COMPLETE CARE AT PLAINFIELD LLC

1340 PARK AVE, PLAINFIELD, NJ 07060 (908) 754-3100
For profit - Corporation 106 Beds COMPLETE CARE Data: November 2025
Trust Grade
80/100
#28 of 344 in NJ
Last Inspection: March 2025

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

Overview

Complete Care at Plainfield LLC has a Trust Grade of B+, which means it is above average and generally recommended for families considering options. It ranks #28 out of 344 nursing homes in New Jersey, placing it in the top half, and #4 out of 23 in Union County, indicating only three local facilities are better. The facility's performance trend is improving, with issues decreasing from five in 2023 to just one in 2025. Staffing is a strength here, with a rating of 4 out of 5 stars and a turnover rate of 31%, significantly below the state average of 41%, which suggests a consistent team that knows the residents well. However, the facility has incurred $34,379 in fines, which is concerning as it is higher than 79% of other New Jersey facilities, indicating potential compliance problems. While RN coverage is average, the facility has identified specific issues, such as failing to consistently monitor a resident's significant weight loss and not following proper infection control practices for wound care and medication management. Overall, while there are notable strengths in staffing and care quality, families should be aware of the fines and specific incidents that point to areas needing improvement.

Trust Score
B+
80/100
In New Jersey
#28/344
Top 8%
Safety Record
Moderate
Needs review
Inspections
Getting Better
5 → 1 violations
Staff Stability
○ Average
31% turnover. Near New Jersey's 48% average. Typical for the industry.
Penalties
✓ Good
$34,379 in fines. Lower than most New Jersey facilities. Relatively clean record.
Skilled Nurses
○ Average
Each resident gets 37 minutes of Registered Nurse (RN) attention daily — about average for New Jersey. RNs are the most trained staff who monitor for health changes.
Violations
○ Average
8 deficiencies on record. Average for a facility this size. Mostly minor or procedural issues.
★★★★★
5.0
Overall Rating
★★★★☆
4.0
Staff Levels
★★★★★
5.0
Care Quality
★★★★☆
4.0
Inspection Score
Stable
2023: 5 issues
2025: 1 issues

The Good

  • 4-Star Staffing Rating · Above-average nurse staffing levels
  • 5-Star Quality Measures · Strong clinical quality outcomes
  • Full Sprinkler Coverage · Fire safety systems throughout facility
  • No fines on record
  • Staff turnover below average (31%)

    17 points below New Jersey average of 48%

Facility shows strength in staffing levels, quality measures, fire safety.

The Bad

Staff Turnover: 31%

15pts below New Jersey avg (46%)

Typical for the industry

Federal Fines: $34,379

Above median ($33,413)

Moderate penalties - review what triggered them

Chain: COMPLETE CARE

Part of a multi-facility chain

Ask about local staffing decisions and management

The Ugly 8 deficiencies on record

1 actual harm
Mar 2025 1 deficiency
CONCERN (E)

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

Infection Control (Tag F0880)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

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

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observations, interviews, record review and other pertinent facility documentation it was determined that the facility failed to use appropriate infection control practices to prevent the spread or reduce the risk of infection for a.) provision of wound care for 1 of 2 residents (Resident # 90) reviewed for pressure ulcers b.) proper use of personal protective equipment (PPE) for a resident on enhanced barrier precautions (EBP) for 1 of 1 residents reviewed for EBP, (Resident #8) and c.) properly storing oxygen administration tubing in a protective bag when not in use by the resident for 1 of 2 residents (Resident #70) reviewed for respiratory care. This deficient practice was identified by the following: 1.) On 3/13/25 at 10:57 AM, the surveyor observed Resident #90 in the room, sitting up in a chair. The resident stated they had a left heel wound. The surveyor observed the resident wearing pressure reducing booties to the bilateral feet. The resident denied pain or discomfort. On 3/14/25 at 9:11 AM, the resident was observed lying in bed with head of the bed up. The surveyor interviewed the resident at that time and the Resident stated that that they had no concerns. The surveyor observed that the resident was wearing pressure reducing heel boots to the bilateral lower extremities. A review of the admission Record (AR) (admission summary) indicated that Resident #90 was admitted to the facility with the diagnoses which included but was not limited to; pressure ulcer of the left heel and osteomyelitis (bone infection) of the vertebra. A review of the quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) an assessment tool that facilitates a resident's care, dated 12/25/24, indicated the resident had a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) of 10 out of 15, indicating the resident had moderate cognitive impairment and had an unstageable pressure ulcer. The surveyor reviewed the Treatment Administration Record (TAR) which contained a physician's orders (PO) dated 3/4/25 to apply to the left heel topically on the day shift (7:00 AM-3:00 PM) for wound care of the left heel wound. Treatment consisted of the following steps: 1. Cleanse with Dakin's (a dilute solution of sodium hypochlorite (0.4% to 0.5%) and other stabilizing ingredients, traditionally used as an antiseptic, e.g. to cleanse wounds in order to prevent infection) solution. 2. Apply Santyl (an enzyme (protein) that breaks down collagen in damaged or dead skin), Calcium alginate (dressing that promotes moisture balance, keep wounds clean, and facilitates natural healing) to the base of the wound. 3. Secure with Bordered gauze. 4. Change the dressing daily. On 3/14/25 at 9:27 AM, the surveyor observed Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN #1) perform wound care for Resident #90's ulcer on the left heel. - LPN #1 was observed applying an isolation gown and with an ungloved, unwashed hand remove clean 4 x 4 gauze dressings from a large packet of 4 x 4 gauze and then remove other items from the clean treatment cart. The LPN then put the 4 x 4 gauze dressings on top of the other items that she removed from the treatment cart such as a wrapped calcium alginate dressing, a box of Santyl ointment and a bottle of Dakin's solutions. The LPN did not disinfect the surface or set up a clean field on top of the resident's bedside nightstand and placed the 4 x 4s gauze, wrapped calcium alginate dressing, box of Santyl and Dakin's solution on the nightstand. -LPN #1 then washed her hands and applied gloves. LPN #1 with the gloves on, touched the resident's blanket and removed the resident's booties and socks. The LPN did not wash her hands or change her gloves and proceeded to touch the bottle of Dakin's solution and 4 x 4s gauze dressings. She proceeded to pour the Dakin's solution on the 4 x 4 gauze and cleansed the resident's left heel wound. -LPN #1 then removed her gloves, washed her hands and applied new gloves and went to the treatment cart to retrieve a tongue depressor. The LPN laid the tongue depressor directly on the surface of the undisinfected nightstand. She then opened the tube of Santyl and placed the lid of the Santyl on the resident's bed linen and placed the uncapped tube of Santyl on the resident's nightstand with the tip of the opened Santyl lying directly in contact with the surface of the undisinfected nightstand. She then applied the santyl to the tongue depressor to apply to the resident's left heel wound. - LPN #1 then removed her gloves and walked to the treatment cart to retrieve a new pair of gloves. She retrieved the gloves and put them in her back pocket. She then washed her hands, took the gloves out of her back pocket, applied the gloves and then applied the dressing to the left heel. She then proceeded to sign the dressing with the date and initials with a black marker, while the dressing was on the resident. On 3/14/25 at 9:49 AM, the surveyor reviewed the above mentioned wound care observations with LPN #1. LPN #1 admitted that there were multiple breaks in infection control while she was performing the wound care to the resident's left heel and explained that the breaks in infection control could potentially expose the resident to infection. On 3/14/25 at 10:03 AM, the surveyor interviewed Registered Nurse/Unit Manager (RN/UM #1). The surveyor explained the wound care observations for Resident #90s left heel. RN/UM #1 stated that LPN #1 needed more training related to infection control when performing treatments and should also not date dressings while on a resident because it was a dignity issue. She confirmed that LPN #1 should have disinfected and set up a clean field on the table that she was using to place the treatment supplies. RN/UM #1stated LPN #1 should not have put an ungloved hand in the package of 4 x 4 gauze dressing because it could contaminate all the dressings in the package. RN/UM #1 also confirmed LPN#1 should not have put gloves in her back pocket before applying them, put the cap to the Santyl in the resident's bed on the bed linen or put the uncapped tube of Santyl with the opening of the tube to lie directly on an undisinfected surface. RN/UM #1 added LPN #1 should not have laid the tongue depressor directly on the unclean resident nightstand. She stated that these were all breaks in infection control while performing wound care. On 3/14/24 at 10:30 AM, the surveyor interviewed the facility Infection Preventionist (IP) as well as the Regional Clinical Supervisor (RCS), who confirmed that LPN #1 should have performed hand hygiene and applied gloves before putting her hand in the packet of clean 4 x 4s dressings and should have prepped the nightstand by cleaning with disinfectant and putting down a clean field. The both also confirmed that the tube of Santyl could become contaminated because LPN #1 put the cap of the Santyl in the resident's bed linen and laid the tip of the tubing directly in contact with the undisinfected nightstand surface. They both confirmed LPN #1 had multiple breaks in infection control and that the resident's treatment would be re-done immediately. A review of the facility policy, dated 11/2018 and titled, Wound Care indicated that the procedure for wound care was to set up a clean field utilizing a disposable cloth and to place all items to be used during the procedure on the clean field. The policy specified that all clean items were to be on a clean field. The policy indicated that the staff were to wipe nozzles, foil packets, bottle tops etc. with alcohol before opening as necessary. The policy also indicated that after dressing were removed the staff member was to wash hands thoroughly and put on gloves and to wipe reusable supplies with alcohol (outside of containers that were touched with unclean hands) and return to the treatment cart. 2.) On 3/13/25 at 12:02 PM, the surveyor observed signage posted on Resident #8's door that the resident was on Enhanced Barrier Precautions (EBP) (an infection control intervention designed to reduce transmission of multidrug-resistant organisms (MDROs) in nursing homes). The posting indicated that staff were to wear gloves and isolation gown when performing direct resident care. There was also an isolation caddy hanging on the door which contained, gloves, gowns and mask. The resident was observed out of bed. The surveyor was unable to interview the resident due to the resident having severe cognitive deficits. The resident was observed to be clean and well dressed. On 3/14/25 at 8:56 AM, the surveyor observed Resident #8 in a net bed. The resident was sleeping, and no distress was observed. On 3/14/25 at 8:59 AM, the surveyor observed the Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA) assist the resident out of bed. The signage on the resident's door indicated that a gown and gloves were to be donned (applied) for EBP. The surveyor did not observe the CNA wearing the necessary personal protective equipment (PPE) such as a gown and gloves prior to direct resident care such as transferring the resident from the bed to the chair. On 3/14/25 at 9:01 AM, the surveyor interviewed the CNA, who stated that the resident required total care and had a gastrotomy tube. The CNA stated that the resident was non-verbal and incontinent of bladder and bowel. The CNA admitted that while performing direct resident care, she was supposed to don a gown and gloves. She stated that it would have been important to wear the proper PPE to protect the resident from infection. She stated she did not apply the PPE because she forgot. She explained that she was educated multiple times on the importance of applying PPE and should follow the directions according to the signage on the resident's door. A review of the AR indicated that Resident #8 was admitted to the facility with diagnoses which included but was not limited to Huntington's Disease (a condition in which nerve cells in the brain break down over time) and gastrostomy (is a surgical procedure for inserting a tube through the abdomen wall and into the stomach used for feeding or drainage). A review of the comprehensive MDS, dated [DATE], indicated that the resident had a BIMS of 00, which indicated the resident had severe cognitive impairment; required maximum assistance with activities of daily living and nutritional needs were met by way of gastrostomy tube. The surveyor reviewed a physician's order dated 5/8/23, that Resident #8 was on enhanced barrier precautions related to (r/t) g-tube (gastrostomy). The surveyor reviewed the resident's Individual Comprehensive Care Plan (ICCP) dated 11/3/23, which reflected the following: Focus: Resident #8 required enhanced barrier precautions related to indwelling medical device: Feeding tube. Interventions: -Clear signage must be posted on the door or wall outside of the resident room indicating the type of Precautions and required PPE (e.g., gown and gloves). For Enhanced Barrier Precautions, signage should also clearly indicate the high-contact resident care activities that require the use of gown and gloves. PPE, including gowns and gloves must be available immediately outside of the resident room. [CNA, Nurse] -EBP will be in place for the duration of Resident #8's stay in the facility or until resolution or discontinuation of the indwelling medical device that placed them at higher risk. On 3/14/25 at 11:40 AM, the surveyor interviewed the IP, who confirmed the CNA, who transferred the resident should have worn the appropriate PPE and was required to don a gown and gloves prior to performing direct resident care. Transferring a resident is a form of direct resident care. The IP confirmed that this was a break in infection control and facility policy. The facility policy dated 11/21/2023 and titled, Enhanced Barrier Precautions indicated that EBP wound be implemented for any residents with wounds and indwelling medical devices. According to the policy staff were to use PPE-gown and gloves during high contact resident care. 3.) On 3/13/25 at 10:38 AM, during initial tour of the facility, the surveyor observed Resident #70 resting in their bed with their eyes closed. Behind the resident's bed, was a wall mounted oxygen delivery regulator with a humidifier bottle attached that had a long nasal cannula tube attached to it and was coiled around and hanging off the regulator. The nasal cannula tube was not stored in the plastic bag which was also hanging off the oxygen regulator. On 3/14/25 at 9:59 AM, the surveyor observed Resident #70's nasal cannula tubing was stored in the same position and condition as was observed the previous day. The resident was not in their room at this time. On 3/17/25 at 10:03 AM, the surveyor reviewed Resident #70's medical record and the following was indicated: A review of the resident's AR indicated that the resident was admitted to the facility with diagnosis which included but was not limited to: end stage renal disease (kidney disease), acute respiratory failure with hypoxia (sudden onset respiratory failure with low blood oxygen levels), and anemia. A review of the resident's quarterly MDS dated [DATE], indicated the resident had a BIMS score of 3 out of 15, which indicated severe cognitive impairment; and was receiving oxygen therapy. A review of the resident's physician's Order Summary Report indicated an order with start date of 10/2/24, to apply oxygen per nasal cannula at a rate of three liters per minute every shift, and a second order with a start date 10/5/24, to change oxygen tubing weekly and label and date with residents name of each component. A review of the resident's ICCP indicated a focus care area initiated on 10/3/24 for risk for ineffective breathing pattern. On 3/18/25 at 12:32 PM, the surveyor observed Resident #70 in their room hosting visitors and having lunch. The resident was not receiving oxygen, and the nasal cannula was attached to the oxygen regulator on the wall behind the resident's bed and draped over the regulator, not stored in a protective bag. On 3/18/25 at 12:32 PM, the surveyor interviewed LPN #2, who stated respiratory tubing should always be stored in a protective bag when not in use to prevent contamination and to follow infection control practices. On 3/18/25 at 1:26 PM, the surveyor interviewed LPN/UM #2, who stated that respiratory tubing should be stored in a protective bag when not in use to maintain infection control. On 3/18/25 at 1:36 PM, the surveyor and LPN/UM #2, observed the conditions in which Resident #70's oxygen tubing was being stored in the resident's room, to which LPN/UM #2 acknowledged that it should not have been stored draped over the oxygen regulator and outside of a protective bag. LPN/UM #2 further acknowledged that the tubing should have been in a protective plastic bag while not in use. On 3/28/25 at 1:53 PM, the surveyor interviewed the Director of Nursing (DON), who confirmed that when not in use, respiratory and oxygen tubing should have been stored in a protective plastic bag to maintain infection control. A review of the facility's Oxygen Administration policy with an updated date of 1/2024, did not include procedure to properly store respiratory tubing when not in use. On 3/29/25 at 9:52 AM, the RCS, in the presence of the survey team, provided the surveyor with a revised copy of the Oxygen Administration policy and stated that the facility revised the policy after surveyor inquiry to include: equipment maintenance and storage: . e. keep delivery devices covered in plastic bag when not in use. NJAC 8:39-19.1; 8:39-27.1(e)
Feb 2023 5 deficiencies 1 Harm
SERIOUS (G)

Actual Harm - a resident was hurt due to facility failures

Deficiency F0692 (Tag F0692)

A resident was harmed · This affected 1 resident

Based on observation, interview, record review, and review of pertinent facility documents, it was determined that the facility failed to a.) identify and address multiple severe weight losses and con...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, interview, record review, and review of pertinent facility documents, it was determined that the facility failed to a.) identify and address multiple severe weight losses and consistently obtain reweights, b.) implement and monitor weekly weights, c.) evaluate and adjust nutritional interventions, e.) comprehensively assess the resident after a significant weight change and f.) revise the nutritional care plan. This was identified for 1 of 5 residents (Resident #47) reviewed for nutrition. The evidence was as follows: 1. On 2/8/23 at 11:45 AM, the surveyor observed Resident #47 lying in bed awake. The resident appeared thin, was not verbally responsive and was unable to maintain eye contact with the surveyor. The surveyor reviewed the medical records of Resident #47. Review of the Resident Face Sheet (an admission summary) reflected that the resident was admitted to the facility with diagnoses which included, but not limited to unspecified protein-calorie malnutrition (protein calorie malnutrition happens when you are not consuming enough protein and calories), dysphagia (difficulty swallowing), Gastrostomy Status (an opening into the stomach from the abdominal wall, made surgically for the introduction of food), and dementia in other diseases classified elsewhere, unspecified severity, with behavioral disturbance. Review of the quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS), an assessment tool used to facilitate the management of care dated 8/20/22 and 11/20/22, indicated that the resident's cognitive skills for daily decision making was severely impaired with total dependence of one-person physical assist for eating. A further review of the resident's MDS, Section K - Swallowing/Nutritional Status revealed that the resident had a feeding tube and significant weight loss that was not prescribed by the physician. Review of the Physician's Order (PO) dated 6/11/20, reflected that the resident had an PO for the tube feeding formula of Jevity 1.5 - one can (237 milliliter [mL]) via G-tube four times daily at 9AM, 1 PM, 5 PM, and 9 PM for a total volume of 948 mL. Review of the July 2022 through February 2023, Medication Administration Record (MAR) reflected the above corresponding PO's. Review of the resident's Monthly Record of V/S (vital signs) and Weights reflected the following weights: March 2022 127.4 lbs. April 2022 125 lbs. May 2022 122.8 lbs. June 2022 121.9 lbs. July 2022 122.1 lbs. August 2022 105 lbs. reweighed at 99.4 lb. - 22.7 pound (lb.) and 18.6% loss over one month September 2022 99.5 lbs. - 27.9 lb. and 21.9% loss over 6 months October 2022 100.8 lbs. - 24.2 lb. and 19.4% loss over 6 months November 2022 99.4 lbs. - 23.4 lb. and 19.1% loss over 6 months December 2022 95 lbs. - 26.9 lb. and 22.1% loss over 6 months January 2023 89.5 lbs. - 5.5 lb. and 5.8% loss over one month Review of the resident's progress notes from the hybrid (both paper chart and electronic medical records) medical record from July 6, 2022, through February 5, 2023, included the following documentation related to weight loss: The Quarterly Nutritional Assessment (NA) completed by the Registered Dietitian (RD), dated 8/23/22, indicated that the resident had significant weight loss in the past 6 months . Will suggest to reweigh resident and will check the reliability of the scale used. The RD also indicated that she would follow up. The Quarterly NA completed by the RD, dated 2/5/23, indicated that the resident had significant weight loss in the past 2 quarters . She also indicated that the resident was on Jevity 1.5 tube feeding. Gets 4 cans of Jevity 1.5 = gives 1420 calories and 60.4 grams protein. Resident gets 105% of the required calories .no recent laboratory reports are available except HBG and HCT which are both normal. Will continue to follow up. Review of the Quarterly IDCP (Interdisciplinary) care plan meetings dated 8/30/22 and 11/29/22 did not include documented evidence that the team was aware that the resident experienced significant weight losses. Review of the Nurses Progress notes did not include documented evidence that nursing was aware that the resident experienced significant weight losses. Review of the resident's Attending Physician (AP) Doctor's Progress Notes dated 10/8/22, 1/17/23, and 2/5/23 did not include documented evidence that the AP was aware of the resident experienced significant weight losses. Review of the resident's comprehensive care plan including the following focused areas: 1. The Nutrition- Dysphagia comprehensive care plan with an effective date of 3/1/22. 2. The G-tube feeding comprehensive care plan with an effective date of 3/1/22. 3. The Nutrition- Risk for Dehydration and weight loss with an effective date of 5/25/22. All three comprehensive focused care plan areas did not include documented evidence of the resident's significant weight losses. Further review of the G-tube feeding comprehensive care plan with an effective date of 3/1/22, indicated that the Goals will receive adequate nutrition and hydration via gtube with good tolerance over the next three months. It also indicated interventions to follow up significant labs, weight changes, skin integrity, BM. On 2/9/23 at 9:42 AM, the surveyor interviewed the Director of Nursing (DON) and the Licensed Nursing Home Administrator (LNHA) in the presence of the survey team. The DON stated that the residents were weighed monthly by the Certified Nursing Aide (CNA)'s. She also stated that the CNAs would verbally communicate the weights to the nurses. She then stated that the nurses would document the weights in the Monthly Record of V/S and Weights form in the resident's paper chart in the Dietary section. During the interview, the DON informed the survey team that the resident would be reweighed if there was a weight discrepancy such as significant weight loss. She also stated that when a resident's weight loss was confirmed, the nurse would notify the resident's AP of the resident's weight loss. The DON stated that a dietary consult was usually a physician's order. She also stated that if the AP ordered a dietary consult, the nurses would verbally communicate this to the RD. On 2/14/23 at 12:32 PM, the surveyor interviewed the assigned CNA for Resident #47. She stated that the CNAs were responsible for weighing all the residents once a month, by the fifth of the month. She further stated that the nurses assigned the CNAs the residents who needed to be weighed and the CNA's would verbally communicate the residents' weights to the nurse, or would write it on the daily assignment sheets. The CNA stated that she was not aware that Resident #47 had weight losses. On 2/14/23 at 12:46 PM, the survey team interviewed the RD in the presence of the LNHA. The RD informed the survey team that the residents' weights were taken by the nursing staff every first week of the month. She stated that the Unit Manager (UM) nurse would report to her which residents had a weight loss of 5 lbs. or more and stated, I have continuous communication with nursing about residents that have lost weight. During the interview, the RD stated that when a resident had a significant weight loss, they would do a 3-day calorie count to determine if the resident's intake was meeting his/her needs and stated, we always do that. She further stated that she would discuss the calorie count results that were kept in the resident chart with the nurse, and she would explain how the results were related to the weight loss, which were documented in the medical record. On that same date and time, the RD informed the survey team that they did not have weight meetings. She stated that she would make recommendations and that there would be continuous follow up for any significant weight losses. She further stated that they would evaluate the residents on a quarterly basis whether there was an improvement or not. In addition, she stated that she reviewed the residents' weights monthly, reviewed the weight loss trends, and that she would follow up every month to ensure that the interventions were effective. She stated, weight is the most significant, sensitive yardstick of nutritional assessment of the patient. The RD stated that if a resident experienced a significant weight loss, monitoring weekly weights for four weeks would be warranted. She further stated that she would recommend to start a calorie count, nutritional supplements, and weekly weights by communicating to the nurses and the AP. On 2/15/23 at 10:28 AM, the surveyor interviewed the resident's AP in the presence of the survey team, who stated that she visited the resident every month. She also stated that after visiting the resident, she documented the encounter in the resident's paper medical records. During the interview, she acknowledged that she noticed a lot of weight loss for Resident #47. The AP acknowledged that she had not increased the resident's tube feed (TF) formula order prior to the surveyor's inquiry. She further acknowledged that she could have increased the TF and stated, I am not saying that I don't want to give her food. The AP could not verify when and who in the facility notified her that the resident had significant weight losses. The AP stated that if the resident had a significant weight loss, I would have documented that in the medical record. On 2/15/23 at 10:52 AM, the Unit Manager/Registered Nurse (UM/RN) stated that she would notify the resident's AP of a confirmed weight loss and that the AP would order a dietary consult. In addition, she also stated that the notification of weight loss and discussions had with the AP and RD should be documented in the resident's electronic medical records. She further stated that the RD would conduct her nutrition assessment and recommend a 3-day calorie count, and that she would notify the AP of the RD's recommendations. In addition, the UM/RN stated that if a resident was not getting enough calories to maintain their weight, she would expect recommendations from the RD. During the interview with the UM/RN, who further stated that when she returned to work last month she was informed that Resident #47 had a gradual significant weight loss over the last 6 months. She also stated that she did not notify the resident's AP regarding the resident's significant weight losses. On 2/15/23 at 12:42 PM, the LNHA, Regional RN#1 (RRN#1), DON, and MDS Coordinator met with the survey team. The RRN#1 confirmed that the RD did not have documented evidence in Resident #47's hybrid medical records to address the significant weight losses. She further confirmed that there was no documented evidence that the RD conducted follow-up assessments. During that same interview, the RRN#1 further stated that the AP acknowledged that she was aware of the resident's significant weight losses but there was no documented evidence in the resident's hybrid medical record that the AP addressed Resident #47's significant weight losses. The RRN#1 stated, that's a problem. On 2/16/23 at 11:05 AM, the LNHA, RRN#1, RRN#2, DON, and the Infection Control Preventionist Nurse (ICPN) met with the survey team. The RRN#1 acknowledged that the resident's bolus TF PO was never changed since 2019 to the present, until surveyor inquiry. She further stated that the resident suddenly, had a lot of weight loss in one month, and was wasting, and the AP never addressed the significant weight losses until after surveyor inquiry. She also acknowledged that resident's significant weight losses were not addressed in the resident's comprehensive care plans. On 2/16/23 at 11:47 AM, the survey team met with the LNHA, RRN#1, RRN#2, DON, and ICPN. There was no additional information provided. Review of the facility policy HMNR Role of the Registered Dietitian dated 12/2022, included that the Purpose was To ensure that the RD's are in adherence with rules and regulations set forth by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS). In addition, it included Create a proper diet that fits all nutritional needs for residents/patients.; Participate in interdisciplinary care planning.; and Perform follow up assessment quarterly or more often if needed for long term care residents. Review of the facility policy HMNR Registered Dietitian Documentation dated 12/2022, included that the Purpose was .To ensure consistency in the documentation of nutrition care by Registered Dietitian's. To support and justify nutrition care. To document the results of nutrition care. In addition, it included the following: Nutrition Assessment and Consultation - Evaluation of nutrition/medical history lab values, anthropometric (measurements and proportions of the human body, such as weight) measurements . Action or recommendations with desired outcomes/measurable goal. To be entered in the [electronic medical record] under assessments .; Follow-up Evaluation . Effectiveness of nutritional intervention as it relates to goals. Monitor (review, measure status and timeliness), evaluate (compare with previous status, intervention goals and reference standards, and document progress (using defined indicators) . Re-assessment - Significant changes in lab values, anthropometric measurements, nutrient needs, . Care plan . Review of the facility policy HMNR Resident/Patient Weights dated 7/2022, included that the Purpose was To monitor the resident's/patient's nutritional status and appropriately respond to significant weight changes. In addition, it included the following: Weight can be a useful indicator of nutritional status .Weight goals should be based on a resident's/patient's usual body weight or desired body weight . Resident/patient weights will be monitored over time to identify weight loss/gain, verify weight measurements when changes in weight occur, and reassess weight interventions when appropriate . Facility scales will be calibrated annually or more often as needed by the Maintenance director/supervisor . Any resident/patient with a weight change of five (5) pounds or more will be re-weighed for accuracy . Any resident/patient with a significant weight change will be referred to the Dietitian for assessment . All resident/patient weights will be reviewed by nursing and dietary to determine significant change . Residents/patients with a recent history of weight loss or risk for weight loss may be weighed weekly as determined by the dietitian and or physician . Appropriate, individualized resident/patient interventions will be initiated to prevent and/or address significant unplanned weight changes . Residents/patients identified with significant weight loss/gain will be reviewed during nutrition rounds or facility weight meeting . The Dietitian will document in the medical record any resident/patient weight changes and interventions initiated, as well as in the care plan . Nursing or designee will notify the physician and or family/representative of any significant resident/patient weight changes. Review of the facility policy Tracking Weight Changes with a revised date of 12/21, included Weights will be documented for all individuals, for the purpose of assessing significant and gradual weight changes. In addition, it included the following: The facility will be responsible for obtaining accurate weights on a regular basis, and for keeping accurate records . A copy of the weight records will be forwarded to the appropriate professional each month: weight team leader, registered dietitian nutritionist (RDN) or designee, nursing supervisor, etc. The RDN or designee will review monthly weights and calculate significant change over one, three and six months . A copy of all significant weight losses and gains will be given to the interdisciplinary care team for appropriate review and documentation . All individuals with significant weight changes will be reweighed to assure accuracy of the weight prior to reporting to the staff, physician or family . The care plan team will review and document on all . significant weight changes, with appropriate referrals to the physician and RDN or designee. The RDN or designee will review all significant weight losses, . will make referrals and take action as necessary (including follow up documentation). The individual, family (or representative), physician and RDN or designee will be notified of any individual with an unintended significant weight change of 5% in one month, 7.5% in three months, or 10% in six months . Individuals with significant unintended weight changes will be added to weekly weights for a minimum of 4 weeks or until weight stabilizes. Review of the facility policy HMNR Care Plan dated 12/2022, included that the Purpose was To develop and implement a care plan for each resident/patient that includes the interventions needed to provide effective and person-centered . care of the resident/patient that meet professional standards of quality care. In addition, it included the following: The comprehensive care plan must describe . The services that are to be furnished to attain or maintain the resident/patient highest practicable physical, mental, and psychosocial well-being. Furthermore, it included that the care plan should be Prepared by an interdisciplinary Team, that includes but is not limited to - the attending physician or non-physician practitioner, a registered or licensed practical nurse . a Registered Dietitian . The care plan should also be Reviewed and revised by the interdisciplinary team after each assessment, including both the comprehensive, significant change, quarterly, and annual review assessments. NJAC 8:39-11.2(e)(2) (i), 17.1(c), 17.4(a)(3), 27.1(a)
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0637 (Tag F0637)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview, and record review it was determined that the facility failed to complete a Significant Change i...

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 complete a Significant Change in Status Assessment (SCSA) Minimum Data Set (MDS), an assessment tool used to facilitate the management of care, for 1 of 21 (Resident # 77) residents reviewed. This deficient practice was evidenced by the following: According to the Resident Assessment Instrument Manual Version 3.0 of Centers for Medicaid and Medicare Services (CMS) guidelines, updated October 2019, a SCSA MDS is required within 14 days after the facility determines or should have determined that there has been a significant change in the resident's physical or mental condition, a SCSA/MDS must be completed. (For purpose of this section, a significant change is a decline or improvement in the resident's status that will not normally resolve itself without further intervention by staff or by implementing standard disease-related interventions, that has an impact on more than one area of the resident's health status and requires interdisciplinary review or revision of the care plan, or both.) On 2/6/23 at 11:42 AM, the surveyor observed Resident # 77 awake and seated in a wheelchair inside his/her room. The surveyor reviewed the electronic and paper medical record for Resident # 77. Review of the admission Record revealed that the resident was admitted to the facility with diagnoses that included but were not limited to unspecified dementia, psychotic disturbance, mood disturbance, and anxiety. Review of the quarterly MDS dated [DATE], revealed a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of 5, which indicated that the resident had severe cognitive impairment. The MDS also revealed that the resident's functional status for bed mobility required limited assistance with one person assistance, eating required supervision with setup, and toileting required extensive assistance with one person assistance. Review of the quarterly MDS dated [DATE], revealed a BIMS score of 13, which indicated that the resident had intact cognition. The MDS also revealed that the resident's functional status for bed mobility improved. The MDS indicated the resident was independent with bed mobility requiring setup assistance. The resident improved with eating independently requiring setup assistance. The MDS further revealed that the resident's toileting status also improved requiring supervision with setup assistance. A review of the Occupational Therapy (OT) Plan of Care dated 11/22/22, revealed the resident began receiving OT services on 11/22/22. Review of the OT long-term goal plan was for the resident to complete bed mobility safely with supervision and that the resident will be able to perform toileting with supervision. On 2/14/23 at 10:53 AM, the surveyor discussed with the Registered Nurse Minimum Data Set (RN/MDS) Coordinator, Resident # 77's improvement in cognition and three areas in the functional status, Section G of the quarterly MDS dated [DATE]. The RN/MDS Coordinator acknowledged that the resident began rehab services on 11/22/22, to improve with his/her activities of daily living (ADLs). She stated that she didn't think the improvements in the functional status section of the 12/10/22 MDS required a significant change in status because the resident was expected to improve in his/her ADLs because of therapy services. She further stated that that she did not discuss the resident's cognitive and functional status changes with the Interdisciplinary Team. Review of the Quarterly IDCP [Interdisciplinary Care Plan] meeting dated 12/20/22, indicated that the IDCP team met and discussed that the residents needs are being met by staff including his/her medical and psychiatric needs are monitored daily .staff will continue to be supportive. There was no documented evidence that the team discussed the resident's improvement in cognition and in his/her functional status. Review of the resident's care plan with a focus area for at risk for ADL decline due to dementia dated 11/23/22, indicated a goal to show improvement in mobility status and in ADLs. On 2/14/23 at 2:00 PM, the surveyor discussed the above findings with the Licensed Nursing Home Administrator and the Director of Nursing. On 2/15/23 at 12:40 PM, the survey team met with the facility administration team who acknowledged that a significant change in status for Resident # 77 should have been completed. Review of the Long-Term Care Facility Resident Assessment Instrument 3.0 User's Manual, Version 1.17.1, October 2019, reflected on page 2-18 that a SCSA MDS must be completed no later than the 14th calendar day after determination that a significant change in resident's status occurred. The manual further reflected on page 2-22 that A significant change is a major decline or improvement in a resident's status. There was no additional information provided. NJAC 8:39-11.2(i)
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0761 (Tag F0761)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview, and record review, it was determined that the facility failed to properly label, store and disp...

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 properly label, store and dispose of medications in 3 of 4 medication carts inspected. This deficient practice was evidenced by the following: On [DATE] at 10:30 AM, the surveyor inspected the South Unit high end medication in the presence of a Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN#1). The surveyor observed an unopened and undated bottle of Xalatan eye drops (medication for pressure in the eye, Glaucoma) that was stored inside the medication cart. The surveyor also observed an opened bottle of Timolol eye drops (Glaucoma) that was undated (pharmacy label date [DATE]) and an opened bottle of Dorzolamide eye drops (Glaucoma) that was opened with an opened date of [DATE], and was expired. The surveyor interviewed LPN #1 who stated that an unopened bottle of Xalatan eye drops should have been stored inside the medication refrigerator because once opened or once stored at room temperature, the medication will have a 42-day expiration date. LPN #1 also acknowledge that an opened bottle of Timolol eye drops should have been dated because once opened, it only had a 28-day expiration date. LPN #1 further stated that the Dorzolamide eye drops that was opened and dated [DATE], was expired and should have been removed from the medication cart. On [DATE] at 11:30 AM, the surveyor inspected the North Unit low-side medication Cart in the presence of LPN #2. The surveyor observed an opened bottle of blood Glucose test strips (a product to test the blood sugar levels) that was not dated. The surveyor also observed an opened bottle of Olopatadine eye drops (allergies) that was dated [DATE], and was expired. The surveyor interviewed LPN #2 who stated that an opened bottle of blood Glucose test strips should have been dated. LPN #2 also acknowledge that the Olopatadine eye drops were expired and should have been removed from the medication cart. On [DATE] at 11:00 AM, the surveyor inspected the South unit high-side medication cart in the presence of a Registered Nurse (RN#1). The surveyor observed a bottle of Xalatan eye drops that had an opened date of [DATE], but had no label containing a resident's name. They was no corresponding bag or box for the Xalatan eye drops. The surveyor interviewed RN#1 who stated that all the medication inside a medication cart or a medication refrigerator should have the name of a resident. A review of the Manufacturer's Specifications for the following medications revealed the following: 1. Unopened Xalatan eye drops should have been stored in a refrigerator. 2. Xalatan eye drops once stored at room temperature have an expiration date of 42-days 3. Timolol eye drops once opened have an expiration date of 28-days 4. Dorzolamide eye drops once opened have an expiration date of 28-days 5. Olopatadine eye drops once opened have an expiration date of 28-days. 6. Blood Glucose Test strips once opened have an expiration date of 90-days. On [DATE] at 1:35 PM, the surveyor met with the Licensed Nursing Home Administrator (LNHA) and Director of Nursing (DON) and discussed the above observations and findings. No further information was provided by the facility. A review of the facility's policy for Medication Storage dated 3/2022, provided by the LNHA indicated the following: 6. Expired, discontinued and /or contaminated medications will be removed from the medication storage areas and disposed of in accordance with facility policy 8. Medications will be stored at the appropriate temperatures in accordance with the pharmacy/or manufacturer labeling. 9. Medications requiring refrigeration will be stored in a refrigerator that is maintained between 2 to 8 degrees Celsius (36 to 46 degrees Fahrenheit). A review of the facility's policy for Medication Labeling and Dating that was dated 3/2022 and was provided by the LNHA indicated the following: 3. The label for each resident's individual medication container or package shall include at least the following: a. The resident's full name. Medication Dating: 1. The expiration date for all medications will be labeled expiration date unless the manufacturer gives specific requirements for beyond use dates. 2. Beyond use dates refer to a specific amount of a time a medication is still able to be used once it has been removed from the manufacturer's specified storage conditions (e.g., opened vial or package, removed from refrigeration). a. Once a medication has been removed from the manufacturer's specified storage conditions, the medication will be dated with the current date. b. When the medication reaches its beyond-use-date, based on the date it was opened or removed from the manufacturer's specified storage conditions, it will be discarded according to the facility policy. c. The beyond use date cannot exceed the manufacturer's expiration date. d. Medications requiring specific dating upon opening are typically labeled with cautionary and/or accessory labels alerting the nurse to this dating recommendation. NJAC: 8:39-29.4 (a) (h) (d)
CONCERN (E)

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

Deficiency F0658 (Tag F0658)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

Based on observation, interview, record review, and review of pertinent facility documents it was determined that the facility failed to follow a physician's order for Keppra (anti-epileptic medicatio...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, interview, record review, and review of pertinent facility documents it was determined that the facility failed to follow a physician's order for Keppra (anti-epileptic medications used to control seizures) levels in the blood every three months for Resident #47. This deficient practice was identified for 1 of 21 residents reviewed. 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 2/8/23 at 11:45 AM, the surveyor observed Resident #47 lying in bed awake, was not verbally responsive, and was not able to maintain eye contact with the surveyor. The surveyor reviewed the medical records of Resident #47. Review of the Resident Face Sheet (an admission summary) reflected that the resident was admitted to the facility with diagnoses which included, but not limited to unspecified protein-calorie malnutrition (Protein calorie malnutrition happens when you are not consuming enough protein and calories), dysphagia (difficulty swallowing), gastrostomy status (an opening into the stomach from the abdominal wall, made surgically for the introduction of food), and dementia in other diseases classified elsewhere, unspecified severity, with behavioral disturbance. Review of the quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS), an assessment tool used to facilitate the management of care dated 11/20/22, indicated that the resident's cognitive skills for daily decision making was severely impaired. Review of the Attending Physician's (AP's) Doctor's Progress Notes dated 10/8/22, included a diagnosis of Seizure. Review of the Physician's Order (PO) dated 4/2/22, reflected a PO for Keppra 5 mL (milliliter) / 500 mg (milligram) via G-tube one time a day in the morning and Keppra 2.5 mL (250 mg) via G-tube in the evening. Review of the April 2022 through February 2023, Medication Administration Records (MARs) reflected the above corresponding PO's. Further review of the February 2023 POs included a PO for Keppra levels every three months, dated 8/26/20. Review of the hybrid (paper and electronic) medical records for Resident # 47 revealed that the last Keppra level was obtained on 4/15/22. There was no documented evidence in the resident's medical records that Keppra levels were obtained after 4/15/22 in accordance with the PO. Review of the resident's comprehensive care plans reflected a focus area for Neurological Diseases: Seizure Disorder effective on 9/6/22. Interventions dated 9/6/22, included to monitor drug treatment and dosage adjustments to minimize adverse reaction to other medications. On 2/8/23 at 12:12 PM, the surveyor interviewed the Registered Nurse/Unit Manager (RN/UM) who acknowledged that the last Keppra level was obtained on 4/15/22, and should have been obtained again in July 2022, October 2022 and January 2023. The RN/UM could not speak to why the Keppra levels were not done. On 2/9/23 at 9:42 AM, the surveyor, in the presence of the survey team informed the Licensed Nursing Home Administrator (LNHA) and Director of Nursing (DON) of the above concerns. The DON stated that she would review the resident's medical records and would get back to the surveyor. On 2/13/23 at 9:19 AM, during a follow up interview with the DON and LNHA in the presence of the survey team, the DON acknowledged that there were no Keppra levels obtained after 4/15/22. She stated that the Keppra levels were missed and have fallen through the cracks. On 2/16/23 at 11:47 AM, the survey team met with the LNHA, Regional Registered Nurse (RRN#1), RRN#2, DON, and the Infection Control Preventionist Nurse (ICPN). There was no additional information provided. Review of the facility policy HMNR Laboratory, Radiology And Other Diagnostic Services last revised on April 2021 and effective on 4/2022, included that the Purpose was To ensure that laboratory, radiology, and other diagnostic services meet the needs of resident/patients. To ensure that results are reported promptly to the ordering practitioner to address disease prevention, potential concerns, and/or provide for resident/patient assessment, diagnosis and treatment. In addition, it included The nurse will ensure that arrangements are made for laboratory or diagnostic services when ordered by a physician, covering physician, consultant or nurse practitioner. NJAC 8:39-11.2(b)
CONCERN (E)

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

Deficiency F0710 (Tag F0710)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

Based on observation, interview, record review, and review of pertinent facility documents, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure the physician a.) addressed multiple severe weight loss...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, interview, record review, and review of pertinent facility documents, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure the physician a.) addressed multiple severe weight losses, b.) implemented and monitored weekly weights, and c.) evaluated and adjusted nutritional interventions for 1 of 5 residents (Resident #47) reviewed for nutrition. The deficient practice was evidenced by the following: 1. On 2/8/23 at 11:45 AM, the surveyor observed Resident #47 lying in bed awake. The resident appeared thin, was not verbally responsive and was not able to maintain eye contact with the surveyor. The surveyor reviewed the medical records of Resident #47. Review of the Resident Face Sheet (an admission summary) reflected that the resident was admitted to the facility with diagnoses which included, but not limited to unspecified protein-calorie malnutrition (protein calorie malnutrition happens when you are not consuming enough protein and calories), dysphagia (difficulty swallowing), Gastrostomy Status (an opening into the stomach from the abdominal wall, made surgically for the introduction of food), and dementia in other diseases classified elsewhere, unspecified severity, with behavioral disturbance. Review of the quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS), an assessment tool used to facilitate the management of care dated 8/20/22 and 11/20/22, indicated that the resident's cognitive skills for daily decision making was severely impaired with total dependence of one-person physical assist for eating. A further review of the resident's MDS, Section K - Swallowing/Nutritional Status revealed that the resident had a feeding tube and significant weight loss that was not prescribed by the physician. Review of the Physician's Order (PO) dated 6/11/20, reflected that the resident had an PO for the tube feeding formula of Jevity 1.5 - one can (237 milliliter [mL]) via G-tube four times daily at 9AM, 1 PM, 5 PM, and 9 PM for a total volume of 948 mL. Review of the July 2022 through February 2023, Medication Administration Record (MAR) reflected the above corresponding PO's. Review of the resident's Monthly Record of V/S (vital signs) and Weights reflected the following weights: March 2022 127.4 lbs. April 2022 125 lbs. May 2022 122.8 lbs. June 2022 121.9 lbs. July 2022 122.1 lbs. August 2022 105 lbs. reweighed at 99.4 lb. - 22.7 pound (lb.) and 18.6% loss over one month September 2022 99.5 lbs. - 27.9 lb. and 21.9% loss over 6 months October 2022 100.8 lbs. - 24.2 lb. and 19.4% loss over 6 months November 2022 99.4 lbs. - 23.4 lb. and 19.1% loss over 6 months December 2022 95 lbs. - 26.9 lb. and 22.1% loss over 6 months January 2023 89.5 lbs. - 5.5 lb. and 5.8% loss over one month Review of the resident's Attending Physician (AP) Doctor's Progress Notes dated 10/8/22, 1/17/23, and 2/5/23 did not include documented evidence that the AP was aware of the resident experienced significant weight losses. On 2/15/23 at 10:28 AM, the surveyor interviewed the resident's AP in the presence of the survey team, who stated that she visited the resident every month. She also stated that after visiting the resident, she documented the encounter in the resident's paper medical records. During the interview, she acknowledged that she noticed a lot of weight loss for Resident #47. The AP acknowledged that she had not increased the resident's tube feed (TF) formula order prior to the surveyor's inquiry. She further acknowledged that she could have increased the TF and stated, I am not saying that I don't want to give her food. The AP could not verify when and who in the facility notified her that the resident had significant weight losses. The AP stated that if the resident had a significant weight loss, I would have documented that in the medical record. On 2/15/23 at 12:42 PM, the LNHA, Regional RN#1 (RRN#1), DON, and MDS Coordinator met with the survey team. RRN#1 stated that the AP acknowledged that she was aware of the resident's significant weight losses, but there was no documented evidence in the resident's hybrid (electronic and paper) medical record that the AP addressed Resident #47's significant weight losses. The RRN#1 stated, that's a problem. On 2/16/23 at 11:05 AM, the LNHA, RRN#1, RRN#2, DON, and the Infection Control Preventionist Nurse (ICPN) met with the survey team. The RRN#1 acknowledged that the resident's bolus TF PO was never changed since 2019 to the present, until surveyor inquiry. She further stated that the resident suddenly, had a lot of weight loss in one month, and was wasting, and the AP never addressed the significant weight losses in the medical record until after the surveyor inquiry. On 2/16/23 at 11:47 AM, the survey team met with the LNHA, RRN#1, RRN#2, DON, and ICPN. There was no additional information provided. NJAC 8:39-23.2 (b)
Feb 2021 2 deficiencies
CONCERN (D)

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

Infection Control (Tag F0880)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on observation, interview, and review of facility documents, it was determined that the facility failed to implement infection control policies and procedures in a manner that would decrease the...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, interview, and review of facility documents, it was determined that the facility failed to implement infection control policies and procedures in a manner that would decrease the possibility of spreading infection. This was found with 1 of 4 residents who were on transmission based precautions, Resident #13. The deficient practice was evidenced by the following: On 2/17/21 at 8:20 AM, during a medication pass observation, the surveyor entered the room of Resident #13 with the resident's assigned Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN). There was a sign on the resident's door. The sign read: Stop! Please see nurse before entering. Quarantine Precautions Contact and Droplet Precautions are in effect. Upon entering and exiting the room: Wash hands. Wear full PPE; Gown + Gloves + Eye Protection + N95 covered with a surgical mask. The LPN explained that the resident was recently readmitted from the hospital and was on quarantine precautions for 14 days due to the Covid-19 pandemic. The surveyor and the LPN donned full Personal Protective Equipment (PPE) which included an N95 mask covered with a surgical mask, a face shield, an isolation gown, and gloves. Upon entering the room the surveyor observed a Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA) in the room wearing an N95 mask covered with a surgical mask, and goggles. The CNA was not wearing a gown or gloves. The CNA was bent over by the bathroom cleaning what she explained was a spilled drink from the floor with paper towels. The resident was sitting up on the side of the bed (by the bathroom). The resident was not wearing a mask. When the CNA was done cleaning the spill she washed her hands. At that time the surveyor asked the CNA what the facility instructed the staff to wear when entering the room of a resident on Quarantine Precautions. The CNA stated I was told when we are going in to get something we don't need all of the PPE except goggles, N95 and mask, we don't need gown and gloves if we are bringing a tray or getting a tray or no direct contact. On 2/17/21 at 8:40 AM, the surveyor asked the LPN what the CNA was supposed to be wearing when she entered the room of a resident on Quarantine Precautions. The LPN said [The CNA] knows she is supposed to wear a gown and gloves, she had them when she went in the room. I was surprised when I went in there and she wasn't wearing them. I guess she got startled when she knocked down the drink and she didn't put it on. She knows. We all know to wear full PPE in those rooms. On 2/17/21 9:19 AM, the surveyor asked the Unit Manager/Registered Nurse (UM/RN) what PPE was required when entering the room of a resident on Quarantine Precautions. The UM/RN said A mask, N95, goggles or face shield, gown and gloves, when you go in the room for any reason, dropping off a tray, picking up a tray, the expectation is full PPE. On 2/17/21 at approximately 10:15 AM, the surveyor asked the Infection Preventionist (IP) what the CNAs were told to don when they entered the room of a resident on quarantine precautions. The IP stated Full PPE, N95 mask, covered by a surgical mask, goggles or face shield, gown and gloves. The surveyor asked what if the CNA was going in a room to get a tray, what PPE would be required. The IP stated Full PPE. The IP stated further I put together an explanation of PPE and what to wear when they go into a room of a resident on transmission based precautions. Every staff gets the in-service, nurses, aides, housekeepers. Every time we get a new employee I give them an in-service. If I was too see someone in a quarantine room without a gown on for instance I would write them up and report it to the Director of Nursing (DON). On 2/17/21 at 1:29 PM, the surveyor asked the DON what the expectation was for staff when they enter a room of a resident on quarantine precautions. The DON stated Full PPE if going in the room for any reason when someone is on quarantine precautions. On 2/19/21 at 9:00 AM, the surveyor reviewed the following: The facility's Pandemic Preparedness Infection Control Plan, Updated 1/15/21. Under the heading Quarantine Status/Admissions/Readmissions-July 7/2/20, Updated 10/24/20, 11/4/20. Number 1 read: Patients/Residents will be placed on quarantine status for 14 days requiring contact and droplet precautions using full PPE including N95 or higher respirator and eye protection (face shield, goggles, safety glasses) under the following circumstances: a. New admissions and readmissions (unless they have tested positive for Covid and recovered within the last 90 days) b. Patients/residents with a known exposure to an individual testing (+) for Covid-19. c. Patients/residents returning from a hospital ER visit. d. Patients/residents refusing Covid testing, if required by facility status. e. Residents who have gone out to a medical appointment or outing with family/representatives where the use of PPE, social distancing, or infection control practices is questionable (most physician offices, dialysis centers, other healthcare facilities follow requirements.) Assessment should be performed to identify risks. Number 7. read Team members should wear eye protection and an N95 or higher respirator at all times while in the quarantine area with gown and gloves added when entering patient/resident rooms. The facility's policy and procedure titled HMNR Contact Precautions. Last approved, 7/2020. Definition of Contact Precautions read: Measures that are intended to prevent transmission of infectious agents which are spread by direct of indirect contact with the resident or the resident's environment. Number 1. under Procedure read: Gowns and gloves must be worn by all personnel upon entering the room. This is a proactive measure, as unexpected resident contact or contact with environmental surfaces or items in the resident's room cannot always be anticipated. The facility's policy and procedure titled HMNR Droplet Precautions. Last approved, 6/2020. Definition of Droplet Precautions read: Actions designed to reduce/prevent the transmission of pathogens spread through close respiratory or mucous membrane contact with respiratory secretions. NJAC 8:39-19.4 (a)
MINOR (B)

Minor Issue - procedural, no safety impact

Deficiency F0712 (Tag F0712)

Minor procedural issue · This affected multiple residents

5. On 2/11/21 at 10:19 AM, the surveyor observed Resident #39 resting in bed watching television. The surveyor reviewed Resident #39's medical record that revealed the following: According to the fac...

Read full inspector narrative →
5. On 2/11/21 at 10:19 AM, the surveyor observed Resident #39 resting in bed watching television. The surveyor reviewed Resident #39's medical record that revealed the following: According to the facility admission Record, Resident #39 was admitted with diagnoses which included Dementia, Cerebrovascular Accident, Hypertension, Diabetes Mellitus, and Seizure Disorder. The resident's physician visited the resident monthly up to and including 3/5/2020. There were no visits from the physician after 3/5/2020 through 1/31/2021. The NP wrote monthly progress notes with the exception of November and December 2020. Neither the physician or NP visited Resident #39 in November and December 2020. On 2/11/21 at 1:22 PM, the surveyor interviewed the UMRN on the South Wing who confirmed the physician's last progress note located in the medical record was on 3/5/20. She continued to state that progress notes should be in the medical record so there will be proper communication between the doctor or NP and the nurse. 4. On 12/9/21 at 12:18 PM, the surveyor observed Resident #74 seated in a wheelchair inside the resident's room. The surveyor reviewed Resident #74's medical record that revealed the following: According to the physician's Progress Notes dated 2/28/19, Resident #74 was admitted to the facility with diagnoses that included Encephalopathy and Quadriplegia. The resident's physician visited the resident monthly up to and including 3/5/2020. There were no visits from the physician after 3/5/2020 through to the time of survey on 1/31/2021. The NP wrote monthly progress notes with the exception of April 2020, October 2020 and November 2020. Neither the physician or NP visited Resident #74 in April, October and November of 2020. On 2/11/21 at 11:30 AM, the surveyor interviewed the UMRN who stated they have been calling the MD to come in and he hasn't come in. Based on observation, interview, and record review, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure the Physician visits and/or Nurse Practitioner (NP) visits were conducted in person and documented at required intervals. a.) Physician's orders not signed and visits were not performed for 2 of 2 residents (Resident #45 & #59) for several months and b.) There were a few months that the neither the NP nor Physician visited 4 of 4 residents (Resident #60, #74, #39 & #88) reviewed. This deficient practice was evidenced by the following: 1. On 2/10/21 at 12:10 PM, the surveyor observed Resident #60 in the resident's room laying in bed asleep. On 2/11/21 at 10:00 AM the surveyor reviewed the medical record of Resident #60 which revealed the following: According to the Physician Orders, Resident #60 had diagnoses which included, Dementia, Cerebrovascular Accident, Hypertension, Coronary Artery Disease, Prostate Cancer, and Hyperlipidemia. The resident's physician visited the resident up to and including 3/5/20. There were no visits by the physician after 3/5/20 through to the time of the survey on 1/31/21. Progress notes were written by the Nurse Practitioner on the following dates since the most recent visit by the resident's attending physician; 4/15/20, 5/19/20, 6/24/20, 7/24/20, 8/24/20, 9/23/20, 10/2/20, 11/16/20, and 12/18/20. 2. On 2/11/21 at 9:20 AM, the surveyor observed Resident #45 in the resident's room sitting in a wheel chair watching television. On 2/11/20 at 10:20 AM the surveyor reviewed the medical record of Resident #45 which revealed the following: According to the Physician's Orders, Resident #45 had diagnoses which included, End Stage Renal Disease, Gout, Diabetes Type 2, Hypertension, Chronic Kidney Disease, Coronary Artery Disease, and Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease. The resident's physician visited the resident up to and including 3/5/20. There were no visits by the physician after 3/5/20 through to the time of the survey on 1/31/21. Additionally, none of the physician's orders between 3/2020 and 1/2021 (11 months) were signed or dated by the attending physician or another practitioner delegated by the attending physician. On 2/11/20 at 10:30 AM the surveyor asked the Unit Manager/Registered Nurse (UM/RN) if the physician saw the resident during the period of time between 3/2020 and 1/2021. The UM/RN said no, he didn't come in because of Covid, we call him if we need to. The surveyor asked the UM/RN if the resident was seen by the NP during those 11 months. The UM/RN said the resident was not seen by the NP during that time. The UM/RN further added that Resident #45 was seen by specialists on a regular basis, and attended dialysis every Monday, Wednesday, and Friday and went to the wound doctor weekly. 3. On 2/10/21 at 10:00 AM, the surveyor observed Resident #59 laying in bed awake scrolling on the resident's cell phone. On 2/11/20 at 10:40 AM, the surveyor reviewed the medical record of Resident #59 which revealed the following: According to the Physician's Orders, Resident #59 had diagnoses which included Hypoxemia, Heart Failure, Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease, Diabetes Type 2, Hyperlipidemia, Unspecified Convulsions, Unspecified Asthma, Schizoaffective Disorder, Bipolar Disorder, Essential Hypertension, Neuralgia and Neuritis, and Gastro-Esophageal Reflux Disease without Esophagitis. The resident's physician visited the resident up to and including 3/5/20. There were no visits by the physician after 3/5/20 through to the time of the survey on 1/31/21. On 2/11/21 at 1:10 PM, the surveyor asked the UM/RN if the resident was seen by a NP since the last time the resident was seen by the Attending Physician (3/5/20). The UM/RN said no. Additionally, none of the physician's orders between 4/2020 and 1/2021 (10 months) were signed or dated by the attending physician or another practitioner delegated by the attending physician. 6. A review of Resident #88's closed record revealed the primary physician visited the resident monthly up to and including 3/5/2020. There were no visits from the physician after 3/5/2020 through to the time of survey on 2/19/2021. The NP wrote monthly progress notes for the duration of the resident's stay with the exception of April, 2020. Neither the physician or NP visited Resident #88 in April, 2020. On 2/17/21 at 10:40 AM, the surveyor interviewed the NP who stated that she was out sick in April, October and November 2020 and did not come into the facility. At 10:50 AM, the surveyor interviewed the primary physician via telephone who stated since the pandemic he has not been doing face to face visits with his residents, nor did he do telemedicine. He stated that he was in contact with the facility via telephone. During this time frame none of the residents reviewed experienced any untoward medical events. The survey team discussed the above concerns with the Administrator and Director of Nursing (DON) on 2/11/ and 2/17/21. The Administrator stated that the previous DON had discussed the issue with the previous Medical Director. However, the physician still did not come to see his residents nor did he delegate another practitioner to visit and sign orders for Resident #45 and #59. According to the facility's policy dated 10/20/20 regarding Physician Visits under Procedure #6: Patients must be seen at least once every 30 days for the 90 days after admission, and at least once every 60 days thereafter. NJAC 8:39-23.2(b)
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

  • "Can I speak with families of current residents?"
  • "What's your RN coverage like on weekends and overnight?"

Our Honest Assessment

Strengths
  • • Grade B+ (80/100). Above average facility, better than most options in New Jersey.
  • • 31% turnover. Below New Jersey's 48% average. Good staff retention means consistent care.
Concerns
  • • 8 deficiencies on record, including 1 serious (caused harm) violation. Ask about corrective actions taken.
  • • $34,379 in fines. Higher than 94% of New Jersey facilities, suggesting repeated compliance issues.
Bottom line: Generally positive indicators. Standard due diligence and a personal visit recommended.

About This Facility

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

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

How is Complete Care At Plainfield Llc Staffed?

CMS rates COMPLETE CARE AT PLAINFIELD LLC's staffing level at 4 out of 5 stars, which is above average compared to other nursing homes. Staff turnover is 31%, compared to the New Jersey average of 46%. This relatively stable workforce can support continuity of care. RN turnover specifically is 57%, which is notably high. RNs provide skilled clinical oversight, so turnover in this role can affect medical care quality.

What Have Inspectors Found at Complete Care At Plainfield Llc?

State health inspectors documented 8 deficiencies at COMPLETE CARE AT PLAINFIELD LLC during 2021 to 2025. These included: 1 that caused actual resident harm, 6 with potential for harm, and 1 minor or isolated issues. Deficiencies causing actual harm indicate documented cases where residents experienced negative health consequences.

Who Owns and Operates Complete Care At Plainfield Llc?

COMPLETE CARE AT PLAINFIELD LLC is owned by a for-profit company. For-profit facilities operate as businesses with obligations to shareholders or private owners. The facility is operated by COMPLETE CARE, a chain that manages multiple nursing homes. With 106 certified beds and approximately 89 residents (about 84% occupancy), it is a mid-sized facility located in PLAINFIELD, New Jersey.

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

Compared to the 100 nursing homes in New Jersey, COMPLETE CARE AT PLAINFIELD LLC's overall rating (5 stars) is above the state average of 3.3, staff turnover (31%) is significantly lower than the state average of 46%, and health inspection rating (4 stars) is above the national benchmark.

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

Based on this facility's data, families visiting should ask: "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?"

Is Complete Care At Plainfield Llc Safe?

Based on CMS inspection data, COMPLETE CARE AT PLAINFIELD LLC has a clean safety record: no substantiated abuse findings (meaning no confirmed cases of resident harm), no Immediate Jeopardy citations (the most serious violation level indicating risk of serious injury or death), and is not on the Special Focus Facility watch list (a federal program monitoring the lowest-performing 1% of nursing homes). The facility has a 5-star overall rating and ranks #1 of 100 nursing homes in New Jersey. While no facility is perfect, families should still ask about staff-to-resident ratios and recent inspection results during their visit.

Do Nurses at Complete Care At Plainfield Llc Stick Around?

COMPLETE CARE AT PLAINFIELD LLC has a staff turnover rate of 31%, which is about average for New Jersey nursing homes (state average: 46%). Moderate turnover is common in nursing homes, but families should still ask about staff tenure and how the facility maintains care continuity when employees leave.

Was Complete Care At Plainfield Llc Ever Fined?

COMPLETE CARE AT PLAINFIELD LLC has been fined $34,379 across 1 penalty action. The New Jersey average is $33,423. While any fine indicates a compliance issue, fines under $50,000 are relatively common and typically reflect isolated problems that were subsequently corrected. Families should ask what specific issues led to these fines and confirm they've been resolved.

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

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