unreasonable confinement, intimidation, or punishment with resulting physical harm, pain or mental anguish. Abuse also includes the deprivation by an individual including a caretaker, of goods or services that are necessary to attain or maintain physical, mental, and psychosocial well-being. Instances of abuse of all residents, irrespective of any mental or physical harm, pain, or mental anguish. It includes verbal abuse, sexual abuse, physical abuse, and mental abuse, including abuse facilitated or enabled through the use of technology. Under Willful means the individual must have acted deliberately, not that the individual must have intended to inflict injury or harm. Physical Abuse includes but is not limited to hitting, slapping, punching, biting and kicking. It also includes controlling Behavior through corporal punishment.Neglect means failure of the facility, its employees, or service providers to provide goods and services to a resident that are necessary to avoid physical harm, pain, mental anguish, or emotional distress. Under Serious Bodily Injury means an injury involving extreme physical pain; involving substantial risk of death, involving protracted loss or impairment of the function of a bodily member, organ, or mental faculty, requiring medical interventions such as surgery, hospitalization, or physical rehabilitation or an injury resulting from criminal sexual abuse . Under Mistreatment means inappropriate treatment or exploitation of a resident. A review of facility policy titled Behavioral Health Services dated 9/2022 revealed the following: Under Policy: included: It is the policy of this facility that all residents receive care and services to assist him or her to reach and maintain the highest level of mental and psychosocial functioning. Under Policy Explanation and Compliance Guidelines, included: 1. The facility will ensure that each Resident receives the necessary behavioral health care and services to attain or maintain the highest practicable physical, mental, and psychosocial well-being in accordance with the comprehensive assessment and plan of care. 2. Behavioral health includes a resident's entire emotional and mental health, which includes the prevention and treatment of mental and substance use disorders. 3. The facility must have sufficient Staff who provide direct services to residents with the appropriate competencies and skill sets to provide nursing and related services to assure Resident safety and attain or maintain the highest practicable physical, mental and psychosocial well-being of each Resident determined by resident assessments and individual plans of care and considering the number, acuity, and diagnosis of the facility's resident population. 4. These competencies include but are not limited to knowledge of and appropriate training and supervision for: Caring for residents with mental and psychosocial disorders identified in the facility assessment and implementing non-pharmacological interventions 5. All residents who display or are diagnosed with mental disorders or psychosocial adjustment difficulty, or have a history of trauma or post-traumatic stress disorder will receive appropriate treatment and services to attain the highest practicable and psychosocial well-being . A review of the facility's policy titled Documentation In Medical Record with a revised date 10/2022 revealed the following: Under Policy: included: Each resident's medical record shall contain an accurate representation of the actual experiences of the resident and include enough information to provide a picture of the resident's progress through complete, accurate and timely documentation. Under Policy Explanation and Compliance Guidelines, included: Policy Explanation and Compliance Guidelines: 1. Licensed Staff and interdisciplinary team members shall document all assessments, observations, and services provided in the Resident's medical record in accordance with state law and facility policy. 2. Documentation shall be completed at the time of service but no later than the shift[TRUNCATED]
SERIOUS (G) 📢 Someone Reported This

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

Actual Harm - a resident was hurt due to facility failures

Comprehensive Care Plan (Tag F0656)

A resident was harmed · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Complaint #: NJ161036, NJ161038 Based on interviews, medical records reviews, and review of other pertinent facility documentati...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Complaint #: NJ161036, NJ161038 Based on interviews, medical records reviews, and review of other pertinent facility documentation on 2/3/2023, 2/6/2023, 2/7/2023, and 2/14/2023, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure care plan interventions were implemented for a resident (Resident #2) who is cognitively impaired and has a history of wandering, resulting in the resident being hospitalized with a Subdural Hematoma. The facility also failed to follow its policy titled Comprehensive Care Plans for 1 of 4 residents reviewed for CP (Resident #2). Review of the medical record (MR) was as follows: According to the admission Record (AR), Resident #2 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses which included but were not limited to Unspecified Dementia, Unspecified Severity, Without Behavioral Disturbance, Psychotic Disturbance, Mood Disturbance, and Anxiety, Syncope, and Collapse, Unspecified Lack of Coordination and Wandering In Diseases Classified Elsewhere. According to the Minimum Data Set (MDS), an assessment tool dated 10/13/2022, Resident # 2 had a Brief Interview of Mental Status (BIMS) score of 00/15, which indicated the Resident had severely impaired cognition. The MDS also showed Resident #2 only needed supervision with all Activities of Daily Living (ADLs). A review of the Resident's Care Plan (CP) initiated on 1/11/2021 revealed under Focus: that Resident #2 is an elopement risk/wanderer AEB (as evidenced by) the Resident wanders aimlessly, Significantly intrudes on the privacy of other residents by entering their room. Under Goal, indicated Resident will not leave facility unattended through the review date. Target Date 1/11/2023. Under Interventions included: Assess for fall risk, Distract Resident from wandering by offering pleasant diversions, structured activities, food conversation, television, book, Monitor location every shift and as needed, Document wandering Behavior and attempted diversional interventions in Behavior log, Wander alert: . Left ankle q (every) shift . Exp 10/2023/Monitor and Document placement of wander guard q shift. During an interview on 2/3/2023 at 2:12 p.m., LPN #2 assigned to Resident #2 at the time of the 1/4/2023 incident stated the following: Resident #2 was in the Unit dining room, the 2 North Nurse, LPN #1, notified me at [the] Nurse's station that something happened to the Resident. LPN #2 explained that he met LPN #1 and Resident #2 in the corridor by the elevator. Resident #2 was sitting on the bench with swelling to the face on the left cheek, [a] bruise by the bridge of [the] nose. He further stated, [the] Resident was calm and could not recall what happened or how it happened. He/she didn't say someone hit me or I fell. The last time I saw him/her was sitting in the dining room at 8:00 p.m.-8:30 p.m. Staff were in there [dining room] monitoring either CNA or a nurse, and other residents were in there, but I don't know what Staff were in there that night. [The] Nurse (RN) brought this to my attention at 9:00 p.m.-9:30 p.m. I don't recall giving him/her meds [medications] or treatment that night. He/She would be sporadic with outbursts. I'm a float nurse . During the same interview, LPN #2 continued to say, Resident #2 got along with his/her roommate. He/She went into other Resident's rooms. I don't recall behaviors with other residents. When asked if there were any altercations with other residents, LPN #2 stated, No, I did not notice any altercation between other residents. The Resident has a wander guard and had it on that night. We monitor all our residents with rounds. The LPN further stated, rounds are done every hour, every half hour, by the Nurse or aide. We redirect [the Resident] from going into other rooms. The CP says to monitor and Document; then it should be documented in the Nurse's PN on the computer. As far as I know, there is no behavioral monitoring sheet for him/her. I assessed him/her after the incident, Nursing Supervisor, Doctor [Physician] were made aware, and the family was made aware as well. Between 8:30 p.m.-9:30 p.m., I don't know where he/she was sitting or where he/she was between this time. I don't know [if] we are supposed to be monitoring all our residents. It's his/her home. He/She walks freely in his/her home. I don't recall the aides' name who worked with me that night. I saw him/her in the dining room sitting in an individual chair between 8:00 p.m.-8:30 p.m. During an interview on 2/3/2023 at 3:23 p.m., when the Surveyor asked about the incident with Resident #2, LPN #1 stated, around 9:00 p.m., after I did med [medication] pass, I saw the Resident standing on the side of the Nurse's station of 2 North. He/She wanders for 24 hours, and then I called over to 2 South Nurse (LPN #1). I didn't hear any yelling prior to seeing the Resident. I didn't hear anything. No other residents were around him/her . LPN #1 explained to the Surveyors that We have schedules of the Staff assigned in the dining room. He stated, it's either [an] aide or Nurse is in the dining room. However, the facility could not provide the assignment schedule during the survey. In the same interview, LPN #1 continued to say, After [the] med pass, I saw him/her, [the] Resident just standing there, took [the] Resident to 2 South, called ambulance and Supervisor. I asked [the] Resident what happened several times, [Resident] gave different answers, [said] bank person coming in, not reasonable. I couldn't understand what he/she was saying; he/she didn't make any sense, [the Resident] story [didn't make any sense]. I called 2 South Nurse (LPN #2) to come get him/her. [Resident #2] just stood there. There was swelling on [the] left side and [a] light bruise on the left cheek area . No crying, [the] Resident said nothing. I just saw [the] face. I didn't check anywhere else. I didn't assess him/her. During a telephone interview on 2/6/2023 at 10:44 a.m., when the Surveyor asked the CNA assigned to Resident #2 about the incident, she stated, I was assigned to the Resident on 1/4/2023; Resident was walking around at 3:30 p.m., at 5:00 p.m. eating in the dining room, then at 8:00 p.m., he/she was sitting, watching TV then I was caring for other residents. Then at 9:40 p.m., Nurse (LPN #2) informed me of the incident. In the same interview, the CNA continued, in [the] dining room; there's the other aide that works on 2 North; I don't know the other aide's name. I was on 2 South with another aide giving care. I only know what I just told you. You need to talk to the DON. I only documented with my statement. When asked by the Surveyor if she documented on the Behavior Log for Resident #2, the CNA stated for monitoring, we do that, but I don't document on him/her. I only Document shower(s) and baths. If assigned to [a] Resident, document every 15 minutes, but I'd have to be told to do it, but I wasn't told to document [the Resident's] Behavior. The Nurse gives me a report on him/her. I don't know if I can see a care plan for him/her. I don't have access to the CP. We [aides] have just ADLs we document. From 8:00 p.m.- 9:00 p.m., I didn't see patient [Resident] because I was providing care. When Surveyor asked the CNA who was monitoring Resident #2 from 8:00 p.m. through 9:00 p.m., I told Nurse, I was giving care . A review of Resident #2's MR showed no evidence that the CP was followed for monitoring the Resident's location every shift and as needed; to document observed Behavior and attempted intervention and documented in the Behavior log. Also, there was no evidence provided at the time of the survey that a behavior log was implemented for documentation of the Resident's Behavior. During an interview on 2/7/2023 at 12:30 p.m., the Director of Nursing (DON), in the presence of the Licensed Nursing Home Administrator (LNHA) stated, I can't say if there was someone [staff] monitoring the residents that day of the incident [1/4/2023]. When asked by the Surveyor if there should be someone watching the residents while in the dining room watching television, the DON said, 'yes, while the patients are in the dining room, someone [CNA /Nurse] should be in the dining room monitoring the resident. The DON further stated, the purpose of the CP is to be individualized so that we can provide care for the patients. When asked if the CP was followed for Resident #2, the DON responded, No, the CP was not followed. A review of the facility policy titled Comprehensive Care Plans with a revision date 09/2022 revealed the following: Under Policy: included: It is the policy of this facility to develop and implement a comprehensive person-centered care plan of each resident, consistent with resident rights, that includes measurable objectives and timeframe's to meet a resident's medical, nursing, and mental and psychosocial needs that are identified in the resident's comprehensive assessment. Under Definition: Person-centered care means to focus on the resident as the locus of control and support the resident in making their own choices and having control over their daily lives. Under Policy Explanation and Compliance Guidelines : .3. The comprehensive care plan will describe, at a minimum, the following: a. The services that are to be furnished to attain or maintain the Resident's highest practicable physical, mental, and psychosocial well-being .5. The comprehensive care plan will be reviewed and revised by the interdisciplinary team after each comprehensive and quarterly MDS (Minimum Data Set) assessment. 6. The comprehensive care plan will include measurable objectives and time frames to meet the Resident's needs as identified in the Resident's comprehensive assessment. The objectives will be utilized to monitor the Resident's progress. Alternative interventions will be documented as needed .8. Qualified staff responsible for carrying out interventions specified in the care plan will be notified of their roles and responsibilities for carrying out the interventions, initially and when changes are made. N.[NAME].C.: 8:39-11.2(e)(2) N.J.A.C.: 8.39- 27.1 (a)
Dec 2022 3 deficiencies
CONCERN (D) 📢 Someone Reported This

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

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

Report Alleged Abuse (Tag F0609)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** C# NJ154625 Based on interview, record review, and review of pertinent facility documents on 12/1/22, 12/2/22, and 12/5/22, it w...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** C# NJ154625 Based on interview, record review, and review of pertinent facility documents on 12/1/22, 12/2/22, and 12/5/22, it was determined that the Director of Nursing failed to immediately report an allegation of staff to resident physical abuse to the administrator or designee, notify the New Jersey Department of Health (NJDOH) timely, and follow the facility's policies on Abuse, Neglect, and Exploitation and Abuse, Neglect, and Mistreatment of the Elderly. This deficient practice was identified for 1 of 3 sampled residents (Resident #7) reviewed for incident and accident investigation and reporting. This was evidenced by the following: On 12/1/22 at 11:40 AM, the surveyor interviewed Resident #7. A writing board was used during interview due to Resident's hearing difficulty. The surveyor asked the Resident about the incident that took place on the evening of 4/26/22. Resident #7 explained that a Certified Nursing Assistant #1 (CNA #1) hit her months ago but could not recall the details of incident or who the CNA was. The Resident said that he/she could identify the CNA but have not seen her since the incident. Review of the Electronic Medical Records (EMRs) were as follows: 1. According to the admission Record (AR), Resident #7 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses that included but were not limited to: Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis, Hypertension, and Hearing Loss. The Minimum Data Set (MDS), an assessment tool, dated 4/11/22, revealed a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of 11 which indicated that the Resident's cognitive status was moderately impaired. The MDS also indicated that the Resident required extensive assistance for Activities of Daily Living (ADL). The Facility Reportable Event (FRE) reported to the New Jersey Department of Health (NJ DOH) on 5/8/22, 12 days after the incident, revealed that Resident #7's family member informed the Licensed Practical Nurse #1 (LPN #1) that they called the police after it was reported to them by the Resident that he/she was hit, choked, and thrown water by CNA #1. LPN #1 notified the Administrator about the incident on 5/8/22 at about 7:00 PM. The Administrator initiated an investigation and reported the incident to NJDOH on that same date. The facility's Summary of Investigation indicated that an investigation was immediately initiated on 5/8/22 and further investigation revealed that on 4/26/22, during med pass, Resident #7 told LPN #1 that CNA #1 mishandled and choked him/her. LPN #1 assessed the Resident and found no injury and reported the incident to the evening Registered Nurse Supervisor (RNS). The evening RNS interviewed the alleged CNA #1 who denied the allegation and at that time the CNA was removed from her post. The evening RNS visited the Resident on 4/7/22 after dinner and the Resident was unable to recollect the incident. On 5/9/22 the social worker interviewed four residents whom CNA #1 was assigned to care for and there were no complaints. The summary indicated this conclusion: It's difficult to discern the validity of the allegations as there was no witness to the event considering the Resident's periods of forgetfulness. However, CNA #1 was taken off her post pending investigation and will not be assigned to care for Resident #7. CNA #1 will receive an in-depth in-service on out policy on Abuse Prevention on her return. On 12/2/22, the surveyor received a summary of investigation that was undated and unsigned and an incident report from the Director of Nursing (DON) and the Administrator. They both stated that they could not locate the investigation documents which included the FRE report and records, employee statements, and investigation summary. They further stated that the documents should be readily available, however, they did not know where the former Administrator and DON kept the files. The following documents were received and reviewed as follows: The surveyor reviewed the document titled #1436 dated 5/8/2022 at 6:36 PM (12 days after the incident) prepared by day shift RNS, revealed the following: Incident Location: Resident's room. Nursing Description: The Resident's representative reported to LPN#1 around 4:30 PM on 5/8/22 that Resident #7 informed his/her family member that on 4/26/22, around 8 PM, CNA #1 hit, choked and threw water at the Resident. The day shift RNS assessed the skin of the Resident on 5/8/22 and there were no injuries observed. The document 1436 further indicated the Resident's predisposing psychological factors were confused and impaired memory. No witnesses found. The surveyor reviewed the unsigned and undated facility document titled Summary of Investigation. It was revealed that the summary was documented in the FRE which the surveyor previously reviewed. The surveyor reviewed a paper document titled Physician's Orders dated 4/26/22 signed by the evening RNS which indicated that at 9:00 PM, LPN #1 notified the evening about the aforementioned incident. CNA #1 denied the allegations when the evening RNS questioned her. The evening RNS told CNA #1 to write her statement and stay away from Resident #7. The evening RNS documented that LPN #1 assessed Resident #7 and at that time had denied pain and there was no bruise or signs of mishandling. The RNS documented that she attempted to interview the Resident but was sleepy and unable to answer questions clearly. She also documented that the Physician was paged, the DON was notified, and a grievance report was filed. On 12/5/22 at 10:50 AM, the surveyor conducted a phone interview with LPN #1 who stated that on 4/26/22 around 7:00 or 8:00 PM, Resident #7 told her that CNA #1 pushed the Resident while in the bathroom. LPN #1 explained that she reported the incident to the evening RNS immediately then assessed the Resident and found no injury. She instructed CNA #1 not to care for the Resident for the rest of her shift. Furthermore, LPN #1 could not explain when the surveyor asked why there was no documentation about the aforementioned incident in the Resident's PN. On 12/5/22 at 11:00 AM, the surveyor conducted a phone interview with the evening RNS who confirmed that she was the evening shift supervisor on 4/26/22. The evening RNS explained that on 4/26/22 at around 8:00 to 9:00 PM, LPN #1 informed her about the aforementioned incident. She then went to check on the Resident and attempted to interview him/her but the Resident was sleepy. She further explained that she started investigating by questioning the CNA about the aforementioned incident. CNA #1 denied the allegations. She instructed CNA #1 to write a statement and not to provide care to Resident #7. Additionally, she indicated that she notified the former DON around 9:00 or 9:30 PM on 4/26/22 about the incident. The evening RNS stated that the former DON instructed her to let the Resident sleep and would continue the investigation the next day. The surveyor asked the evening RNS why CNA #1 was not removed or dismissed completely from all her assignments. She said that it was the former DON's decision and not her. On 12/5/22 at 12:37 PM, the surveyor conducted a phone interview with the former DON of the facility. She explained that the incident was communicated to the department heads during morning meetings. She could not recall if the incident was reported to the former Administrator. The surveyor asked if she reported the staff to resident abuse allegation incident to the NJDOH within the required timeframe. She stated that she could not remember and added I follow the chain of command, it was the Administrator's responsibility to report the incident. However, before the interview ended, she clarified and confirmed that anyone could report an allegation of abuse to the NJDOH. Review of the facility policy titled, Abuse Neglect, and Exploitation dated 09/2022, under Employee Training indicated that A. New employees will be educated on abuse .B. Existing staff will receive annual education through planned in-services or as needed .will include reporting process for abuse . Under Reporting/Response indicated that 1. Reporting of all alleged violations to the Administrator, State Agency .within the specified timeframes .a. Immediately, but no later than 2 hours after the allegation is made. If the events that cause the allegation involve abuse. Review of the facility policy titled, Abuse Neglect, and Mistreatment of the Elderly undated under D.) Investigation indicated that 1. The Director of Nursing/designee is designated as the individual who conducts the investigation. Under F. Reporting indicated that 1. The Director of Nursing/Administrator or designee reports to the New Jersey Department of Health and Senior Services immediately any occurrences of suspected abuse .The facility maintains records of all documentation sent to the DOH . NJAC 8:39-9.4(f)
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** C #: NJ148512, NJ152200 Based on interviews and record review of the medical record (MR) on 12/1/22, 12/2/22, and 12/5/22, it w...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** C #: NJ148512, NJ152200 Based on interviews and record review of the medical record (MR) on 12/1/22, 12/2/22, and 12/5/22, it was determined that the facility failed to maintain a complete MR for 4 of 7 sampled residents (Resident # 1, Resident #2, Resident #3, and Resident #8) reviewed for personal belongings. This deficient practice is evidenced by the following: 1. According to the admission RECORD (AR), Resident #1 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnosis that included but was not limited to: Delusional. 2. According to the AR, Resident #2 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnosis that included but was not limited to: Cataract. 3. According to the AR, Resident #3 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnosis that included but was not limited to: Difficulty Walking. 4. According to the AR, Resident #8 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnosis that included but was not limited to: Parkinson Disease. The AR further showed that Resident #8 was discharged [DATE]. Review of the form RESIDENT CLOTHING/ VALUABLES INVENTORY (RCVI), for Resident # 1, Resident #2, Resident #3, and Resident #8 showed no documentation to indicate that the personal items were accounted for which was not according to the facility's policy. During the interview with UM #1 and ADON on 12/1/22 at 10:30 am, they stated that the RCVI should have been completed on the day of admission. They further stated that the UM's and the supervisors were to ensure that the RCVI form was completed and updated throughout the resident's stay. The facility policy titled, RESIDENT PERSONAL BELONGINGS, dated 11/2019, showed All residents personal items will be inventoried at the time of admission by the social services designee, or another designated staff member and documentation shall be retained in the medical record . NJAC 8:39-4.1(15)
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

Infection Control (Tag F0880)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** C# NJ152200 Based on observation, interview, record review, and review of pertinent facility documents on 12/1/22, 12/2/22, and ...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** C# NJ152200 Based on observation, interview, record review, and review of pertinent facility documents on 12/1/22, 12/2/22, and 12/5/22, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure that transmission-based precautions were followed for a newly admitted Resident who was immunocompromised and not up to date with vaccination status and follow the facility's policy on cohorting. This deficient practice was identified for 1 of 5 sampled residents (Resident #9) reviewed for infection control and was evidenced by the following: According to U.S. CDC Interim Infection Prevention and Control Recommendations for Healthcare Personnel During the Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) Pandemic Updated Sept. 23, 2022. Included 2. Recommended infection prevention and control (eIPC) practices when caring for a patient with suspected or confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection. The IPC recommendations described below (e.g., patient placement, recommended PPE) .asymptomatic patients who have met the criteria for empiric Transmission-Based Precautions based on close contact with someone with SARS-CoV-2 infection. Examples of when empiric Transmission-Based Precautions (TBP) following close contact may be considered include: Patient is moderately to severely immunocompromised. Patient is residing on a unit with others who are moderately to severely immunocompromised. Patients placed in empiric Transmission-Based Precautions based on close contact with someone with SARS-CoV-2 infection should be maintained in Transmission-Based Precautions for the following time periods. Patients can be removed from Transmission-Based Precautions after day 7 following the exposure if they do not develop symptoms and all viral testing as described for asymptomatic individuals following close contact is negative. Place a patient with suspected or confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection in a single-person room. The door should be kept closed (if safe to do so). On 12/1/22 at 10:00 AM, the surveyor toured the Covid-19 positive and Person Under Investigation (PUI) unit on the 3rd floor. Each room had a hanging Personal Protective Equipment (PPE) storage on the door and TBP signage instructing what the staff should do, which included but not limited to the following: before entering the resident's room, clean the hands, don (put on) isolation gown, gloves, and face protection and doff (remove)/dispose prior to leaving the room. Review of the facility's census dated December 2, 2022, revealed that room [ROOM NUMBER], where Resident #1 was located had a vaccination status of unknown (UNK) and date of admission (DOA) of 11/29/22. Review of the Electronic Medical Records (EMRs) were as follows: According to the admission Record (AR), Resident #1 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnosis that included but was not limited to: Respiratory Failure and Diabetes. Review of the Resident's Order Summary Report (OSR) revealed an order for Isolation (Droplet and Contact) Precautions for 14 days (Quarantine due to vaccination status). During observation on 12/2/22 at 10:00 AM, the door of room [ROOM NUMBER] was wide open and had no signage or hanging PPE storage on the door or anywhere near the door. On 12/2/22 at 10:15 AM, the surveyor interviewed the Licensed Practical Nurse/Unit Manager (LPN/UM) for Covid/PUI unit. The LPN/UM stated that newly admitted residents who were asymptomatic, had negative covid test and unvaccinated are placed under TBP. Residents on TBP should have signage and hanging PPE storage on the door. Furthermore, the LPN/UM stated that the TBP placement was according to the facility's Covid-19 Updates on Testing and Cohorting guidelines which was posted at the nurse's station. The surveyor reviewed the document titled Cohorting that was posted at the nurse's station which indicated that for a resident who was asymptomatic, had a negative test, and closed contact with someone who was Covid positive, and not up to date with vaccine status (unvaccinated) must be cohorted in yellow zone. TBP could be discontinued after day 7 following exposure if a viral test was negative and did not develop symptoms. On that same date and time, the LPN/UM confirmed that Resident #1's family was unable to provide proof of covid vaccination which was the reason the Resident was on the 3rd floor and since there was no proof of vaccination, the Resident was considered unvaccinated. The surveyor asked why Resident #1 was not on TBP, the LPN/UM could not answer and said that Resident #1 should have been on droplet and contact precautions. A signage for TBP and hanging PPE storage should have been placed on the door. She explained that it was her responsibility to ensure appropriate cohorting and TBP placement. She later added that she would update Resident #1's TBP status immediately. On 12/2/22 at 12:45 PM, the surveyor interviewed the Regional Infection Preventionist Nurse (IPN), she stated that newly admitted residents who were not up to date with covid vaccinations and tested negative should be placed on TBP (contact and droplet). The surveyor asked the IPN what Resident #1's vaccination and TBP status. She explained that Resident #1 had a negative covid test result but because the Resident's vaccination status was not up to date as there was no proof of vaccination, the Resident was placed in the PUI unit for observation and monitoring. She further explained that she was unaware that there was no signage for TBP on the Resident's door. The IPN could not explain why there was no TBP signage on the door or why the LPN/UM did not follow the cohorting guidelines but stated that the TBP signage would be put in place immediately. On 12/2/22 at 1:14 PM, the surveyor interviewed the Director of Nursing (DON), she stated that newly admitted residents must be quarantined until proof of vaccination is provided. She added that Resident #1 was placed in the PUI unit for TBP placement (contact and droplet precaution). She could not explain why the TBP guidelines was not followed but stated that Resident #1 would be place on TBP immediately. Review of the facility policy Considerations for Cohorting Covid-19 Residents last reviewed 09/2022, under Policy, indicated: The facility shall follow federal and state-mandated guidelines when cohorting residents to prevent transmission of the disease. Under Policy Explanation and Compliance Guideline, indicated under 1. Residents should be organized in the following cohorts. Under b.) Yellow Zone, iii. New or readmitted asymptomatic residents who are not up to date with all recommended Covid-19 vaccine doses and have a viral test negative for SARS-Cov-2 .5. Full Transmission-Based Precautions and all recommended Covid-19 PPE should be used for all residents who are in red or yellow zones. NJAC 8:39-19.4 (a) 2
Apr 2021 3 deficiencies
CONCERN (D)

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

Pressure Ulcer Prevention (Tag F0686)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on observation, interview, and record review, it was determined that the facility failed to follow a physician's order for an Alternating air mattress for a resident with a stage III pressure ul...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, interview, and record review, it was determined that the facility failed to follow a physician's order for an Alternating air mattress for a resident with a stage III pressure ulcer. This deficient practice was identified for 1 of 2 residents (Resident #49) reviewed for Pressure Ulcers. This deficient practice was evidenced by the following: On 4/13/21 at 11:30 AM, the surveyor observed Resident #49 in bed awake. The resident smiled at the surveyor but was unable to answer questions. The surveyor did not observe an air mattress in place. On 4/15/21 at 11:50 AM, the surveyor observed the Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA #1) rendering care to the resident. The CNA stated she did not know the resident very well since she was a floater. The CNA acknowledged that the resident had a wound near the buttocks area. The surveyor observed there was no air mattress in place. The CNA #1 acknowledged that the resident did not have an air mattress in place. A review of the resident's Face Sheet (an admission summary), reflected that the resident was admitted to the facility with diagnoses that included Hemiplegia and Hemiparesis ( muscle weakness or partial paralysis on one side of the body) following unspecified Cerebrovascular Disease affecting Left Non-Dominant Side, Cerebral Infarction due to Embolism of unspecified Cerebral Artery, and Cognitive Communication Deficit. The surveyor reviewed the 2/3/21 Annual Minimum Data Set (MDS) and noted a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of 03, which reflected that the resident's cognition was severely impaired. Further review of the MDS indicated the resident had a stage III pressure ulcer/injury which was unhealed. A review of the April 2021 Order Summary Report showed an order dated 8/22/21 for an Alternating air mattress, check for presence and functioning every shift. The Order Summary Report also indicated an order dated 4/2/21 for Hydrogel Ag Gel (Silver) apply to sacral wound topically every day shift every Monday, Wednesday, and Friday for wound care. Cleanse wound with normal saline and apply Hydrogel Ag and Collagen to wound bed, apply zinc oxide around wound, cover with border gauze. Further review of the April 2021 Order Summary Report showed an order dated 6/18/20 to T&P [turn and position] every 2 hours while in bed every shift. Review of the electronic Treatment Record (eTAR) did not reflect the above order for the Alternating air mattress. The eTAR did indicate the order to T&P every 2 hours and this was signed by the nurses. Further review of the resident's medical record indicated the resident was seen by the wound doctor on a weekly basis. Review of the weekly wound assessments revealed the wound was debrided by the wound doctor on 3/24/21. Review of the 4/7/21 wound assessment indicated the wound measured 1.4 cm by 0.5 cm by 0.3 cm in depth .light amount of serous drainage .no odor .wound bed has 5% slough, 95% granulation .peri wound skin does not exhibit signs or symptoms of infection. Granulation is a sign of healing. On 4/19/21 at 11:50 AM, the surveyor observed the resident out of bed in a geri chair inside the resident's room. The surveyor observed a black air mattress on the floor in the resident's room. At that same time, the surveyor interviewed CNA #2 who stated that maintenance came with an air mattress and it is inflating. The CNA #2 stated that he did not pay attention if the air mattress was ever there. On that same day at 12:00 PM, the surveyor interviewed the Registered Nurse who was caring for the resident who stated, the air mattress was new, and maintenance was inflating the air mattress. The RN stated she usually works on another unit and could not speak to why the resident did not have an air mattress in place and stated every resident with a pressure ulcer should have some type of pressure relieving device in place. On that same day at 12:15 PM, the surveyor interviewed the maintenance director who stated the resident had an air mattress before but broke and nursing put in a request for a new one on 4/16/21. He further stated the new mattress is a Derma flow LAL [low air loss] mattress The surveyor requested to review the nursing request. Review of the 4/16/21 nursing request for a new air mattress revealed the request was submitted by the Assistant Director of Nursing (ADON). The comments section indicated needs air mattress. Should be one left on 1 W [West]. On 4/20/21 at 10:02 AM, the surveyor observed the resident in bed lying on the left side with pillows in place and a LAL air mattress in place. The ADON was working on the unit and showed the surveyor the resident's stage III wound. The surveyor observed the wound was irregular in shape, no odor, and no drainage. The wound bed was clean, with pink granulation tissue present. On 4/20/21 at 11:38 AM, the surveyor interviewed the ADON who confirmed that he was the one who submitted the nursing request on 4/16/21. He further stated that on 4/16/21, he was working on unit 1 North when a nurse from 2 South called him and told him that the air mattress wasn't working. The ADON could not provide the name of the nurse who called him on 4/16/21. The ADON could not speak to why the surveyor did not observe an air mattress in place on 4/13/21 and 4/15/21. On 4/21/21 at 1: 45 PM, the surveyors met with the Licensed Nursing Home Administrator (LNHA), Director of Nursing, and the Regional Nurse and discussed the above observations and concerns. There was no facility policy provided and no additional information provided. NJAC 8:39-27.1(e)
CONCERN (E)

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

Deficiency F0658 (Tag F0658)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

**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: a.) follow a physician's orde...

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: a.) follow a physician's order with regards to blood pressure medications with parameters for 2 of 32 residents (Resident #43 and #312) reviewed for medications; b.) follow a Dietician's recommendation for 1 of 7 residents (Resident #49) reviewed for nutrition; c.) ensure a physician's order for a wander guard was followed for 1 of 2 residents (Resident # 42) reviewed for unsafe wandering; d.) properly transcribe a physician's order onto the Electronic Medication Record (eMAR) for 1 of 32 residents (Resident # 106); e.) follow up on a Psychiatrist's recommendation for a Gradual Dose Reduction (GDR) for 1 of 5 residents (Resident # 61); and e.) ensure the correct medication was administered to 1 of 6 residents (Resident #97, non-sampled resident) observed during the Medication Observation Pass. 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 registered professional nurse is defined as diagnosing and treating human responses to actual and potential physical and emotional health problems, through such services as case-finding, health teaching, health counseling, and provision of care supportive to or restorative of life and wellbeing, and executing medical regimens as prescribed by a licensed or otherwise legally authorized physician or dentist. Reference: New Jersey Statutes Annotated, Title 45, Chapter 11. Nursing Board. The Nurse Practice Act for the State of New Jersey states: The practice of nursing as a licensed practical nurse is defined as performing tasks and responsibilities within the framework of case finding; reinforcing the patient and family teaching program through health teaching, health counseling, and provision of supportive and restorative care, under the direction of a registered nurse or licensed or otherwise legally authorized physician or dentist. 1. On 4/13/21 at 12:07 PM, the surveyor observed Resident #43 l asleep on their bed. A review of the resident's Face Sheet (an admission summary), reflected that the resident was admitted to the facility with diagnoses that included Iron-deficiency Anemia (a condition that lacks enough healthy red blood cells to carry adequate oxygen to the body), Hypertension (elevated blood pressure), and Diabetes. A review of the 2/1/21 Quarterly Minimum Data Set, an assessment tool used to facilitate the management of care, indicated a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of 7, which indicated the resident's cognition was severely impaired. A review of the April 2021 Order Summary Report with a start date of 4/3/21, revealed an order for Hydralazine HCL tablet (tab) 25 milligram one tab by mouth three times a day for Hypertension (HTN) hold for systolic blood pressure (SBP) below 140. The corresponding physician order was transcribed into the April 2021 electronic Medication Administration Record (eMAR). Further review of the April 2021 eMAR's revealed that nurses signed and reflected a checkmark which means that the medication was administered on the following dates and times below: Date Time SBP 4/5/21 1700 115/62 4/6/21 1700 122/59 4/8/21 1700 133/52 4/12/21 0900 126/76 4/12/21 1300 130/64 4/12/21 1700 122/68 4/13/21 0900 129/67 4/13/21 1300 132/76 On 4/15/21 at 1:58 PM, the surveyors met with the Licensed Nursing Home Administrator (LNHA), Director of Nursing (DON), Infection Preventionist Nurse (IPN), and made them aware of the above concerns about the medication Hydralazine and not following the physician's order not to give if the SBP was below 140. On 4/19/21 at 12:34 PM, the Assistant Director of Nursing (ADON) informed the surveyors that he sometimes works as a floor nurse and administers medications. The ADON stated that a checkmark in the eMAR meant that the medication was administered and I'm not sure what would be the code to put it medication was held or not given. He further stated that if a medication was held, the nurse would have to call and notify the doctor and that there should be a note to show that the medication was held. On that same date and time, the ADON acknowledged that he was the nurse that signed the eMAR on 4/12 and 4/13/21 for Hydralazine. The ADON stated, I know I did not give the medication on those days because I have to follow the parameters. He further stated that I don't know why it was a checkmark on both days which means it was administered even though I know I didn't give the medication because of the parameters. On 4/20/21 at 10:03 AM, the Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN #1) informed the surveyors during a telephone interview that she used the code number 12 which means out of parameters in the eMAR and it will automatically direct you to the notes that medication was not given due to parameters. LPN #1 further stated, a checkmark in the eMAR means the medication was administered. On that same date and time, the LPN #1 stated I did not expand the order for Hydralazine in the eMAR that was why I did not see the parameter order and the medication was administered on dates 4/5, 4/6, and 4/8/21. She further stated that there was no negative effect on the resident. On 4/20/21 at 10:11 AM, Registered Nurse#1 (RN#1) informed the surveyor during a telephone interview that #9 was a code if the blood pressure medication was not administered because it was beyond a parameter order. RN #1 stated that a checkmark means that the medication was administered. She further stated, I don't know, when asked by the surveyor why the medication Hydralazine was administered on 4/12/21 when the SBP was below 140. 2. On 4/15/21 at 11:02 AM, the surveyor observed Resident #312 lying on their bed. The resident informed the surveyor that he/she was in the facility for subacute rehabilitation (rehab) and planned to go home after rehab. A review of the resident's Face Sheet reflected that the resident was admitted to the facility with diagnoses that included HTN, and Atrial fibrillation (an irregular and often rapid heart rate that can cause increased risk of strokes, heart failure, and other heart-related complications). A review of the April 2021 Order Summary Report revealed an order dated 4/15/21 for Diltiazem HCL ER (is used to treat high blood pressure and to control chest pain) 120 milligram capsule one time a day for HTN hold for SBP less than 100. The corresponding physician order was transcribed into the April 2021 eMAR. The order was signed as administered from 4/9 through 4/14/21 with the pulse instead of the SBP documented. A review of the 4/15/21 Physician's Progress Notes revealed that the resident was cognitively intact, with no new complaints, condition was improving, and the heart rate was controlled. On 4/15/21 at 11:09 AM, RN#2 showed the surveyor the eMAR order for Diltiazem and stated I don't know what happened why the pulse instead of the SBP was documented. RN #2 indicated that there was no documented negative effect on the resident. On 4/20/21 at 12:57 PM, the DON informed the surveyors that the facility had no policy related to medication with parameters. There was no additional information provided by the facility. 5. On 4/13/21 at 11:31 AM, the surveyor observed Resident #106 in bed, the resident was awake but was unable to answer the surveyor's questions. A review of Resident #106's Face Sheet (an admission summary), reflected that the resident was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses that included Multiple Sclerosis (disease that cause damage to the nerve cells in the brain and spinal cord which prevent them from transmitting signals), Anxiety Disorder and Vascular Dementia. A review of the 3/10/21 Annual Minimum Data Set, an assessment tool used to facilitate the management of care, indicated a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score 03 which reflected that the resident's cognition was severely impaired. A review of the April 2021 Order Summary Report with a start date of 4/1/21, revealed an order for Effexor XR 187.5mg one tab by mouth in the evening for Depression. Do not Crush. The corresponding physician order was transcribed into the April 2021 electronic Medication Administration Record (eMAR). Further review of the April 2021 eMAR's revealed that nurses signed and reflected a checkmark which means that the nurses were signing for the administration of Effexor XR 187.5 mg: On 4/20/21 at 1:43 AM, the surveyor inspected the 1 South Medication cart in the presence of a Registered Nurse (RN). The surveyor found a Bingo Card (medication packaging) that contained Effexor XR 37.5 mg for Resident #106. The surveyor interviewed the RN #6 who stated that Effexor XR did not come in 187.5 mg and that the resident gets one Effexor XR 150 mg and one Effexor XR 37.5 mg in order to come to the correct dosage of 187.5 mg. RN #6 further stated that there should be two separate orders for the Effexor XR, one for the 150 mg and one for the 37.5 mg to equal the prescribed dose. 6. On 4/13/21 at 12:35 PM, the surveyor observed Resident #61 sitting in a wheelchair on the 1 South dining room watching a movie on an I-Pad. The resident was unable to respond to the surveyor questions. A review of Resident #61's admission record revealed that the resident was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses that included Cognitive Communication Deficit, Major Depressive Disorder, Obsessive-Compulsive Disorder and Unspecified Dementia without Behavioral Disturbances. A review of the 2/11/21 Quarterly Minimum Data Set, an assessment tool used to facilitate the management of care, indicated a Brief Interview of Mental Status (BIMS) score 03 reflected that the resident's cognition to be severely impaired. A review of the April 2021 Order Summary Report with a start date of 4/1/21, revealed an order for Sertraline (Zoloft) give 2 tablets in the morning for Depression. The corresponding physician order was transcribed into the April 2021 EMAR. Further review of the eMAR's revealed that nurses signed and reflected a checkmark which means that the nurses were signing for the administration of Sertraline 2 tablets at 9:00 AM. The surveyor reviewed the facility progress notes which revealed a Physician Progress Note Text: Geriatric Psychiatry assessment dated [DATE] and timed at 8:38 AM. The progress note revealed that the Psychiatrist recommended a Gradual Dose Reduction (GDR) of Sertraline 200 mg to 150 mg if the primary physician agrees with the GDR. Further review of the resident's medical record revealed no follow up from the primary physician to address the recommended GDR. On 4/15/21 at 10:15 AM, the surveyor interviewed RN #6 who stated that when a psychiatrist enters his progress notes that it's the nurse's responsibility to follow up with the recommendations. The RN #6 also stated that a nurse should have followed up with the physician regarding Resident #61's Sertraline order. The RN #6 was not able to tell the surveyor why the order was not followed up but told the surveyor that she would reach out to the physician. On 4/15/21 at 1:30 PM, the surveyor interviewed the DON who stated that they have an evening supervisor who worked the 11-7 shift and it was their responsibility to review the progress notes for the facility residents. The DON was not able to specify why this recommendation was missed by the nursing staff. 7. On 4/19/21 at 9:05 AM, the surveyor observed RN #7 during the medication observation pass prepare a Vitamin B-Complex capsule for administration for Resident #97. The surveyor observed an order for Vitamin B Complex-C capsule 1 capsule one time daily for a supplement with a plotted time of 9:00 AM. The surveyor stopped RN#7 from administering the wrong medication to Resident #97. The surveyor and RN #7 reviewed the bottle of Vitamin B-Complex which revealed no Vitamin C was in the ingredients. The surveyor and RN #7 inspected the medication cart and found no Vitamin B-Complex with C in the cart. The surveyor interviewed RN #7 who stated that she was going to administer the wrong medication to the resident. RN #7 stated that the resident should be receiving Vitamin B Complex with C and that she would clarify the order with the physician. On 4/20/21 at 1:30 PM, the surveyor met with the DON, and there was no additional information provided by the facility. A review of the facility's policy Medication Orders under number 4. Medication orders requiring clarification due to duplication, unclear name, dosage, form or route should be confirmed with the prescribing physician. And under number 6. Medication orders-When recording orders for medication, specify a. The type, route, dosage, frequency, and strength of the medication ordered (i.e., Dilantin 100 mg by mouth three times daily). (Note: A placebo is considered a medication and must also have specific orders NJ 8:39-11.2 (b) 3. On 4/13/21 at 11:30 AM, the surveyor observed Resident # 49 in bed awake. The resident smiled at the surveyor but was unable to answer questions. A review of the resident's Face Sheet reflected that the resident was admitted to the facility with diagnoses that included Hemiplegia and Hemiparesis (muscle weakness or partial paralysis on one side of the body) following unspecified Cerebrovascular Disease affecting Left Non-Dominant Side, Cerebral Infarction due to Embolism of unspecified Cerebral Artery, and Cognitive Communication Deficit. A review of the 2/3/21 Annual Minimum Data Set, revealed a BIMS score of 03, which reflected that the resident's cognition was severely impaired. A review of the April 2021 Order Summary Report showed an order dated 4/14/21 for Active Liquid Protein Sugar Free four times a day for supplement give 30 ml [milliliter's]. Review of the April 2021 electronic Medication Administration Record (eMAR) revealed the above corresponding order. A review of the 2/27/21 Dietary Alert Sheet revealed a recommendation to D/C [discontinue] Active Liquid Protein Sugar Free 30 ml PO [by mouth] BID [twice a day] and start Active Liquid Protein Sugar Free 30 ml PO QID [four times a day]. On 4/19/21 at 11:30 AM, the surveyor interviewed the dietician from the long-term care side of the facility. She stated that the resident came over from the sub-acute unit in November 2020 and that the resident was eating ok and was on a regular diet but little by little the residents appetite decreased and that the resident had a wound. She further stated whenever I make a recommendation, I fill out a dietary alert sheet which goes into the chart flagged and then nursing picks up on it. There was no significant weight loss. I should have followed up. The dietician along with the surveyor reviewed the 2/27/21 dietary alert sheet which revealed that a Registered Nurse (RN#3) signed the sheet indicating that nursing noted the dietary alert sheet. On 4/19/21 at 12:51 PM, the surveyor conducted a telephone interview with the Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN#2) who signed the 2/27/21 dietary alert sheet. She stated she knows the resident very well. LPN # 2 stated I did carry out the recommendation, but I put the order in for TID [three times a day] not QID, that was an oversight on my end. I confused the acronyms TID with QID. On 4/21/21 at 1:45 PM, the surveyors met with the Licensed Nursing Home Administrator (LNHA), Director of Nursing, and the Regional Nurse and discussed the above observations and concerns. The DON stated that the order was fixed on 4/14/21 and the resident was getting the Active Liquid Protein four times a day. A review of an undated facility policy for Medical Nutrition Therapy: Assessment and Care Planning provided by the DON, indicated that the Registered Dietician or other clinically qualified nutrition professional's recommendations for changes in the nutrition plan of care will be communicated to the licensed nursing team .the Registered Dietician will be responsible for ensuring follow up .of recommended changes. 4. On 4/13/21 at 11:42 AM, the surveyor observed Resident #42 seated in a wheelchair in the dining room socially distanced from other residents and wearing a blue surgical mask. The resident was watching a TV show on an Ipad. The surveyor interviewed RN #4 who stated that the resident needed close supervision due to behavior of exit seeking. A review of the resident's Face Sheet reflected that the resident was admitted to the facility with diagnoses that included Anxiety Disorder, Unspecified, Attention-Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder, Unspecified Type and Major Depressive Disorder, recurrent, severe with Psychotic symptoms. A review of the 1/25/21 admission Minimum Data Set, revealed a BIMS score of 04, which reflected that the resident's cognition was severely impaired. A review of the April 2021 Order Summary Report showed an order dated 2/26/21 for Wander Guard to left ankle Wander Alert every shift for monitoring check for placement and function every shift. Review of the April 2021 electronic Treatment Administration Record (eTAR) revealed the above corresponding order. Review of the electronic Elopement Evaluation dated 1/18/21 did not indicate a score. Further review of the evaluation indicated that the resident wanders and wanders aimlessly. Review of the resident's Person Centered Care Plan initiated on 3/20/20 revealed the resident is an elopement risk/wanderer as evidenced by impaired safety awareness. Resident wanders aimlessly. Further review of the care plan indicated an intervention for a Wander guard device to the left ankle. On 4/15/21 at 10:17 AM, the surveyor observed the resident seated in a wheelchair near the nurses station. The resident had an overbed table in front of the wheelchair with an Ipad on it. The surveyor did not observe a wander guard to the residents left or right ankle nor the left or right wrist. On 4/19/21 at 10:40 AM, the surveyor observed the resident seated in a wheelchair near the nurses station. The resident had an overbed table in front of the wheelchair. There was no wander guard observed in place. On 4/20/21 at 10:15 AM, the surveyor observed the resident seated in a wheelchair near the nurses station. There was no wander guard observed on the resident. The surveyor interviewed the RN #5 who was the Assistant Director of Nursing working on the unit that day. RN #5 stated that the resident was wearing the wander guard and that the wander guard was checked for placement every shift. The surveyor asked RN #5 to show the surveyor where the resident was wearing the wander guard. The RN #5 stated it should be on his/her left ankle. The RN #5 checked the resident's left ankle. There was no wander guard in place. He then checked the resident's right ankle. There was no wander guard in place. He proceeded to check the residents left and right wrist. There was no wander guard in place. RN #5 stated the resident had it on this morning. Maybe he/she took it off. He then went to the resident's room to look for the wander guard. The RN #5 could not find the wander guard. He further stated that he will look into what happened to the wander guard and get back to the surveyor. On 4/20/21 at 11:30 AM, the surveyor interviewed the CNA who stated, I don't check the wander guard the nurses do that. Later, on that same day at approximately 12:00 PM, the RN #5 showed the surveyor the wander guard and stated the resident had it in her hand the whole time. On 4/20/21 at 1:49 PM, the surveyors met with the LNHA and the DON and discussed the above observations and concerns. There was no additional information provided. A review of an undated facility policy for Elopements and Wandering Residents provided by the Regional Nurse, indicated that the facility ensures that residents who exhibit wandering behavior and/or are at risk for elopement receive adequate supervision to prevent accidents, and receive care in accordance with their person-centered plan of care addressing the unique factors contributing to wandering or elopement risk .the facility is equipped with door locks/alarms to help avoid elopements .alarms are not a replacement for necessary supervision. Staff are to be vigilant in responding to alarms in a timely manner.
CONCERN (E)

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

Infection Control (Tag F0880)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

Based on observation, interview, and record review, it was determined that the facility failed to: a.) ensure proper use of personal protective equipment (PPE) for 3 of 4 staff; b.) ensure that worker...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, interview, and record review, it was determined that the facility failed to: a.) ensure proper use of personal protective equipment (PPE) for 3 of 4 staff; b.) ensure that workers are knowledgeable of the cleaning chemical used in the workplace for 1 of 7 staff, c.) ensure that staff was aware of proper disposal of used PPE and COVID-19 testing kits for 2 of 3 COVID-19 testing kits; and d.) perform handwashing/hand hygiene appropriately for 2 of 6 staff in accordance with the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention guidelines for infection control to mitigate the spread of COVID-19. This deficient practice was evidenced by the following: According to the U.S. CDC guidelines Interim Infection Prevention and Control Recommendations for Healthcare Personnel During the Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) Pandemic, updated February 23, 2021, included, 2. Recommended infection prevention and control (IPC) practices when caring for a patient with suspected or confirmed SARS-CoV-2: Personal Protective Equipment-HCP who enter the room of a patient with suspected or confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection should adhere to Standard Precautions and use a NIOSH-approved N95 or equivalent or higher-level respirator, gown, gloves, and eye protection. Gowns-put on a clean isolation gown upon entry into the patient room or area. Change the gown if it becomes soiled. Remove and discard the gown in a dedicated container for waste or linen before leaving the patient room or care area. Disposable gowns should be discarded after use. Collection of Diagnostic Respiratory Specimens: When collecting diagnostic respiratory specimens (e.g. nasopharyngeal or nasal swab) from a patient with possible SARS-CoV-2 infection, the following should occur: specimen collection should be performed in a normal examination room with the door closed; HCP in the room should wear an N95 or equivalent or higher-level respirator, eye protection, gloves, and a gown. Environmental Infection Control: Ensure that environmental cleaning and disinfection procedures are followed consistently and correctly; routine cleaning and disinfection procedures (e.g. using cleaners and water to pre-clean surfaces prior to applying an EPA-registered, hospital-grade disinfectant to frequently touched surfaces or objects for appropriate contact times as indicated on the product's label) are appropriate for SARS-CoV-2 in healthcare settings, including those patient-care areas in which aerosol-generating procedures are performed. According to the U.S. CDC guidelines Hand Hygiene Recommendations, Guidance for Healthcare Providers for Hand Hygiene and COVID-19, page last reviewed 1/8/2021 included, Hands should be washed with soap and water for at least 20 seconds when visibly soiled, before eating, and after using the restroom. Immediately after glove removal. It further specified the procedure for hand hygiene which included, When cleaning your hands with soap and water, wet your hands first with water, apply the amount of product recommended by the manufacturer to your hands, and rub your hands together vigorously for at least 15 seconds, covering all surfaces of the hands and fingers. Rinse your hands with water and use disposable towels to dry. Use a towel to turn off the faucet. Other entities have recommended that cleaning your hands with soap and water should take around 20 seconds. Either time is acceptable. The focus should be on cleaning your hands at the right times. 1. On 4/13/21 at 9:17 AM, the Minimum Data Set Coordinator/Registered Nurse (MDSC/RN) performed a COVID-19 rapid test of the surveyor without disinfecting the table she used before and after testing. The surveyor observed the MDSC/RN wore a surgical mask and goggles. The MDSC/RN did not wear an isolation gown and an N95 mask during the testing. On 4/15/21 at 8:30 AM, the surveyor observed two used COVID-19 rapid testing kits on top of the table that was being used for testing visitors. There was a box of gloves, a box of COVID-19 testing kits, a container of disinfectant, a plastic bag of clean isolation gowns, folders, and a pen on the top of the same table. On that same date and time, the surveyor observed the MDSC/RN put aside the used testing kits near the plastic bag of clean isolation gowns. The MDSC/RN did not dispose of the used testing kits. The MDSC/RN did not disinfect the table before and after COVID-19 testing of the surveyor. The MDSC/RN did not wear an isolation gown during testing. On 4/15/21 at 8:45 AM, The MDSC/RN stated, I should use a gown when doing testing. She further stated that the two used testing kits should have been disposed of immediately in the covered garbage bin. On that same date at 9:40 AM, the MDSC/RN stated I haven't done that disinfecting the table used in testing visitors. The MDSC/RN was not sure if the disinfecting container on top of the testing table can be used for disinfecting the table after each use. She further stated that she should have worn full PPE (i.e.) an N95 mask, face shield, gloves, and an isolation gown during COVID-19 testing. She indicated that she was educated on the proper way of COVID-19 testing. On 4/15/21 at 1:58 PM, the surveyors met with the Licensed Nursing Home Administrator (LNHA), Infection Preventionist Nurse (IPN), Director of Nursing (DON), and made aware of the above concerns. The DON informed the surveyors that she spoke to the MDSC/RN and acknowledged the above concerns. The DON stated that the MDSC/RN should have worn an N95 mask and an isolation gown during COVID-19 testing. She further stated that the MDSC/RN should have disinfected the table after use. On 4/19/21 at 10:30 AM, the surveyor observed the Assistant Director of Nursing (ADON) perform a rapid test of staff with an isolation gown, goggles, gloves, and a surgical mask. The ADON did not wear an N95 mask during COVID-19 testing. On 4/19/21 at 10:39 AM, the ADON informed the surveyors that the COVID-19 testing of staff was every Monday and Thursday. The ADON stated that a complete PPE i.e. gown, surgical mask, gloves, and eye protection should be worn by staff performing the testing. On that same date and time, the ADON stated that It's been like that we use a surgical mask when performing the rapid test of staff and visitors. The ADON was unable to recall how long surgical masks were being used when testing for COVID-19. On 4/19/21 at 1:33 PM, the surveyors met with the LNHA, the DON and were made aware of the above concerns. 2. On 4/13/21 at 11:50 AM, the ADON informed the surveyor that the Penthouse unit was the observation and considered as PUI (person under investigation) unit because residents were admitted and re-admitted with negative COVID-19 test results from the hospital. The ADON stated that staff must wear a complete PPE i.e. a gown, gloves, a surgical mask, or a KN95 mask, and an eye protector before entering the PUI room. He further stated that staff must remove their gown and gloves before exiting the PUI room and dispose of them in a covered garbage step bin. On 4/13/21 at 12:12 PM, the surveyor observed the Physical Therapist Assistant (PTA) remove his gown and gloves and dispose of them in a regular garbage bin without a cover inside a PUI room of Resident#312. The PUI room had Contact and Droplet Precaution signs and PPE hung outside the door. The PTA acknowledged that he disposed of his gown and gloves in the garbage bin without cover. On that same date and time, the PTA stated that the garbage bin should have a cover. He further stated that there was no covered step bin inside the resident's room which was why he disposed of them in a regular garbage bin. On 4/13/21 at 12:14 PM, the surveyor informed the ADON of the above concern. The ADON stated that the PTA should have used the covered step garbage bin. The ADON then went into the PUI room and showed that the covered step garbage bin was hidden behind the television table near the window. The ADON stated that the PPE disposal covered step garbage bin should be near the exit door. On 4/15/21 at 1:58 PM, the surveyors met with the LNHA, DON, IPN and made them aware of the above concerns. Both the DON and IPN stated that the PTA should have disposed of the used gown in a covered garbage bin and that the bin should be placed near the exit door. 3. On 4/13/21 at 12:02 PM, the surveyor observed the ADON in the Penthouse unit enter the room of Resident #314 with a gown, gloves, face shield, and a surgical mask. The ADON did not wear an N95 mask. There were Contact and Droplet Precaution signs and PPE hung outside a PUI room. On that same date and time, the surveyor observed the ADON exited the PUI room. The ADON stated, I don't need to use an N95 mask inside the PUI room because according to CDC, a surgical mask was ok. The surveyor notified the IPN immediately about the above concerns. The IPN educated the ADON and provided him with an N95 mask. A review of the facility Infection Prevention and Control Program Policy that was provided by the IPN with a reviewed date of 11/2020 included Staff shall use personal protective equipment (PPE) according to established facility policy governing the use of PPE. A review of the facility transmission-based Precautions Policy that was provided by the IPN with a reviewed date of 11/2020 revealed that Droplet Precautions did not specify the kind of mask to wear. A review of the facility Standard Precautions Protocol Policy that was provided by the IPN with a reviewed date of 11/2020 included Mask, Eye Protection (goggles, Face shield) during aerosol-generating procedures on residents with suspected or prevention infection transmitted by respiratory aerosols (e.g., SARS), wear a fit-tested N95 or higher respirator in addition to gloves, gown, and face/eye protection. Environmental Control: develop procedures for routine care, cleaning/disinfection of environmental surfaces, especially frequently touched surfaces in resident-care areas. On 4/20/21 at 12:57 PM, the surveyors met with the DON, and there was no additional information provided by the facility. 4. On 4/20/21 at 8:55 AM, the surveyor observed a Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) during Medication Pass remove a Blood Pressure (BP) monitor from a bag, don a pair of gloves and proceeded to clean the BP monitor. The LPN was then observed removing the gloves and taking the resident's blood pressure without performing hand hygiene. The surveyor interviewed the LPN who stated that she should have performed hand hygiene before and after removing the gloves. On 4/20/21 at 1:30 PM, the surveyor met with the DON, and there was no additional information provided by the facility. A review of the facility's policy titled Hand Hygiene under 5. Additional Considerations, b. The use of gloves does not replace hand washing. Wash hands after removing gloves. NJAC 8:39-19.4 (a) (1) (n) (2)
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
  • • 29% annual turnover. Excellent stability, 19 points below New Jersey's 48% average. Staff who stay learn residents' needs.
Concerns
  • • Multiple safety concerns identified: 3 life-threatening violation(s), 1 harm violation(s), $126,693 in fines. Review inspection reports carefully.
  • • 27 deficiencies on record, including 3 critical (life-threatening) violations. These warrant careful review before choosing this facility.
  • • $126,693 in fines. Extremely high, among the most fined facilities in New Jersey. Major compliance failures.
  • • Grade F (0/100). Below average facility with significant concerns.
Bottom line: This facility has 3 Immediate Jeopardy findings. Serious concerns require careful evaluation.

About This Facility

What is Buckingham At Norwood, The's CMS Rating?

CMS assigns BUCKINGHAM AT NORWOOD, THE an overall rating of 1 out of 5 stars, which is considered much below average nationally. Within New Jersey, this rating places the facility higher than 0% of the state's 100 nursing homes. A rating at this level reflects concerns identified through health inspections, staffing assessments, or quality measures that families should carefully consider.

How is Buckingham At Norwood, The Staffed?

CMS rates BUCKINGHAM AT NORWOOD, THE's staffing level at 3 out of 5 stars, which is average compared to other nursing homes. Staff turnover is 29%, compared to the New Jersey average of 46%. This relatively stable workforce can support continuity of care.

What Have Inspectors Found at Buckingham At Norwood, The?

State health inspectors documented 27 deficiencies at BUCKINGHAM AT NORWOOD, THE during 2021 to 2024. These included: 3 Immediate Jeopardy (the most serious level, indicating potential for serious harm or death), 1 that caused actual resident harm, and 23 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 Buckingham At Norwood, The?

BUCKINGHAM AT NORWOOD, THE 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 EXCELCARE, a chain that manages multiple nursing homes. With 240 certified beds and approximately 154 residents (about 64% occupancy), it is a large facility located in NORWOOD, New Jersey.

How Does Buckingham At Norwood, The Compare to Other New Jersey Nursing Homes?

Compared to the 100 nursing homes in New Jersey, BUCKINGHAM AT NORWOOD, THE's overall rating (1 stars) is below the state average of 3.2, staff turnover (29%) is significantly lower than the state average of 46%, and health inspection rating (1 stars) is much below the national benchmark.

What Should Families Ask When Visiting Buckingham At Norwood, The?

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 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?" "Can I speak with family members of current residents about their experience?" These questions are particularly relevant given the facility's Immediate Jeopardy citations.

Is Buckingham At Norwood, The Safe?

Based on CMS inspection data, BUCKINGHAM AT NORWOOD, THE has documented safety concerns. Inspectors have issued 3 Immediate Jeopardy citations (the most serious violation level indicating risk of serious injury or death). The facility has a 1-star overall rating and ranks #100 of 100 nursing homes in New Jersey. Families considering this facility should ask detailed questions about what corrective actions have been taken since these incidents.

Do Nurses at Buckingham At Norwood, The Stick Around?

Staff at BUCKINGHAM AT NORWOOD, THE tend to stick around. With a turnover rate of 29%, the facility is 16 percentage points below the New Jersey average of 46%. Low turnover is a positive sign. It means caregivers have time to learn each resident's needs, medications, and personal preferences. Consistent staff also notice subtle changes in a resident's condition more quickly.

Was Buckingham At Norwood, The Ever Fined?

BUCKINGHAM AT NORWOOD, THE has been fined $126,693 across 4 penalty actions. This is 3.7x the New Jersey average of $34,346. Fines at this level are uncommon and typically indicate a pattern of serious deficiencies, repeated violations, or failure to correct problems promptly. CMS reserves penalties of this magnitude for facilities that pose significant, documented risk to resident health or safety. Families should request specific documentation of what issues led to these fines and what systemic changes have been implemented.

Is Buckingham At Norwood, The on Any Federal Watch List?

BUCKINGHAM AT NORWOOD, THE 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.