RIVERVIEW ESTATES REHAB AND SENIOR LIVING CENTER

303 BANK AVE, RIVERTON, NJ 08077 (856) 829-2274
For profit - Limited Liability company 66 Beds ALLAIRE HEALTH SERVICES Data: November 2025 1 Immediate Jeopardy citation
Trust Grade
38/100
#292 of 344 in NJ
Last Inspection: September 2024

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

Overview

Riverview Estates Rehab and Senior Living Center has received a Trust Grade of F, indicating significant concerns about the facility’s overall care and safety. It ranks #292 out of 344 nursing homes in New Jersey, placing it in the bottom half of facilities in the state, and #14 out of 17 in Burlington County, suggesting very limited local options that are better. The facility is showing signs of improvement, with the number of issues decreasing from 10 in 2023 to 7 in 2024. Staffing is a relative strength, rated at 4 out of 5 stars, although the turnover rate is concerning at 52%, higher than the state average. However, the facility has faced serious issues, such as failing to secure hazardous materials and not having a Registered Nurse on duty during critical times, which poses a significant risk to residents' safety. Additionally, there were concerns about food handling practices that could lead to infections. Families should weigh these strengths and weaknesses carefully when considering this facility for their loved ones.

Trust Score
F
38/100
In New Jersey
#292/344
Bottom 16%
Safety Record
High Risk
Review needed
Inspections
Getting Better
10 → 7 violations
Staff Stability
⚠ Watch
52% turnover. Above average. Higher turnover means staff may not know residents' routines.
Penalties
⚠ Watch
$38,455 in fines. Higher than 80% of New Jersey facilities, suggesting repeated compliance issues.
Skilled Nurses
✓ Good
Each resident gets 45 minutes of Registered Nurse (RN) attention daily — more than average for New Jersey. RNs are trained to catch health problems early.
Violations
⚠ Watch
17 deficiencies on record. Higher than average. Multiple issues found across inspections.
★★☆☆☆
2.0
Overall Rating
★★★★☆
4.0
Staff Levels
★★★★☆
4.0
Care Quality
★★☆☆☆
2.0
Inspection Score
Stable
2023: 10 issues
2024: 7 issues

The Good

  • 4-Star Staffing Rating · Above-average nurse staffing levels
  • 4-Star Quality Measures · Strong clinical quality outcomes
  • Full Sprinkler Coverage · Fire safety systems throughout facility
  • No fines on record

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

The Bad

2-Star Overall Rating

Below New Jersey average (3.2)

Below average - review inspection findings carefully

Staff Turnover: 52%

Near New Jersey avg (46%)

Higher turnover may affect care consistency

Federal Fines: $38,455

Above median ($33,413)

Moderate penalties - review what triggered them

Chain: ALLAIRE HEALTH SERVICES

Part of a multi-facility chain

Ask about local staffing decisions and management

The Ugly 17 deficiencies on record

1 life-threatening
Sept 2024 7 deficiencies
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0658 (Tag F0658)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on interviews, medical record review, and review of other pertinent facility documentation, it was determined that the facility failed to follow professional standards of practice for documentin...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on interviews, medical record review, and review of other pertinent facility documentation, it was determined that the facility failed to follow professional standards of practice for documenting wound care on the Electronic Treatment Administration Record (TAR). This deficient practice was identified for 1 of 1 resident reviewed for wound care (Resident #15). This deficient practice was evidenced by the following: Reference: New Jersey Statutes Annotated, Title 45, Chapter 11. Nursing Board. The Nurse Practice Act for the State of New Jersey states: The practice of nursing as a licensed practical nurse is defined as performing tasks and responsibilities within the framework of 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. Reference: New Jersey Statutes Annotated Title 45. Chapter 11. New Jersey Board of Nursing Statutes 45:11-23. Definitions b. The practice of nursing as a registered professional nurse is defined as diagnosing and treating human responses to actual or 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 prescribe by a licensed or otherwise legally authorized physician or dentist. Diagnosing in the context of nursing practice means that identification of and discrimination between physical and psychosocial signs and symptoms essential to effective execution and management of the nursing regimen. Such diagnostic privilege is distinct from a medical diagnosis. Treating means selection and performance of those therapeutic measures essential to the effective management and execution of the nursing regimen. Human response means those signs, symptoms and processes which denote the individual's health need or reaction to an actual or potential health problem. According to the admission Record (AR), Resident #15 was admitted to the facility with diagnoses which included but were not limited to, Unspecified Dementia (loss of thinking ability, memory, attention, logical reasoning, and other mental abilities), Major Depressive Disorder (a mood disorder that causes a persistent feeling of sadness and loss of interest), and Diabetes (high blood sugar levels). A review of Resident #15's most recent Quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS), an assessment tool dated 06/04/2024 revealed that the resident had a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of 2 out of 15, which indicated the resident's cognition was severely impaired. A review of the Order Summary Report (OSR) Active Orders as of 09/05/2024 included but were not limited to the following Physician's Orders (POS): -Low Air Loss Scoop Mattress every shift for monitoring. -Cleanse right posterior shoulder with wound cleanser, apply zinc and optifoam daily every day shift for wound care. -Cleanse right lateral foot with wound cleanser, apply Medi Honey and cover with optifoam daily every day shift for wound care. The surveyor reviewed Resident #15's August 2024 TAR on 09/04/2024, and it revealed blank spaces for the following treatment orders on 08/27/2024 and 08/31/2024 for day shift: -Low Air Loss Scoop Mattress every shift for monitoring. -Cleanse right posterior shoulder with wound cleanser, apply zinc and optifoam daily every day shift for wound care. -Cleanse right lateral foot with wound cleanser, apply Medi Honey and cover with optifoam daily every day shift for wound care. The surveyor reviewed Resident #15's August 2024 progress notes (PNs) which revealed no documentation that the treatment orders were administered on 08/27/2024 and 08/31/2024. During an interview with the surveyor on 09/05/2024 at 1:04 PM, in the presence of the survey team and the Licensed Nursing Home Administrator (LNHA), the Director of Nursing (DON) stated that the expectation for nurses after performing treatments was that they document in the Electronic Medical Record (EMR) on the TAR. The DON further stated that if there were blank spaces on the TAR there should be a reason documented to why the treatment was not given. The DON stated a blank space on the TAR would have indicated that the treatment was not done. On 09/06/2024 at 9:10 AM, the DON brought the surveyor an audit report titled Medication Administration Audit Report (MAAR) for Resident #15 with schedule date of 08/27/2024-09/05/2024. The MAAR revealed the following: - An order for Low Air Loss Scoop Mattress every shift for monitoring with a scheduled date of 08/27/24 at 07:00 revealed an administration date of 09/05/2024 at 16:02 and documented time of 09/05/2024 at 16:02. -An order to cleanse right lateral foot with wound cleanser, apply Medi Honey and cover with optifoam daily every day shift for wound care with a scheduled date of 08/27/2024 at 07:00 revealed an administration date of 09/05/2024 at16:02 and documented time of 09/05/2024 at 16:02. -An order to cleanse right posterior shoulder with wound cleanser, apply zinc and optifoam daily every day shift for wound care with a scheduled date of 08/27/2024 at 07:00 revealed an administration date of 09/05/2024 at 16:02 and documented time of 09/05/2024 at 16:02. - An order for Low Air Loss Scoop Mattress every shift for monitoring with a scheduled date of 08/31/24 at 07:00 revealed an administration date of 09/05/2024 at 15:40 and documented time of 09/05/2024 at 15:41. - An order to cleanse right lateral foot with wound cleanser, apply Medi Honey and cover with optifoam daily every day shift for wound care with a scheduled date of 08/31/2024 at 07:00 revealed an administration date of 09/05/2024 at15:39 and documented time of 09/05/2024 at 15:41. - An order to cleanse right posterior shoulder with wound cleanser, apply zinc and optifoam daily every day shift for wound care with a scheduled date of 08/31/2024 at 07:00 revealed an administration date of 09/05/2024 at 15:39 and documented time of 09/05/2024 at 15:41. During an interview with the surveyor on 09/06/2024 at 9:12 AM, in the presence of the survey team and the Licensed Nursing Home Administrator (LNHA), the Director of Nursing (DON) stated there were no blank spaces in the TAR that was given to the surveyor because the DON spoke with the nurse assigned to Resident #15 on 08/27/2024 and 08/31/2024 on day shift. DON further stated the nurse told the DON that the treatments for Resident #15 were completed on 08/27/2024 and 08/31/2024 on day shift and the nurse had forgotten to sign the TAR. The DON confirmed that the standard of care was that the nurses were to sign the TAR after treatments were completed. A review of facility policy titled Charting and Documentation with revised date of 01/2024, revealed under Policy Interpretation and Implementation,2. The following information is to be documented in the resident medical record: b. Medications administered c. Treatments or services performed 3. Documentation in the medical record will be objective, complete, and accurate. 5. Documentation of the procedures and treatments will include care-specific details, including: a. The date and time the procedure/treatment was provided; b. The name and title of the individual(s) who provided the care. NJAC 8:39-29.2(d)
CONCERN (D)

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

Respiratory Care (Tag F0695)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

B. On 09/04/2024 at 09:27 AM, Surveyor #2 observed Resident #5 seated in their wheelchair in their room. Resident #5s nebulizer mask was observed on the bedside table. Resident #5 stated he/she had a ...

Read full inspector narrative →
B. On 09/04/2024 at 09:27 AM, Surveyor #2 observed Resident #5 seated in their wheelchair in their room. Resident #5s nebulizer mask was observed on the bedside table. Resident #5 stated he/she had a treatment last night. The mask was on top of the nebulizer machine and was uncovered and exposed while not in use. According to the admission Record, Resident #5 was admitted to the facility with the following but not limited to diagnoses: Malignant neoplasm of unspecified part of unspecified bronchus or lung, unspecified dementia, heart failure, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, and chronic respiratory failure with hypoxia (a condition in which the body or a region of the body is deprived of adequate oxygen supply at the tissue level). A review of the MDS, an assessment tool, dated 8/27/2024, revealed Resident #5 had a Brief Interview for Mental Status score of 11/15, indicating moderate cognitive impairment. Resident #5 was dependent for toileting hygiene. Section O of the MDS revealed Resident #5 received oxygen therapy while a resident at the facility. A review of the Order Summary Report with active orders as of 09/06/2024 revealed that Resident #5 had the following physician order: Budesonide Inhalation Suspension 0.5 MG (milligram)/2ML (milliliter) (Budesonide (Inhalation)) 1 vial inhale orally every 12 hours related to chronic obstructive pulmonary disease with (acute) exacerbation (J44.1) Rinse mouth after use. Order Date: 05/29/2024. According to the 9/1/2024- 9/30/2024, Medication Administration Record, Resident #5 received Budesonide Inhalation Suspension 0.5 MG/2ML (Budesonide Inhalation)) 1 vial inhale orally every 12 hours on 9/1 through 9/6/2024 at 0900 and 2100. A review of the comprehensive care plan revealed that Resident #5 had the following care plan Focus: [resident name] has altered respiratory status/difficulty breathing use of nasal cannula r/t (related to) chronic obstructive pulmonary disease with (acute) exacerbation, chronic respiratory failure with hypoxia, Revision on:04/02/2023. The following was revealed under Interventions/Tasks: Administer medication/puffers as ordered. Monitor for effectiveness and side effects. Revision on: 11/1/2022. On 09/05/2024 at 09:06 AM, Surveyor #2 went to Resident #5's room. Resident #5 was not in their room on this observation. The nebulizer mask was observed on the bed side table and was stored in plastic bag while not in use. On 09/05/2024 at 12:17 PM, Surveyor #2 entered Resident #5's room after knocking. Resident #5 was out of the room at this time. The surveyor observed the nebulizer mask on bedside table and in a plastic bag while not in use. On 09/05/2024 at 2:26 PM, Surveyor #2 conducted an interview with Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN #3). The surveyor asked LPN #3 what the facility practice was for residents after they had a received nebulizer treatment. LPN #3 told the surveyor, After a resident receives a nebulizer treatment, we (nurses) go back and check the resident's heart rate, oxygen saturations and lung sounds after the treatment. LPN #3 further stated, The nebulizer mask is cleaned after the procedure with soap and water or a sanitizing wipe, air dried and then it should be stored in a plastic bag on the nebulizer machine. That is completed for each use. On 09/05/2024 at 01:22 PM, Surveyor #2 conducted an interview with the facility Director of Nursing (DON) and Licensed Nursing Home Administrator (LNHA). The surveyor asked what the facility policy was for nebulizer masks after treatment and when not in use between treatments. The DON told the surveyors, The policy/practice is to clean the mask with a wipe. After it is cleaned, we store it in a plastic bag between uses. The surveyor then asked the DON what the expectation would be for the nebulizer mask was between treatments. The DON stated, Our expectation is that it would be cleaned and bagged between treatments to make sure it does not get contaminated which could potentially cause contamination to the resident. A review of the facility policy titled Nebulizer Administration, reviewed/revised 07/2024, revealed the following under the Purpose heading: The purpose of this procedure is to provide guidelines for safe nebulizer administration. The following was revealed under the heading Steps in the Procedure: 18. Rinse nebulizer, mouthpiece, and T piece with tap water and let air dry. a. Date and place supplies in a treatment bag. NJAC 8:39- 27.1 (a) Based on observation, interview, review of the medical record and other facility documentation, it was determined that the facility failed to A.) follow a physician order for PRN (as needed) oxygen use for 1 of 2 residents reviewed for Respiratory Care and B.) failed to implement infection control measures for the handling and storage of respiratory equipment for 2 of 2 residents reviewed for Respiratory Care, (Resident #18 and Resident # 5). This deficient practice was evidenced by the following: A. During the initial tour of the unit on 09/03/2024 at 06:55 PM, Surveyor #1 observed nebulizer mask dated 8/29 sitting on top of the nebulizer machine uncovered and exposed in Resident #18's room. A review of Resident #18' Electronic Medical Record (EMR) on 09/04/2024 at 11:07 AM revealed the following: According to the admission Record, Resident #18 was admitted to the facility with diagnoses including but not limited to: Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD). A review of the most recent Minimum Data Set (MDS), an assessment tool used to facilitate care dated 08/06/2024, revealed Resident #18 had severely impaired cognition. The MDS further revealed under section O no to oxygen used while a resident. A review of an Order Summary Report with Active Orders as of 09/05/2024 revealed a physician order with start date of 6/27/2024 to Administer oxygen PRN 2L (liters) via NC (nasal Cannula) as needed for SOB (shortness of breath), dyspnea (shortness of breath, or the feeling of not being able to breathe well enough), SpO2 (a measurement of the percentage of oxygen in your blood, or oxygen saturation.) <93%. A review of the Medication Administration Records (MAR) revealed a physician order for Administer oxygen PRN 2L via NC as needed for SOB, SpO2<93 %. Under the Hours column indicated O2 sats and PRN. A further review of the MARS for June 2024, July 2024, August 2024 and September 2024 did not include documentation that the resident required oxygen. A review of the O2 (oxygen) Sats (saturation) Summary revealed that on the following dates Resident #18 used oxygen with a SpO2 above 93%: 6/28/2024, 6/29/2024, 6/30/2024. In July 7/1/2024 through 7/8/2024, 7/15/2024, 7/18/2024 through 7/23/2024, 7/25/2024, 7/27/2024 through 7/31/2024. In August 8/1/2024. 8/2/2024, 8/5/2024 through 8/7/2024, 8/10/2024 through 8/8/22/2024, 8/25/2024 through 8/31/2024. In September 9/3/2024. A review of the Nursing Progress notes from 6/28/2024 did not include documentation that Resident #18 had SOB, Dyspnea or SpO2 <93%. A review of Resident #18's care plan revealed a focus area of [Resident name] has oxygen therapy r/t (related to) CHF (congestive Heart Failure), COPD, Hx (history) of Aspiration PNA (pneumonia) with a Date Initiated: 05/09/2024 and Revision on: 05/27/2024. Under the Goal section the resident will have no s/sx (signs/symptoms) of poor oxygen absorption through the review date. Interventions included but were not limited to: Monitor for s/sx of respiratory distress and report to MD PRN: Respirations, Pulse oximetry, Increased heart rate (Tachycardia), Restlessness, Diaphoresis, Headaches, Lethargy, Confusion, Atelectasis, Hemoptysis, Cough, Pleuritic pain, Accessory muscle usage, Skin color. OXYGEN SETTINGS: O2 via (SPECIFY: nasal cannula) @ 2L (SPECIFY: Constant). A review of a facility policy on 09/05/2024 at 09:26 AM, titled Oxygen Administration with reviewed/revised date of 4/2024 revealed under the Preparation section 1. Verify that there is a physician's order for this procedure. Under the documentation section Under the Documentation section 5. The reason for p,r,n, administration. 6. All assessment data obtained before, during and after the procedure. 9. The signature and title of the person recording the data. During an interview with Surveyor #1 on 09/05/2024 at 12:15 PM, Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN #1) was asked What is the facility procedure/policy for storing respiratory equipment such as oxygen or nebulizer when not in use. LPN #1 responded it should be stored in bag, labeled with date. It is changed I want to say every 3 days, but I am not sure, they do it on overnight shift. B. On 09/04/2024 at 09:27 AM, Surveyor #2 observed Resident #5 seated in their wheelchair in their room. Resident #5s nebulizer mask was observed on the bedside table. Resident #5 stated he/she had a treatment last night. The mask was on top of the nebulizer machine and was uncovered and exposed while not in use. According to the admission Record, Resident #5 was admitted to the facility with the following but not limited to diagnoses: Malignant neoplasm of unspecified part of unspecified bronchus or lung, unspecified dementia, heart failure, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, and chronic respiratory failure with hypoxia (a condition in which the body or a region of the body is deprived of adequate oxygen supply at the tissue level). A review of the MDS, an assessment tool, dated 8/27/2024, revealed Resident #5 had a Brief Interview for Mental Status score of 11/15, indicating moderate cognitive impairment. Resident #5 was dependent for toileting hygiene. Section O of the MDS revealed Resident #5 received oxygen therapy while a resident at the facility. A review of the Order Summary Report with active orders as of 09/06/2024 revealed that Resident #5 had the following physician order: Budesonide Inhalation Suspension 0.5 MG (milligram)/2ML (milliliter) (Budesonide (Inhalation)) 1 vial inhale orally every 12 hours related to chronic obstructive pulmonary disease with (acute) exacerbation (J44.1) Rinse mouth after use. Order Date: 05/29/2024. According to the 9/1/2024- 9/30/2024 Medication Administration Record, Resident #5 received Budesonide Inhalation Suspension 0.5 MG/2ML (Budesonide Inhalation)) 1 vial inhale orally every 12 hours on 9/1 through 9/6/2024 at 0900 and 2100. A review of the comprehensive care plan revealed that Resident #5 had the following care plan Focus: [resident name] has altered respiratory status/difficulty breathing use of nasal cannula r/t (related to) chronic obstructive pulmonary disease with (acute) exacerbation, chronic respiratory failure with hypoxia, Revision on:04/02/2023. The following was revealed under Interventions/Tasks: Administer medication/puffers as ordered. Monitor for effectiveness and side effects. Revision on: 11/1/2022. On 09/05/2024at 09:06 AM Surveyor #2 went to Resident #5's room. Resident #5 was not in their room on this observation. The nebulizer mask was observed on the bed side table and was stored in plastic bag while not in use. On 09/05/2024 at 12:17 PM Surveyor #2 entered Resident #5's room after knocking. Resident #5 was out of the room at this time. The surveyor observed the nebulizer mask on bedside table and in a plastic bag while not in use.
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0761 (Tag F0761)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on observation, interview, and review of pertinent facility documents, it was determined that the facility failed to properly label, store, and date medication in accordance with manufacturer re...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, interview, and review of pertinent facility documents, it was determined that the facility failed to properly label, store, and date medication in accordance with manufacturer recommendations. This deficient practice was observed in 1 of 2 medication carts (B/C cart) inspected during the medication storage and labeling task and was evidenced by the following: On 9/6/24 at 10:59 AM, in the presence of Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN #2), the surveyor inspected cart B/C. In the third drawer on the left side of the cart the surveyor observed a brown sticky substance stuck to the bottom of the drawer. In addition, while inspecting the remainder of the cart the surveyor found seven and a half loose tablets. Lastly upon controlled substance reconciliation the surveyor located a lorazepam liquid being stored on the medication cart. Inspection of the lorazepam medication container revealed a pharmacy sticker with the word refrigerate as well as on the manufactured box instructions to store at cold temperature. Refrigerate at two degrees to eight degrees Celsius or thirty six to forty six degrees Fahrenheit. At that time, LPN #2 stated she was aware of the sticky substance and had tried to remove it but was unsuccessful. LPN #2 also stated she had checked the medication cart at the start of her shift but did not see the loose tablets. LPN #2 further stated the lorazepam liquid should be stored in the refrigerator and that the lorazepam had probably been delivered by the pharmacy the night before. On 9/6/24 at 11:18 AM, the surveyor interviewed the Licensed Practical Nurse Unit Manager (LPN/UM) who stated the lorazepam should have been stored in the locked frigerator in the medication room. The LPN/UM acknowledged the loose tablets found in the cart and stated every shift was responsible to make sure there were no loose medications and that there should be no spills of liquids in the cart, that the cart should be need and clean. The LPN/UM acknowledged the third drawer down on left side of med cart had visible brown spillage and should be cleaned immediately. The loose tablets should be disposed of in the drug disposal bottle located on the medication cart. Lastly the LPN/UM stated she would call the provider pharmacy and have the lorazepam replaced. On 9/6/24 at 12:16 PM, the surveyor interviewed the Director of Nursing (DON) who stated if there were a spill it should be wiped immediately, and maintenance should be contacted for further cleaning if needed. The carts should not look visibly dirty and should be kept neat and organized, any loose tablets should be placed in the mediation destruction container. The DON acknowledged lorazepam should stored in the refrigerator in the locked box. A review of the facility's Storage of Medications policy dated revised 1/2024 included . The nursing staff shall be responsible for maintaining medication storage and preparation areas in a clean, safe and sanitary manner . Medications requiring refrigeration must be stored in a refrigerator located in a refrigerator located in the drug room at the nurses' station or other secured location . NJAC 8:39-29.4(h)
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, interviews, review of the medical record and review of other facility documentation, it was determined that the facility failed to: a.) ensure appropriate infection control pract...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, interviews, review of the medical record and review of other facility documentation, it was determined that the facility failed to: a.) ensure appropriate infection control practices were maintained during wound care; and b.) implement enhanced barrier precautions (EBP) for a resident with open wounds. This deficient practice was identified for 1 of 1 resident (Resident #15) reviewed for wound care and was evidenced by the following: 1. During the initial tour on 09/03/2024 at 6:42 PM, the surveyor observed Resident #15 lying in bed, which had a pressure relieving device attached to the end of the bed. Resident #15 was unable to be interviewed regarding wounds and wound care. According to the admission Record (AR), Resident #15 was admitted to the facility with diagnoses which included but were not limited to, Unspecified Dementia (loss of thinking ability, memory, attention, logical reasoning, and other mental abilities), and Diabetes (high blood sugar levels). A review of Resident #15's most recent Quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS), an assessment tool dated 06/04/2024, revealed that the resident had a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of 2 out of 15, which indicated the resident's cognition was severely impaired. The MDS further revealed under section M that Resident #15 was at risk for pressure ulcers/injury. The MDS did not indicate that resident had a pressure ulcer or injury at that time. A review of the Order Summary Report (OSR) Active Orders as of 09/04/2024 included but were not limited to the following Physician's Orders (POS): -Cleanse right posterior shoulder with wound cleanser, apply zinc and optifoam daily every day shift for wound care. -Cleanse right lateral foot with wound cleanser, apply Medi Honey and cover with optifoam daily every day shift for wound care. -Skin Prep Spray Miscellaneous: Apply to bilateral inner ankles topically every day shift for preventative. On 09/04/2024 at 11:01 AM, the surveyor observed no signage on Resident #15's door that indicated resident was on EBP. On 09/04/2024 at 1:55 PM, the surveyor observed Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN #2) perform wound care on Resident #15. The surveyor observed that LPN #2 did not wear a gown during wound care. The surveyor observed that LPN#2 did not change gloves after removing dirty dressing from Resident #15's right lateral foot wound. LPN #2 then proceeded to clean right lateral foot wound with same gloves used to remove dirty dressing. LPN #2 opened foam dressing packaging and dated dressing with same gloves used to remove dirty dressing. On 09/04/2024 at 1:57 PM, the surveyor observed LPN #2 apply Skin Prep to Resident #15's bilateral inner ankles. The surveyor observed that LPN #2 did not change gloves or perform hand hygiene prior to or after applying skin prep to bilateral ankles. On 09/04/2024 at 1:59 PM, the surveyor observed LPN #2 remove a dirty dressing from Resident#15's right shoulder without changing gloves and did not perform hand hygiene prior to removing dressing or after removal of dressing. LPN #2 then proceeded to put wound cleanser on Resident #15's right shoulder and then rubbed right shoulder area with gauze with same gloves used to remove dirty dressing. LPN #2 then opened foam dressing packaging and placed dressing on resident's right shoulder with same gloves used to remove dirty dressing. During an interview with the surveyor on 09/04/2024 at 2:02 PM, LPN #2 stated that they forgot to change gloves after removing dirty dressings and before cleaning wounds. LPN #2 further stated that gloves should have been removed and hand hygiene performed after removal of dirty dressing and before cleaning each wound. During an interview with the surveyor on 09/05/2024 at 10:03 AM, the Infection Preventionist (IP) stated that EBP were instituted if a resident had a Multi-Drug Resistant Organism (MDRO) (a germ that is resistant to many antibiotics) or a catheter. The IP stated that when a resident was placed on EBP, staff were made aware by signage on resident door and an isolation cart would be located outside of resident room. The IP further stated that if a resident had an open wound, the expectation was that staff would wear gowns, gloves, and goggles when providing wound care. The IP stated that Resident #15 was not placed on EBP because resident did not require wound irrigation (steady flow of a solution across an open wound surface). The IP further stated that standard precautions were implemented for wounds if resident did not have a MDRO. On 09/05/2024 at 12:04 PM, the surveyor observed a white four drawer cart outside of resident #15's room. The cart consisted of gowns, gloves, disinfectant, eye protection, and gloves inside of it. The surveyor observed no signage near resident's door indicating that Resident #15 was on EBP. During an interview with the surveyor on 09/05/2024 at 12:04 PM, the IP confirmed placing white four drawer cart outside of Resident #15's room. The IP further stated that no signage for EBP was placed because the resident did not have an MDRO in their wound. During an interview with the surveyor on 09/05/2024 at 1:04 PM, in the presence of the survey team and the Licensed Nursing Home Administrator (LNHA), the Director of Nursing (DON) stated he was unsure of when EBP would be indicated for residents. The DON stated that staff would be made aware of any resident being on EBP during daily huddles. The DON further stated that the expectation was that an isolation cart and signage should be outside of resident room that is on EBP. The DON stated that staff should be wearing gowns, gloves, goggles, and if appropriate masks when providing wound care. A review of a facility policy titled Enhanced Barrier Precautions with revised date of 03/2024 revealed under Policy Statement, To minimize the transmission of germs transferring from residents to staff hands and clothing, staff will wear gown and gloves when providing care to residents that require significant physical contact and are at high risk of acquiring or spreading Multidrug Resistance Organisms (MDRO). Under Policy Interpretation and Implementation revealed 1. Enhanced barrier precautions will be applied to: c. Residents with a chronic wound, regardless of their MDRO status. 2. High-contact resident care activities include: h. Performing wound care (for example, any skin opening requiring a dressing). Under Procedure revealed, 1. Signage will be displayed outside of resident rooms specifying the type of PPE needed and will clarify high -contact resident care activities. A review of a facility policy titled Wound Care with revised date of 04/2024 revealed under Steps in the Procedure, 5. Pull glove over dressing and discard into appropriate receptacle. Wash and dry your hands thoroughly. 6. Put on gloves. A review of a facility policy titled Infection Control (IC) Guidelines for all Nursing Procedures with revised date of 08/2024, under General Guidelines, 7. Employees must wash their hands for twenty (20) seconds using antimicrobial or non-antimicrobial soap and water under the following conditions: e. After handling items potentially contaminated with blood, body fluids, or secretions; 8. In most situations, the preferred method of hand hygiene is with an alcohol-based hand rub. If hands are not visibly soiled, use an alcohol-based hand rub containing 60-95% ethanol or isopropanol for all the following situations: e. Before handling clean or soiled dressings, gauze pads, etc.; f. Before moving from a contaminated body site to a clean body site during resident care; h. After handling used dressings, contaminated equipment. NJAC 8:39-19.4 (a) (1) (n)
CONCERN (E)

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

Drug Regimen Review (Tag F0756)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

Based on observation, interview, and review of pertinent facility documents, it was determined that the facility failed to respond to the consultant pharmacist (CP) medication regimen review recommend...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, interview, and review of pertinent facility documents, it was determined that the facility failed to respond to the consultant pharmacist (CP) medication regimen review recommendations (MRR) in a timely manner. This deficient practice was identified for 2 out of 5 residents (Resident #5 and Resident #50) reviewed for unnecessary medications. This deficient practice was evidenced by the following: 1. On 09/04/2024 at 09:33 AM, the surveyor observed Resident #5 in their room during the initial tour of the facility Resident #5 was polite and cooperative and did not display any aberrant behaviors. According to the admission Record, Resident #5 was admitted to the facility with the following but not limited to diagnoses: Depression, anxiety disorder, unspecified dementia, and major depressive disorder, and functional dyspepsia (pain or burning in the stomach, bloating, excessive belching, or nausea after eating). A review of the Minimum Data Set (MDS), an assessment tool dated 8/27/2024, revealed that Resident #5 had a Brief Interview for Mental Status score of 11/15, indicating moderate cognitive impairment. Section N revealed that Resident #5 received a daily antipsychotic, daily antidepressant, and daily antiplatelet medication. A review of the Order Summary Report with orders active as of: 09/06/2024, revealed the following physician order for Resident #5: Pantoprazole Sodium Oral Tablet Delayed Release 20 MG (milligram) (Pantoprazole Sodium) Give 1 tablet 1 time a day for GERD (gastroesophageal reflux disease). Oder Date: 08/29/2024. 09/04/2024 at 11:01 AM, during a review of the past 6 months of the CP MRR the following recommendation was observed for Resident #5 during the recommendations created between 5/1 and 5/17/2024 MRR: Protonix (Pantoprazole Sodium) can be administered without regards to meals. Please update time to 9 AM. A review of the Medication Administration Records (MAR) for 5/1/2024 - 5/31/2024, 6/1/2024 - 6/30/2024, 7/1/2024 - 7/31/2024, and 8/1/2024 - 8/31/2024 revealed that Resident #5 had the following active order for 5/2024, 6/2024, and 7/2024: Pantoprazole Sodium Oral Tablet Delayed Release 20 MG (milligram) (Pantoprazole Sodium) Give 1 tablet 1 time a day for GERD (gastroesophageal reflux disease). Start Date: 05/01/2024. Review of the 08/1/2024 - 08/31/2024 MAR revealed the following order: Pantoprazole Sodium Oral Tablet Delayed Release 20 MG (milligram) (Pantoprazole Sodium) Give 1 tablet 1 time a day for GERD (gastroesophageal reflux disease) at 0900. Order Date: 08/29/2024. 2. On 09/03/2024 at 07:00 PM during the initial tour of the facility, the surveyor observed Resident #50 lying in bed in the lowest position. Resident #50 was asleep at the time and had a Wanderguard (an alarm to prevent elopement) applied to their right ankle. A review of the admission Record revealed that Resident #50 was admitted to the facility with the following but not limited to diagnoses: Anxiety disorder, dementia, depression, and protein-calorie malnutrition. A review of the MDS, an assessment tool dated 8/6/2024, revealed Resident #50 had a Brief Interview for Mental Status score of 2/15, indicating severe cognitive impairment. On 09/04/2024 at 11:42 AM, the surveyor reviewed the past 6 months of MRR by the facility CP. On 5/17/2024 the CP made the following physician/practitioner recommendation: Valproic acid levels are recommended periodically while being maintained on Depakote. Baseline LFT (liver function tests), coagulation, cbc/diff (complete blood count with differential), and then periodically are recommended as well. Coagulation tests are recommended before surgeries. Review of the recommendation sheet revealed that the practitioner responded on 7/29/2024 as indicated by their date and signature on the CP recommendation sheet. Review of the electronic medical record revealed that Resident #50 had not been ordered any laboratory studies since 6/27/2024. The practitioner did not indicate on the response whether they agreed or disagreed with the CP recommendation. When interviewed concerning whether a physician/prescriber should document a rationale if they disagree with the CP recommendation the facility Director of Nursing told the surveyor, Typically a physician should write something if they disagree. During an interview with the facility Director of Nursing (DON) and Licensed Nursing Home Administrator (LNHA) on 09/05/2024 at 01:09 PM, the DON told the survey team that the DON is responsible for monthly pharmacist reports and physician notification. Nursing recommendations from the CP are handled by the DON, unit managers and staff nurses. The DON further stated, The DON is responsible to ensure that the recommendations are completed in a timely manner. When the surveyor asked the DON what they considered a timely manner the DON told the surveyors, I would expect a timely manner to be a couple days depending on the order, a week maximum. A recommendation made in May should be completed in May. The surveyor reviewed the facility policy titled Pharmacy Consultant Policy & Procedure, revised 07/2024. The following was observed under the heading OBJECTIVES: 6. To have the pharmacist find and identify apparent irregularities or potential drug therapy problems i.e. drug interactions with medication and food, laboratory services needed, and recommended drug therapeutic levels. The following was revealed under the heading PROCEDURE: 8. The pharmacist will provide the DON with Pharmacy recommendation reports on an on-going basis each month. The DON will act upon these recommendations by bringing them to the attention of the attending physician and ensuring any changes are implemented in a timely manner. NJAC 8:39-29.3(a)(1)
CONCERN (E)

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

Food Safety (Tag F0812)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

Based on observation, interview, and review of other facility documentation, it was determined that the facility failed to handle potentially hazardous food and maintain sanitation in a safe and consi...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, interview, and review of other facility documentation, it was determined that the facility failed to handle potentially hazardous food and maintain sanitation in a safe and consistent manner to prevent food borne illness. This deficient practice was evidenced by the following: On 9/4/2024 from 8:14 to 9:04 AM, the surveyors, accompanied by the Food Service Director (FSD) observed the following in the kitchen: 1. On an upper shelf in the dry storage room, a can of Pizza Sauce with Basil had a dent on the upper seam of the can. The FSD stated to the surveyors that it will be moved to designated dented can area. 2. A quarter pan in the walk-in freezer was placed on top of cardboard boxes. The quarter pan contained frozen puree moldings for lunch, according to the FSD. The pan was covered with plastic wrap. The plastic wrap was torn, and the puree moldings were exposed to the air. 3. In the walk-in refrigerator in the kitchen, a one eighth pan on a middle shelf contained fresh coriander, according to the FSD. The coriander was dated 8/16/24. The coriander was brown on appearance and wilted. The FSD removed the coriander to the trash. On 9/05/2024 from 9:44 to 9:53 AM, the surveyors, accompanied by the Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN #2), observed the following in the designated resident pantry: 1. A red Wawa cloth bag in the refrigerator contained an unidentified food in a black plastic take out style container with a clear plastic lid. The bag and container had no name or date labeled on it. When interviewed, LPN #2 stated, That should have been labeled and dated by nursing. I'm removing it from the refrigerator. LPN #2 further stated, I think it came in last night because I did not see it yesterday. On interview LPN #2 confirmed that nursing staff was responsible for labeling and dating foods provided/received from out of the facility. A review of the facility policy titled Food Receiving and Storage, reviewed/revised 12/2023, revealed the following: 2. When food is delivered to the facility it will be inspected for safe transport, quality, and dents before being accepted and stored. 3. Dented cans shall be separated and discarded from general food stock. 4. Should cans become dented during the course of regular operations, they shall be removed and placed in a designated area at the moment they are identified. 8. All foods stored in the refrigerator or freezer will be covered, labeled, and dated. 13. Food items and snacks kept on the nursing units must be maintained as indicated below: b. All foods belonging to residents must be labeled with the resident's name, the item, and the date. A review of the facility policy titled Monitoring of Cooler/Freezer Temperature, date reviewed/revised: 3/24/2024, The following was revealed under Policy Explanation and Compliance Guidelines: 11. Refrigerated foods shall be labeled, dated, and monitored so that it is used by the use by date, frozen, or discarded, whichever is applicable. NJAC 18:39-17.2(g)
CONCERN (F) 📢 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

Deficiency F0727 (Tag F0727)

Could have caused harm · This affected most or all residents

Based on interview and review of Nurse Staffing Report sheets, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure a Registered Nurse (RN) worked 7 days a week for at least 8 consecutive hours a day ...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on interview and review of Nurse Staffing Report sheets, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure a Registered Nurse (RN) worked 7 days a week for at least 8 consecutive hours a day for 2 of 7 weekends reviewed. This deficient practice was evidenced by the following: 09/05/24 12:55 PM A review of the Facility Assessment with last reviewed date of 8/7/2024 revealed under the Staffing Plan the following: Day RN blank (no numerical indicator) LPN 2 CNA 1 to 8 residents Evening RN 0-1 LPN 2 CNA 1-10 residents Night RN 0-1 LPN 2 CNA 3 (no ratio provided) A review of the Nurse Staffing Report for the week of 12/3/2023 through 12/9/2023 revealed that on Satuday 12/9/2023 had all zeros for Day, Evening, and Night shift under RN column. A review of the Nurse staffing Report for the week of 08/25/2024 through 08/31/2024 revealed that on 08/31/2024 there were zero's for Day, Evening, and Night shift under the RN column. A review of the daily nursing schedule for 12/9/2023 revealed there was no RN on the schedule. The Human Resources/Staffing confirmed there was no RN on the schedule. A review the daily nursing schedule showed an RN was scheduled on 08/31/2024. When asked why there was a zero on the Nurse Staffing Report submitted to the survey team, Humand Resources/Staffing checked the RN punch card. The punchcard indicated she called out (did not come to work). During an interview with the surveyor on 09/06/2024 at 12:08 PM, the Licensed Nursing Home Administrator said yes, when asked if there was a Registered Nurse (RN) in the building on a daily basis. During an interview with the sureveyor on 09/06/2024 at 12:22 PM, the Director of Human Resources/Staffing said yes we always have an RN on duty every day. The surveyor requested a copy of the nursing daily schedule for 12/9/2023 and 08/31/2024. A review of a facility policy titled Staffing with a reviewed/revised date of 12/2023 under the Policy & Procedure section: The purpose of this policy is to ensure that our facility provides adequate and appropriate staffing levels to meet the needs of residents, in compliance with federal, state, and local regulations. The policy is designed to ensure high-quality care, promote resident safety and well-being, and create a supportive working environment for staff. This policy applies to all staff involved in direct resident care, including but not limited to Registered Nurses (RNs), Licensed Practical Nurses (LPNs), Certified Nursing Assistants (CNAs), and other healthcare professionals and support staff employed or contracted by the facility. Under 2. Staffing Categories Registered Nurses (RNs): RNs will be available 8 hours a day to provide clinical oversight, care planning, and assessment. A designated RN will serve as the Director of Nursing (DON). NJAC 8:39-25.2(h)
Oct 2023 10 deficiencies 1 IJ (1 facility-wide)
CRITICAL (L)

Immediate Jeopardy (IJ) - the most serious Medicare violation

Accident Prevention (Tag F0689)

Someone could have died · This affected most or all residents

⚠️ Facility-wide issue

**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 provide a safe physical environment to prevent the likelihood of serious injury, harm, or death, by failing to: a.) ensure that two (2) janitor closets containing hazardous materials were securely locked and free from the likelihood of resident access, b.) ensure that two (2) treatment supply rooms which contained caustic, hazardous supplies and chemicals were locked and free from the likelihood of residents access, and c.) follow their facility's Storage of Chemicals Policy and Procedure. The 2 of 2 janitor closets and 2 of 2 treatment supply rooms throughout the facility, were observed to be in unsafe conditions and contained items that would be detrimental to the health and safety of the residents. This deficient practice was identified for 3 of 50 residents (Resident #44, #46, and #53), who were cognitively impaired and had the capability to ambulate independently throughout the facility. The likelihood of a serious adverse outcome could occur through contact, inappropriate handling, or ingestion of the supplies observed in the unlocked janitor and treatment supply closets with confused, ambulatory residents gaining access to dangerous supplies and caustic chemicals which resulted in an Immediate Jeopardy (IJ) situation. The facility's Licensed Nursing Home Administrator (LNHA), Interim/Director of Nursing (I/DON), and Regional Licensed Nursing Home Administrator (R/LNHA) were made aware of the IJ situation on 10/19/23 at 4:14 PM. On 10/19/23 at 4:45 PM, the facility provided the New Jersey Department of Health (NJDOH) with an acceptable Removal Plan and the immediacy was lifted. The survey team verified the validity of the Removal Plan on site throughout the duration of the survey. The deficient practice was evidenced by the following: On 10/19/23 at 10:15 AM, Surveyor #1 observed a door labeled Janitors closet on the A unit that was open/unlocked and ajar. The surveyor did not observe staff in the hall at that time. The surveyor opened the door and observed a large bottle of disinfectant cleaner sitting on a shelf. The surveyor also observed chemical dispensers on the wall containing boxes of chemicals such as floor cleaners and disinfectants that the housekeepers utilize to clean. On 10/19/23 at 10:20, Surveyor #1 entered an unlocked room on A Unit labeled Supplies. Inside the unlocked door was another unsecured/unlocked room containing razors, nail trimmers, deodorant, glycerin swabs, shaving cream, odor eliminator, denture adhesive and denture cleaning tabs that residents had access to. On 10/19/23 at 10:36 AM, Surveyor #1 observed a staff member in a room across from the janitors closet on the A Unit. The staff member identified himself as the Housekeeping Director (HD). The surveyor interviewed the HD at that time regarding the unlocked janitors closet. The HD explained to the surveyor that the janitors closet door should be kept locked at all times because residents could enter the closet and ingest the toxic chemicals that were stored in the closet and they could also get the chemicals in their eyes. The HD specified to the surveyor during the interview that the janitors closet door should be locked at all times. On 10/19/23 at 10:41 AM, Surveyor #1 interviewed the staff member that was stationed at medication cart on A unit. The staff member identified herself and the Registered Nurse/Minimum Data Set Coordinator (RN/MDSC). The RN/MDSC stated that she was, just helping out on the unit but did not have any specific task that she was doing. The RN/MDSC explained to the surveyor that there was a Licensed Practical Nurse Manager/ Unit Manager (LPN/UM) however, she was out of the building today. The RN/MDSC stated that some confused residents wandered throughout the unit. She continued to explain that the residents that wandered were easily redirected and had the diagnoses of of dementia. On 10/19/23 at 11:10 AM, Surveyor #2 entered B hall unit and observed an unlocked janitor closet door. The surveyor observed one resident seated in a wheelchair by the janitor closet door at the time of the observation. The surveyor further observed that staff were present, walking by, but unaware that the door was unlocked and that the surveyor was in the janitor closet. The surveyor opened the door and observed chemicals attached to the wall. The chemicals were identified as bathroom cleaner, disinfectant cleaner, and window shine cleaner. The window shine cleaner was observed to have a non-child proof twist lid. The disinfectant cleaner and the bathroom cleaners' tops were open with tubes coming out of them. On 10/19/23 at 11:15 AM, while Surveyor #2 was standing in the janitor closet, inspecting the area, a housekeeping staff member walked by and shut the door on the surveyor, leaving the surveyor in the unlocked closet. The housekeeping staff member did not turn a key at that time to lock the door and was unaware that the surveyor was in the janitor closet. The surveyor exited the closet and requested an interview with the gentleman who identified himself as a housekeeper/floor tech. The Housekeeper (HK) stated that the janitor's closet was used by the housekeeping staff to fill up the chemicals they used to clean the facility. The HK stated that the door was always locked. The surveyor asked if the door was currently locked, and the HK stated that he did not know because he wasn't in there today. At that time, the surveyor asked the HK to inspect the door to see if it was locked. The HK opened the door and stated, No, but it is now. The surveyor asked the HK how he had locked the door, and the surveyor observed the HK take a key from his pocket and he proceeded to show the surveyor how to appropriately lock the door. The HK stated that it was important for the door to remain locked so no residents could open it and have contact with the chemicals. The HK further stated that some of the residents were somewhat confused and would congregate in the area because they sat at the tables across from the janitor's closet and could watch the television that was there. The HK told the surveyor that at times activities were conducted in the immediate vicinity of the janitor's closet. On 10/19/23 at 11:44 AM, the surveyor observed an unlocked treatment supply closet door on the A Unit across from the resident activities room which contained multiple bottles and items in non child proof containers such as 9 (nine) - 16 ounce (oz.) bottles of bleach solution, 5 (five) -8 (eight) oz. bottles of wound cleanser solution, 25 count box of iodine swabs, 3 (three)-16 oz. jars of skin protectant creams, 8 (eight) bottles of skin prep spray, 2 (two)-500 milliliter (mls) bottles 0.25% acetic acid irrigation solutions, 4 (four)-tubes of 4 oz. medi-honey, 3 (three)-3 oz. tubes of wound gel, 6 (six) tubes of 1 (one) oz. 1% hydrocortisone cream, and 1 box of 144 packets of antibiotic ointment. On 10/19/23 at 11:23 AM, Surveyor #2 interviewed Certified Nursing Aide (CNA) #1 who stated that the importance of the janitor closets being locked was because there were chemicals and substances in there and the facility did not want the residents to go into the closet and have contact with the chemicals and the substances. CNA#1 further stated that there were confused and ambulator residents who resided on the unit. On 10/19/23 at 11:32 AM, Surveyor #2 interviewed the RN/MDSC who stated that inside the janitor closets were mops, bags, and cleaners. The RN/MDSC told the surveyor that the doors to the janitor closets were locked because chemicals were stored in the closets and the doors were required to be locked due to resident safety. The RN/MDSC further stated that there were confused and ambulatory residents who resided on the units throughout the facility. The RN/MDSC stated, That's why the doors are locked to protect the residents. The only people who go into the room are the housekeeping staff. The RN/MDSC explained to the surveyor that because she was a nurse, she would not be able to enter the janitor closets without communicating to a housekeeping staff member first because the doors to the janitor's closets would be locked. On 10/19/23 at 11:36 AM, Surveyor #2 interviewed the Regional/Director of Nursing (R/DON) who stated that there were three hallways in the facility, a skilled nursing unit, and two Long Term Care units. The R/DON was unsure of the number of janitor closets and treatment supply rooms in the building. She told the surveyor that she would imagine mops, pails, supplies, and disinfectants were stored in the janitor closets. The R/DON stated that the doors were locked so residents didn't go in. She stated, We wouldn't want the residents to be in contact with dirty equipment or cleaning supplies. The surveyor asked why, and the R/DON further stated, Because it would be a contamination issue for bacterial contamination. Surveyor #2 asked, Would access to the chemicals be considered harmful? The R/DON stated, Yes. She further stated that there were confused and ambulatory residents residing in the facility. On 10/19/23 at 11:47 AM, Surveyor #2 toured the C unit hallway and did not observe a janitor or treatment supply closet located in the area. On 10/19/23 at 11:57 AM, Surveyor #1 interviewed Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN)#1 on the A Unit who stated that she had been employed for approximately 6 months. LPN#1 stated that the treatment supply room door on A unit should be secured and locked at all times for the safety of the residents. LPN#1 added that the nurses, janitors and maintenance department had keys to the treatment supply room. She stated that it was important to assure the treatment supply room was locked at all times to protect the residents. She stated that there were medications, solutions, creams and gels that needed to be ordered by a physician that should be kept locked up so the resident didn't get into the supplies and hurt themselves. On 10/19/23 at 12:25 PM, Surveyor #2 interviewed the Housekeeping Director (HD) who stated that the facility stored chemicals such as cleaning supplies, disinfectant, glass cleaner, and toilet bowl cleaner in the janitor closets. The HD told the surveyor that the janitor closets were locked, and the housekeeping department was responsible for locking them. The surveyor asked, What's the purpose of keeping them locked? The HD stated that the janitor closets were locked due to safety purposes because there were chemicals, sharp objects stored in them, and a resident could go into the area and drink the chemicals or spray other residents with them. The HD further stated that he tried to make rounds two or three times a day to make sure the doors were locked. The surveyor asked the HD if he checked the closets. The HD stated that he did first thing in the morning and identified that one was unlocked, but at that time he had not checked the second janitor closets. The HD explained that everyone was responsible to check and make sure the doors were locked. The HD further stated that the nurses had keys to the treatment storage rooms and the nursing staff was responsible for making sure those doors were locked. The HD stated that he was, pretty sure that there were confused and ambulatory residents in the area. On 10/19/23 at 01:43 PM, Surveyor #2 interviewed the I/DON who stated the janitor closets contained cleaning supplies. She further stated that the janitor closets should be kept secured for resident safety to prevent residents from accessing contents within the closets. The I/DON told the surveyor that the nursing treatment supply rooms were locked due to safety reason to prevent residents from accessing the contents within. The I/DON stated that she considered razors something that could hurt a resident who was not alert and oriented and items such as Dakins solution should kept under lock and key as well. The I/DON stated that there were residents who were confused and ambulatory on the unit, but most of the residents were wheelchair bound. On 10/19/23 at 01:48 PM, Surveyor #2 interviewed the facility's LNHA who stated that after the housekeeper went into the closet and removed items, the door should be locked and any items that they take with them should also be kept under supervision. The LNHA further stated the treatment supply rooms should not be unlocked, the items in the rooms were potentially hazardous and that was the purpose of keeping the doors locked. Surveyor #2 reviewed the medical record for Resident #44. Review of the resident's admission Record (an admission Summary) reflected the resident had resided at the facility for over a year and had diagnoses which included, but were not limited to, unspecified dementia, unspecified severity, without behavioral disturbance, psychotic disturbance, mood disturbance, anxiety, depression, otalgia (pain in the inner or outer ear that may interfere with ability to hear, often caused by excess fluid or infection), anemia, restless leg syndrome, and hypertension. Review of the resident's quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS), an assessment tool used to facilitate the management of care, dated 09/19/23, reflected that the resident had a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of 05 out of 15 which indicated the resident had severely impaired cognition. A further review of the resident's MDS, Section E - Behavior, indicated that the resident had behaviors of wandering one to three days during the seven days look back period. Section G - Functional Status indicated that Resident #44 ambulated independently throughout the corridors of the facility and on the unit. Review of the resident's Care Plan (CP), dated 07/20/23, reflected a focus area that the resident was at an elopement risk, as the resident liked to purposely exit seek related to the diagnosis of dementia. The goal of the resident's CP was that the resident's safety would be maintained through the review date. Interventions included to provide structured activities such as toileting, walking inside and outside with reorientation strategies including signs, pictures, and memory boxes. On 10/25/23 at 10:12 AM, Surveyor #2 surveyor observed Resident #44 in their room. The resident was observed walking around his/her bed carrying diapers, towels, clothes, and popcorn all in their hands at the same time. The resident was well dressed and told the surveyor that he/she was able to take care of himself/herself. The resident was very pleasant and friendly and told the surveyor that he/she would love to take one hundred dollars and go shopping together because it would be a lot of fun. The resident was observed wearing a pair of well fitted shoes and was observed ambulating freely around their room. On 10/20/23 at 12:15 PM, Surveyor #2 interviewed CNA#1 who stated that she was not the resident's current CNA but had cared for the resident in the past. CNA#1 stated that the resident was alert and oriented with moments of confusion and utilized a walker to ambulate throughout the facility. CNA#1 told the surveyor that the resident would ask why they were at the facility and say things like, Why am I here? She explained that the resident would ask questions like that about once a week and the staff needed to monitor the resident because he/she was at risk for elopement. On 10/25/23 at 10:18 AM, Surveyor #2 interviewed the resident's CNA#2 who stated that the resident was alert and oriented, with forgetfulness and confusion. CNA#2 told the surveyor that the resident was independent when it came to activities of daily living, however needed to be redirected. CNA#2 gave the example that the resident would sleep in their daytime clothes if the staff was not there to guide the resident to care for himself/herself independently. CNA#2 further stated that the resident would clean up their room, like they would if it was their own house. CNA#2 explained to the surveyor that at times the resident would have to be redirected back into their room because the resident would lose awareness of his/her surroundings at times and needed staff assistance. Surveyor #1 reviewed the medical record for Resident #46. According to the admission Record, Resident #46 was admitted to the facility with the diagnoses that included but was not limited to Alzheimer's Disease (brain disorder that slowly destroys memory and thinking skills). The quarterly MDS dated [DATE], indicated that Resident #46 had scored a 3 (three) on the BIMS which indicated that the resident had severe cognitive impairment. The MDS indicated that the resident independently ambulated and was able to perform self care. The MDS also indicated that the resident used a wander-guard (monitoring device utilized to ensure resident's safety). Surveyor #1 reviewed Resident #46's CP, dated 10/24/22, which indicated that the resident was at risk for wandering related to (r/t) intermittent confusion. Interventions on the CP included the following: wander-guard in place on the left wrist and revised CP indicated the wander-guard was now in place of the right ankle. The CP indicated that the the staff checks the wander-guard for placement and proper functioning. On 10/25/23 at 11:32 AM, Surveyor #1 observed Resident #46 sitting in the dayroom with other residents. The surveyor observed that the resident was wearing a wander-guard bracelet on the left wrist. The resident appeared pleasantly confused. The resident appeared clean, well dressed and was participating in activities. On 10/25/23 at 11:46 AM, Surveyor #1 interviewed LPN#2 who stated that she was familiar with Resident #46 and decribed the resident as being very forgetful and only oriented her his/herself. LPN#2 stated that the resident had good and bad days, was able to independently able to walk throughout the unit and perform most acitivities of daily living for herself. LPN#2 stated that Resident #46 was not able to leave the building by himself/herself and was not exit seeking but wore a wander-guard to assure that he/she was kept safe. Surveyor #2 reviewed the medical record for Resident #53. Review of the resident's admission Record indicated that the resident had diagnoses which included, but were not limited to, Alzheimer's Disease, need for assistance with personal care, anxiety disorder, insomnia, and cognitive communication deficit. Review of the resident's quarterly MDS dated [DATE], indicated that the resident had a BIMS score of 03 out of 15 which reflected the resident had severely impaired cognition. A further review of the resident's MDS, Section G - Functional Status indicated that the resident was independently capable of walking throughout the facility with supervision. Review of the resident's CP revised 05/04/23, reflected a focus area that the resident was an elopement risk due to wandering, the resident was disoriented to place, had impaired safety awareness, and wandered aimlessly. The goal of the CP was that the resident would not leave the facility unsupervised. Interventions included to provide the resident with programs and activities that would minimize the potential for wandering. On 10/20/23 at 12:16 PM, Surveyor #2 observed Resident #53 walking independently throughout the C unit hallway. The resident was observed taking slow, deliberate steps and looking around the hallways. On 10/20/23 at 12:37 PM, Surveyor #2 observed Resident #53 walking slowly and independently around the main dining room area in the facility and back up and down the hallways of C unit. The resident was wearing a clothing protector in anticipation for lunch. The resident appeared confused and unaware of his/her surroundings. At that time, the surveyor observed a staff member walk up to the resident, tell the resident that it was lunch time, and walk the resident down the hallway to his/her room. On 10/20/23 at 12:43 PM, Surveyor #2 made an additional observation of Resident #53 walk up to another resident in the main dining room area. The resident was confused. The alert and oriented resident who was eating their lunch told the resident his/her lunch was in their room. The surveyor observed a staff member re-direct the resident toward their room again. On 10/20/23 at 12:20 PM, Surveyor #2 interviewed CNA#3 who stated that she was the assigned CNA to the resident that day. CNA#3 further stated that the resident was confused and could ambulate independently throughout the facility. Review of the facility first floor, floor plan (map), indicated that there were two treatment supply closets and two janitor closets in the facility. Review of the facility's undated Housekeeper Job Description/Competency/Evaluation indicated, The primary purpose of the job position is to implement required housekeeping procedures in an efficient, cost effective manner meeting all federal, state, and local requirements while providing a safe environment for our residents. The Housekeepers Job Description/Competency/Evaluation further indicated, Is involved with residents, personnel, visitors, government agencies/personnel, etc , under all conditions and circumstances. Review of the undated Director of Housekeeping (Housekeeping Director) Job Description indicated, The primary purpose of your job position is to plan, organize, develop, and direct the overall operation of the Housekeeping Department in accordance with current federal, state, and local standards, guidelines and regulations governing our facility, and as may be directed by the Administrator, to assure that our facility is maintained in a clean, safe, comfortable manner. The Director of Housekeeping's Job Description further revealed Administrative Functions included, Assume the administrative authority, responsibility, and accountability of directing the Housekeeping Department. Review of the facility's Storage of Chemicals Policy and Procedure revised 01/2023 indicated, All hazardous/toxic substances used in our facility will be stored in a secure location. Review of the Storage of Treatment Policy and Procedure revised 12/2022, indicated, The facility shall store treatment supplies in a safe, secure, and orderly manner The nursing staff shall be responsible for maintaining treatment supply storage and preparation areas in a clean, safe, and sanitary manner . and Storage areas (including, but not limited to, drawers cabinets, rooms, refrigerators, carts and boxes) containing treatment supplies shall be locked when not in use, and trays and carts used to transport such items should not be left unattended if open or otherwise potentially available to others . NJAC 8:39-27.1(a)
CONCERN (D) 📢 Someone Reported This

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

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

Notification of Changes (Tag F0580)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** 2. According to the admission Record, Resident #13 had diagnoses which included, but were not limited to, hemiplegia and hemipar...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** 2. According to the admission Record, Resident #13 had diagnoses which included, but were not limited to, hemiplegia and hemiparesis (weakness) following cerebral infarction (stroke) affecting left non-dominant side, dementia, and altered mental status. Review of the quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS), an assessment tool used to facilitate the management of care, dated 04/15/23, included the resident was severely cognitively impaired. Further review of the MDS included the resident was at risk for developing pressure ulcers. Review of the Care Plan included a focus, created 04/02/23, that Resident #13 had the potential for alteration in skin integrity of pressure areas. Review of the Nurse's Note, dated 06/15/23, included, Resident noted with small skin opening to L [left] buttock. MD notified. The nurse's note did not include whether the resident's representative was notified. Review of the Physician's Progress Note, dated 06/16/23, included, Pt [patient] with some skin breakdown noted yesterday by staff. The progress note did not include whether the resident's representative was notified of the skin breakdown. Further review of the progress notes, dated 06/15/23 through 06/17/23, did not include notification to the resident's representative of the change in the resident's skin integrity. During an interview with the surveyor on 10/24/23 at 11:09 AM, the Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA #2) stated that if she observed a resident with a new skin impairment, she would report it to the nurse. During an interview with the surveyor on 10/24/23 at 11:21 AM, the Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN #2) stated that when a resident has a change in condition, the nurse should notify the resident's representative on the same shift that the change occurred. During an interview with the surveyor on 10/26/23 at 11:11 AM, the Regional Director of Nursing (Regional DON), who was overseeing the nursing unit, stated that when a resident has a new skin impairment, the nurse should notify the resident's representative as soon as possible and document the notification in a nurse's note. During an interview with the surveyor on 10/26/23 at 11:34 AM, the Interim Director of Nursing (Interim DON) stated when a resident has a new skin impairment, the nurse should notify the resident's representative. Review of the facility's Pressure Ulcer/Injury Risk Assessment policy, revised 12/2022, included, Notify family, guardian, or resident update [sic] if new skin alteration noted. Review of the facility's Change in Condition or Status policy, revised 12/2022, included, Our facility shall promptly notify the resident, his or her Attending Physician, and representative of changes in the resident's medical/mental condition and/or status, and, Except in medical emergencies, notifications will be made within twenty-four (24) hours of a change occurring in the resident's medical/mental condition or status. NJAC 8:39-13.1(c) Complaint NJ #: 162553 Based on observation, interview, record review, and review of facility documents, it was determined that the facility failed to notify the resident's representative of a change in condition for 2 of 17 residents, (Resident #6 and Resident #13) reviewed. This deficient practice was evidenced by the following: 1. According to the admission Record, Resident #6 was admitted to the facility with the diagnoses which included, but not limited to unspecified dementia and chronic kidney disease. The annual Minimum Data Set (MDS), an assessment tool that facilitates a resident's care, dated 08/29/23, indicated that Resident #6 was cognitively intact and required limited to extensive assistance with activities of daily living. The MDS also indicated that Resident #6 had a history of multidrug-resistant organisms (MDROs), required assistance with toileting, and was occasionally incontinent of urine and continent of bowel. Review of a resident progress note, dated 10/12/2023 at 08:03 AM, reflected the following: Note Text: Urine specimen obtained. Resident awake most of the night, confused, hallucinations, redirected, made comfortable, safety precautions maintained. CXR placed to PDI diagnostics to be done today. According to the laboratory results for a urinalysis with culture and sensitivity (UA C&S) dated 10/12/23, Resident #6 had a colony count 100,000 plus of ESBL (an enzyme that causes an organism to become resistant to extended-spectrum cephalosporins, monobactams and extended-spectrum penicillin). The laboratory report also indicated that the resident was to be placed on contact precautions. The Order Summary Sheet ([NAME]) reflected a physician's order (PO), dated 10/15/23, for the antibiotic treatment Sulfamethoxazole-Trimethoprim (Bactrim DS) 800-160mg tablet by mouth one time a day for ESBL of the urine. On 10/19/23 at 02:47 PM, the surveyor observed Resident #6's room and there were no signs posted on the door that indicated the resident was on Transmission-Based Precautions (TBP-precautions used for persons suspected of having infections, diseases, or germs that are spread by touching the patient or items in the room) for the resident's diagnosis of ESBL. The surveyor reviewed the resident's Care Plan (CP) and there was no documentation on the CP that the resident had ESBL of the urine or that the resident was on TBP. On 10/20/23 09:59 AM, the surveyor interviewed the primary care Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA #1) who stated that she had been employed in the facility through the agency and had been working on and off in the facility for approximately a year. She stated that the resident required extensive assistance with care and that it dependeded on how his/her breathing was and if the resident was short of breath. The CNA stated that the resident's breathing affected how much activities of daily living he/she could perform. She stated that the resident had labile cognition (sometimes alert and sometimes not) and had good days and bad days related to his/her cognitive status. The CNA explained that the resident was currently being treated with antibiotics for a urinary tract infection (UTI). She stated that she was informed by the nursing staff that the resident had UTI, but not informed as to what the organism was. She continued to add that she usually wore gloves when she provided care, however no personal protective equipment (PPE) was required to care for Resident #6. She stated that the Infection Preventionist (IP) usually placed signage on the resident's door and isolation bins outside a resident's room with PPE such as gloves, masks, goggles, and gowns if a resident had a contagious infection. She stated that Resident #6 utilized the toilet in the morning to have a bowel movement and that family visited frequently. On 10/20/23 at 10:09 AM, the surveyor conducted an interview with the primary nurse for the A Unit. The nurse identified herself as a Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN #1) and stated that she had been employed in the facility since April of 2023. The LPN stated that Resident #6 required total care with aspects related to activities of daily living. She stated that Resident #6 was alert but had periods of visual hallucinations, yelling out and physical combativeness. She stated that during the day, Resident #6 had infrequent behaviors during the day and was not sure what behaviors she exhibited at night. The LPN stated that Resident #6 was being treated with antibiotics for ESBL of the urine. She continued to explain that a resident with the diagnoses of ESBL of the urine was usually on contact precautions and the staff would have to wear all PPE, but only a gown when in contact with the urine. She confirmed that Resident #6 was not on contact precautions and should have had caution signs posted on the door to indicate that visitors should see the nurse before entering the room. She stated that it would be important for all staff and visitors to know if PPE was required before entering the room. The surveyor reviewed Residents #6's Progress Notes (PN) and there was no documentation in the PN that the resident's Resposible Party (RP) was notified that the resident had a contagious urinary tract infection. On 10/20/23 at 10:24 AM, the surveyor interviewed the Licensed Practical Nurse Infection Preventionist (LPN/ IP) who stated that he had been employed in the position since June 2023. He explained that if a nurse discovered or suspected that a resident had an active infection (does not matter what kind) the nurse was to report it to the Unit Manager and the IP. He stated that after he was notified that the resident had an infection, he would investigate to see what organism was and then add it to the antibiotic stewardship log. He would then utilize a guideline to see if the antibiotic was appropriate to use and to assure that the antibiotic (ABT) was sensitive to the organism. The IP stated that he was not notified by the nurses that Resident # 6 was on [NAME] for UTI. He continued to explain that if he was made aware that the resident had ESBL of the urine he would have assured that the resident was put on contact isolation (staff should wear PPE such gown, mask, gloves, eye protection) for someone on contact precautions. He stated that there should be signs posted on the door that indicated that the staff and visitors should see the nurse before entering the resident's room. The IP stated that it would be important that visitors and staff knew that the resident had a contagious infection so that they could wear the appropriate PPE. The IP also stated that according to the documentation in the medical record, the family was not notified that the resident had ESBL of the urine. The IP confirmed that the resident should have been put on contact isolation immediately after the resident was diagnosed with ESBL of the urine and signs should have been posted on the resident's door that any visitors and staff needed to see the nurse before entering the resident's room. On 10/20/23 at 12:02 PM, the surveyor interviewed Resident #6's representative who stated that she visited frequently. The representative stated that she knew Resident #6 had a UTI infection in the past, however was not aware of the UTI infection that Resident #6 currently had. She stated that the facility usually made her aware of this and it surprised her when the nurse told her that Resident #6 was on antibiotics for a UTI yesterday,10/19/23, and not when he/she was first started on the antibiotic. She stated that she was not notified that the infection could be contagious, and that PPE was required for direct contact with the resident.
CONCERN (D)

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

Investigate Abuse (Tag F0610)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on observation, interview, record review, and review of pertinent facility documents, it was determined that the facility failed to thoroughly investigate an incident/accident for 1 of 5 residen...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, interview, record review, and review of pertinent facility documents, it was determined that the facility failed to thoroughly investigate an incident/accident for 1 of 5 residents (Resident #306) reviewed for accident/incidents. This deficient practice was evidenced by the following: According to the admission Record, Resident #306 was admitted with diagnoses that included, but were not limited to, hypertension (high blood pressure), weakness, other abnormalities of gait (walking) and mobility, cognitive communication deficit, and dementia. A review of the Care Plan, initiated 10/26/2022, included the resident was a high risk for fall hx [history] of actual falls. A review of the facility provided investigations showed incomplete investigations and missing witness statements for the following dates: -Unwitnessed fall 1/23/23 -Unwitnessed fall 3/12/23 -Unwitnessed fall 4/14/23 On 10/25/23 at 10:32 AM, the surveyor interviewed the Licensed Practical Nurse/Infection Preventionist (LPN/IP) who stated that they document all incidents on the 24-hour report. The LPN/IP stated that each time a resident fell, or a new incident occurred then there should be a new incident report. He further stated that the nurse on that shift should be completing the incident report. When asked what was included in the incident report, the LPN/IP stated that statements needed to be collected from anyone that saw the incident and then the report was given to the Director of Nursing (DON). He further stated that the incident report should be completed right away. The LPN/IP added that it would not be considered a completed investigation if they did not obtain statements. On 10/25/23 at 10:55 AM, the surveyor interviewed the Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA) who explained the process for an unwitnessed fall or if an incident occurred. The CNA stated she would stay with resident and call for the nurse, so the nurse could assess the resident to ensure the resident was okay. She stated that once the resident was assessed, then she had to write a report which included what she witnessed and observations and care of the resident prior to the fall. When asked who she gave the report to, she stated she gave it to the nurse and the nurse gave it to whoever is next. She further stated that the report should be done right away because of timing to ensure we did not forget as we have a lot to do. On 10/25/23 at 11:06 AM, the surveyor interviewed the Interim Director of Nursing (Interim DON) who stated that when an incident occurred, the staff completed an incident report and gathered statements. When asked who was responsible for completing and gathering the information, the Interim DON stated that the nurses were responsible for completing the incident report and the Unit Manager (UM) or the DON was responsible for ensuring that all the statements and assessments were completed. She then stated that once all that information was obtained, then the investigation was considered complete. The Interim DON stated the importance of completing the incident report accurately each time was to rule out injury after each incident. She further stated if the incident report did not have statements, then it was not considered a complete investigation. When asked if the unit had a UM when these incidents occurred, the Interim DON stated that there was a UM at the facility for six months, but their last day was when the survey team entered the facility. The Interim DON confirmed that there was a UM and a DON during those incidents and that the investigations should have been completed. On 10/26/23 at 11:41 AM, the surveyor interviewed the Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) who stated that an incident report was completed by the nurse. She further stated that the CNA, and anyone around that saw or heard anything had to write a statement. She indicated once the statements were completed then they were given to the UM or the DON. The LPN stated that it would not be considered a complete investigation if there were no statements because the protocol was to obtain statements from everyone for the incident report. A review of the in-service on Incident Reports dated 10/26/23, after surveyor inquiry, reflected Program summary: completing incident reports in Risk Management. Complete incident report in [electronic medical record]. Complete individual statements forms - individual or fall. Complete neuro [neurological] checks if s/p [status post] fall. A review of the facility's policy Accidents and Incidents - Investigation and Reporting, revised 04/20/23, included, 2. The following data, as applicable, shall be included on the Report of Incident/Accident form: e. the name(s) of witness and their accounts of the accident or incident. 4. The Nurse Supervisor/Charge Nurse and/or the department director or supervisor shall complete a Report of Incident/Accident form and submit the original to the DON within 24 hours of the incident or accident. 5. The DON shall ensure that the Administrator receives a copy of the Report of Incident/Accidents for each occurrence. NJAC-8.39-4.1(a)5
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

Deficiency F0658 (Tag F0658)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** 6.) On 10/19/23 at 11:12 AM, during the initial tour, the surveyor observed Resident #41 inside his/her room, seated on a wheelc...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** 6.) On 10/19/23 at 11:12 AM, during the initial tour, the surveyor observed Resident #41 inside his/her room, seated on a wheelchair. Resident #41 stated that the staff was great and had no concerns at that time. The surveyor observed that there was a urinary bag hanging on the right side of the wheelchair with a privacy cover. According to the admission Record, Resident #41 was admitted with diagnoses that included, but were not limited to, hypertension (high blood pressure), acute kidney failure, urinary tract infection, retention of urine, and infection and inflammatory reaction due to indwelling urethral catheter. A review of the admission Minimum Data Sheet (MDS), an assessment tool, dated 8/17/23, included the resident had a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of 15 out of 15, which indicated the resident's cognition was intact. Further review of the MDS, in Section H: Bladder and Bowel, included the resident had an indwelling catheter. A review of the Care Plan, initiated 8/9/23, included the resident had an indwelling catheter related to obstructive prostate hypertrophy BPH [Benign prostatic hyperplasia] (condition in men in which the prostate gland is enlarged). Further review included interventions to monitor and document intake and output as per facility policy. A review of the October 2023 Order Summary Report (OSR) revealed a physician's order (PO) to document output every shift for monitor urine output and another to document output every shift for monitoring, both ordered 09/16/23. A review of the Treatment Administration Record (TAR) revealed the following: For the month of August 2023, the nurses failed to document the urinary output for six (6) of 69 shifts. -08/10/23 day shift, 08/11/23 day shift, 08/12/23 evening shift, 08/18/23 day shift, 08/18/23 evening shift, and 08/24/23 day shift. For the month of September 2023, the nurses failed to document the urinary output for six (6) of 72 shifts. -09/08/23 night shift, 09/09/23 day shift, 09/24/23 day shift, 09/25/23 day shift, 09/27/23 day shift and 09/29/23 evening shift. For the month of October 2023, the nurses failed to document the urinary output for nine (9) of 72 shifts. -10/01/23 day shift, 10/05/23 evening shift, 10/07/23 day shift, 10/09/23 day shift, 10/10/23 day shift, 10/12/23 day shift, 10/15/23 day shift, 10/20/23 day shift, and 10/24/23 evening shift. On 10/25/23 at 10:30 AM, the surveyor interviewed the Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA) who stated that the CNAs were responsible for emptying the urinary bag at the end of their shift and then documented in the electronic medical record (EMR) under the CNA's tasks. She further stated that she also informed the nurse and that the nurses would also document the urine output amount in the EMR. The CNA stated that it was important to document the urine output because if it was too low or the color of the urine was not normal then she would inform the nurse right away of any issues. On 10/25/23 at 10:44 AM, the surveyor interviewed the Licensed Practical Nurse/Infection Preventionist (LPN/IP) who stated that the CNAs were responsible as well as the nurses to empty the urinary bag. He stated that the nurses document the urine amount in the EMR if there was a PO. He further stated that he was not sure if the CNAs were able to document the amount in the EMR, but he knew that it had the CNAs document if the resident was incontinent. The LPN/IP stated that the amount should be documented every shift and that it was important to document every shift because it showed that the resident had adequate intake and output, in addition to if they needed to notify the physician of any changes. On 10/25/23 at 10:58 AM, the surveyor interviewed CNA who stated that she did not have any residents that had a catheter but was trained on what to do. She stated that she would inform the nurse the urine amount to be document in the EMR but that she would also document the output in the EMR. The CNA stated the importance of documenting the urine output was to ensure the resident's output was good. On 10/25/23 at 11:20 AM, the surveyor interviewed the Interim Director of Nursing (Interim DON) who stated that the nurses were responsible for documenting the urine output in the Medication Administration Record (MAR) or TAR. She stated the importance of documenting the urine output was to monitor the resident to ensure the urine was draining properly, there were no obstructions, and that there were no other concerns. On 10/25/23 at 01:16 PM, the Interim DON confirmed that there were no additional documentations for the missing urine output on the TAR for Resident #41. On 10/26/23 at 11:40 AM, the surveyor interviewed the LPN who stated that the nurses were responsible to document the urine output in the EMR. She explained the nurses documented in the progress note and in the TAR, if there was an order. The LPN stated it was important to document the urine output because if the intake was more than the output, there could be an issue as well as the catheter could be out of place. A review of the Education/Inservice Training Record provided after surveyor inquiry, reflected the program summary documenting orders in the MAR/TAR should be done each shift. Do not leave orders blank. example urine output, I's and O's [intake and output]. A review of the facility's Urinary Catheter Care policy revised 12/2018, included, Input/Output 2. Maintain an accurate record of the resident's daily output, per facility policy and procedure. A review of the facility's Measuring and Recording Output policy revised 12/2023, included, The purpose of this procedure is to accurately determine the amount of urine that a resident excreted in a 24-hour period. Steps in Procedure 8. Record the amount noted on the output side of the intake and output records. Record in mLs [milliliters]. Documentation- the following information should be recorded on the bedside intake and output record and/or in the resident's medical record: 1. The date and time the resident's urine output was measured and recorded. 3. The amount (in mLs) of output. 6. The signature and title of the person recording the data. A review of the facility policy, Physician/Practitioner Orders, revised 12/2022, revealed, Policy Statement: The attending physician shall provide orders for the care and treatment of assigned residents. Policy Interpretation and Implementation: 1. Consulting physician/practitioner orders are those orders provided to the facility by a physician/practitioner other that the resident's attending physician .who is acting on behalf of the attending physician. A consulting physician/practitioner may include, but is not limited to, a resident's: e. Nurse Practitioner .3. For consulting physician/practitioner orders received via telephone, the nurse will: a. Document the order on the physician order form, notating the time, date, name and title of the person providing the order, and the signature and title of the person receiving the order. b. Call the attending physician to verify the order. c. Document the verification of the order by entering the time, date, name and title of the physician/practitioner verifying the order, and the signature and title of the person receiving the verification order. d. Follow facility procedures for verbal or telephone orders including: noting the order . A review of the facility's Documentation and Medication/Treatment Administration policy revised 12/2022, included 1. A nurse shall document all medications and treatments administered to each resident on the resident's medication administration record (MAR) and treatment administration record (TAR). NJAC 8:39-11.2(a), 27.1(a) 4.) On 10/20/23 at 10:28 AM, the surveyor observed Resident #12 alert, dressed, and seated in a wheelchair in his/her room. A review of the admission Record for Resident #12 revealed the resident was admitted to the facility with diagnoses which included but were not limited to: unspecified dementia, basal cell carcinoma (cancer) of skin, type 2 diabetes, and essential hypertension (high blood pressure). A review of Resident #12's Annual Minimum Data Set (MDS), an assessment tool utilized to facilitate care, dated 08/08/23, revealed that the resident's brief interview of mental status (BIMS) score was 05, which indicated the resident was severely cognitively impaired. A review of the resident's MDS documentation revealed he/she was a discharged return anticipated on 10/24/23. A review of Resident #12's MD/NP (Medical Doctor/Nurse Practitioner) progress note, dated 10/24/23 and timed at 16:58 (04:58 PM), revealed, PLAN, Discussed with daughter nursing administrator, We will send to ER for evaluation . A review of Resident #12's nursing progress note, dated 10/24/23 and timed at 16:59 (04:59 PM), revealed, that per (physician name), ordered to send resident out to hospital via 911 for evaluation to r/o (rule out) UTI (urinary tract infection) . A review of the Order Summary Report (OSR) did not include documentation of a Physician Order (PO) to transfer Resident #12 to the hospital on [DATE]. 5.) On 10/20/23 at 12:31 PM, the surveyor observed Resident #22 seated in the dining area eating lunch. A review of the admission Record for Resident #22 revealed the resident was admitted to the facility with diagnoses which included but were not limited to: pneumonia, unspecified dementia, bacteremia (presence of bacteria in the bloodstream), and atrial fibrillation (an irregular, rapid heart rate that causes poor blood flow). A review of Resident #22's Quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS), an assessment tool utilized to facilitate care, dated 9/26/23, revealed that the resident's brief interview of mental status (BIMs) score was 01, which indicated the resident was severely cognitively impaired. A review of the resident's MDS documentation revealed he/she was a discharged return anticipated on 07/10/23, 07/27/23, 08/11/23, and 10/02/23. A review of Resident #22's nursing progress note, dated 07/10/23 and timed at 05:23 (05:23 AM), revealed that at 0500 (05:00 AM) the resident was found on the floor .EMT was called to send the resident to the ER (emergency room) and that the physician was called, awaiting call back. A review of Resident #22's MD/NP (Medical Doctor/Nurse Practitioner) progress note, dated 07/10/23 and timed at 18:44 (06:44 PM) revealed, Notified pt (patient) had a fall 0500 this am. Sent to ER. A review of the Order Summary Report (OSR) did not include documentation of a Physician Order (PO) to transfer Resident #22 to the hospital on [DATE]. A review of Resident #22's nursing progress note, dated 07/27/23 and timed at 22:41 (10:41 PM), revealed that the resident was found with his/her PICC line (a long thin tube inserted into a vein in the arm for administering medication) on the floor .the physician was notified and gave an order to call 911. Emergency medical services were called, and the resident was transported to the hospital. A review of Resident #22's MD/NP progress note, dated 07/28/23 and timed at 16:32 (04:32 PM) revealed, Patient returned form [sic] (hospital name)-s/p (status post) picc line reinsertion. A review of the OSR did not include documentation of a PO to call 911 for Resident #22. A review of Resident #22's nursing progress note, dated 08/11/23 and timed at 20:43 (09:43 PM), revealed that the resident complained of chest pains and asked to go to the ER. 911 was called and EMT transported the resident to (hospital name). MD was notified. A review of Resident #22's MD/NP progress note, dated 08/15/23 and timed at 17:52 (05:52 PM), revealed, Notified this afternoon, resident returned from (hospital name). Admitting dx: (diagnosis) chest pain. No records in pcc (electronic medical record system). A review of the OSR did not include documentation of a PO to call 911 for Resident #22 on 08/11/23. A review of Resident #22's nursing progress note, dated 10/01/23 and timed at 07:20 (07:20 AM), revealed that the resident was found on the floor and 911 was called and the resident was transferred to (hospital name). MD made aware. A review of Resident #22's nursing progress note, dated 10/01/23 and timed at 16:58 (04:58 PM), revealed that the resident returned to the facility from the hospital. A review of Resident #22's nursing progress note, dated 10/02/23 and timed at 15:22 (03:22 PM), revealed that the resident was being sent to (hospital name) per his/her MD request to start an IV line to hydrate him/her. A review of Resident #22's MD/NP progress note, dated 10/02/23 and timed at 18:29 (06:29 PM), revealed, Notified resident was lethargic not responding, not eating or drinking. Resident was sent to ER yesterday for fall and was sent back to RV. A review of the OSR did not include documentation of a PO to call 911 and transfer Resident #22 to the hospital on [DATE]. A review of the OSR did not include documentation of a PO to transfer Resident #22 to the hospital on [DATE]. On 10/26/23 at 11:54 AM, the surveyor interviewed the Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) who stated that if a resident requested to go to the hospital that they would not need permission but that if the resident was unstable that the physician would have been notified and an order would have been obtained to send the resident to the hospital. The LPN stated that the order would have been documented in the progress notes. On 10/27/23 at 09:47 AM, the surveyor interviewed the Interim Director of Nursing ([NAME]) who stated that if a resident went to the hospital that the physician would have been notified to obtain an order to transfer the resident. Together, the surveyor and [NAME] reviewed Resident #12's and Resident #22's electronic medical record (EMR). The [NAME] acknowledged that she did not observe an order from the physician for Resident #12 to be discharged to the hospital on [DATE]. The [NAME] also acknowledged that she did not observe an order from the physician for Resident #22 to be discharged to the hospital on [DATE], 07/27/23, 08/11/23, 10/01/23, nor 10/02/23. The [NAME] stated it was important to make sure a physician order was documented for the best practice standard of care. On 10/27/23 at 10:01 AM, the surveyor interviewed the Regional Director of Nursing (RDON) who stated that if a resident went to the hospital that the physician would have been notified and an order would have been obtained to transfer the resident to the hospital. The RDON stated that the physician order was needed to send a resident to the hospital. On 10/27/23 at 12:05 PM, the surveyors met with the administration who were made aware that there were no physician orders for Residents #12 and #22 to be transferred to the hospital. On 10/27/23 at 12:30 PM, the surveyor interviewed the Licensed Nursing Home Administrator (LNHA) and the Regional LNHA, in the presence of the surveyor team, who both stated that they would have expected to have seen a physician order for a resident that was sent out to the hospital. At that time, the IDON stated, We are starting education on that today. Complaint NJ #: 162553 Based on observation, interview, record review, and review of pertinent facility documents, it was determined that the facility failed to: a.) consistenly document the completion of a wound treatment in accordance with a physician's order for 1 of 1 resident, (Resident #13) reviewed for pressure ulcer, b.) consistently document the positioning of a resident during and after tube feedings in accordance with a physician's order for 1 of 1 resident, (Resident #13) reviewed for tube feeding, c.) consistently document the application of heel booties in accordance with a physician's order for 1 of 1 resident, (Resident #13) reviewed for pressure ulcer, d.) obtain a physician's order to discharge the resident from the facility in accordance with professional standards of nursing practice for 2 of 2 residents reviewed for discharge, (Residents #12 and #22) and, e.) consistently document the urinary output in accordance with a physician's order for a 1 of 1 resident (Resident #41) with an indwelling urinary catheter. 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 or 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 regimes 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.) According to the admission Record, Resident #13 had diagnoses which included, but were not limited to, osteomyelitis (bone infection) of the left ankle and foot. Review of the quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS), an assessment tool used to facilitate the management of care, dated 04/15/23, included the resident was severely cognitively impaired. Further review of the MDS included the resident had an unstageable pressure ulcer that was not present on admission. Review of the Care Plan included a focus of [Resident #13] has impaired skin integrity - L [left] heel pressure, with an intervention to Administer treatment per wound care recommendations, initiated 01/14/23. Review of the April 2023 Treatment Administration Record (TAR) included a physician's order for, Left heel cleanse with 0.25 acetic acid solution. Apply medihoney gel to the wound. Apply calcium alginate cut to size to the wound base. Cover with an ABD pad [type of dry dressing]. Wrap with kling and secure with tape. Change dressing daily and wen soiled, with a start date of 03/22/23. Further review of the TAR revealed the left heel treatment order was not signed out as completed and was left blank on 04/08/23 and 04/09/23. 2.) According to the admission Record, Resident #13 also had a diagnosis of gastrostomy status (procedure to insert a feeding tube through the abdomen into the stomach). Further review of the quarterly MDS included the resident had a feeding tube and received 51% or more of his/her total calories through the feeding tube. Further review of the Care Plan included a focus of, I am on a Tube Feeding to help meet my nutritional needs, initiated 01/06/23, with an intervention to, Keep my HOB [head of bed] elevated at least 30 to 45 degrees while feeding is in progress for at least 30 to 40 minutes after feeding is done. Further review of the April 2023 TAR included a physician's order for, Elevate HOB 30 to 45 degrees at all times during feeding and for at least 30 to 40 minutes after the feeding is stopped six times a day, with a start date of 03/18/23. Further review of the TAR revealed the treatment order was not signed out as completed and was left blank on the following dates and times: 04/08/23 at 8:00 AM 04/08/23 at 11:00 AM 04/08/23 at 2:00 PM 04/09/23 at 8:00 AM 04/09/23 at 11:00 AM 04/09/23 at 2:00 PM 04/25/23 at 5:00 PM 04/25/23 at 9:00 PM 04/30/23 at 5:00 AM 3.) Review of a Wound Care Consultant report, dated 06/13/23, included Resident #13 was seen for a follow-up evaluation of the left heel unstageable pressure ulcer. Review of the June 2023 TAR included a physician's order for heel booties in place at all times every shift for wound prevention, with a start date of 06/19/23. Further review of the TAR revealed the treatment order was not signed out as completed and was left blank on 06/23/23 evening shift and 06/28/23 evening shift. During an interview with the surveyor on 10/26/23 at 11:11 AM, the Regional Director of Nursing (Regional DON) stated that nurses should sign off on the TAR when the treatment was completed. She further stated that if there is a blank on the TAR, there could be a reason, but if it wasn't signed for then it wasn't completed. During an interview with the surveyor on 10/26/23 at 11:34 AM, the Interim Director of Nursing (Interim DON) stated that when the nurses sign off on the TAR, it means the treatment was completed. When asked how someone reviewing the medical record would know whether a treatment was completed if there was a blank, the Interim DON stated, you would have to interview the nurse about the missing documentation. Review of the Documentation of Medication/Treatment Administration policy, revised 12/2022, included, A nurse shall document all medications and treatments administered to each resident on the resident's medication administration record (MAR) or treatment administration record (TAR), and, Administration of medication and treatment must be documented immediately after (never before) it is given. Further review of the policy included, Documentation must include, as a minimum: . Date and time of administration; Reason(s) why a medication or treatment was withheld, not administered, or refused (if applicable); Signature and title of the person administering the medication or treatment.
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

2.) On 10/24/23 at 10:01 AM, the surveyor observed Resident #5 lying in bed. Resident #5 stated that he/she was feeling good and that he/she had just finished eating. When asked if the resident had a ...

Read full inspector narrative →
2.) On 10/24/23 at 10:01 AM, the surveyor observed Resident #5 lying in bed. Resident #5 stated that he/she was feeling good and that he/she had just finished eating. When asked if the resident had a fall recently, Resident #5 stated no. According to the admission Record, Resident #5 was admitted with diagnoses that included, but were not limited to, Hemiplegia (paralysis of one side of the body) and Hemiparesis (weakness or the inability to move on one side of the body) affecting right dominant side, weakness, other reduced mobility, chronic gout (a type of inflammatory arthritis that causes pain and swelling in your joints), diffuse traumatic brain injury, and glaucoma (a group of eye diseases that can cause vision loss and blindness by damaging a nerve in the back of your eye called the optic nerve). Review of the quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS), an assessment tool used to facilitate the management of care, dated 09/29/23, included the resident had a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of 0 out of 15, which indicated the resident's cognition was severely impaired. Further review of the MDS revealed the resident had one fall since the prior assessment. Review of the Care Plan, dated 10/26/22, included the resident is at moderate risk for falls related to deconditioning, gait/balance problems. Review of the Incident Report, dated 09/29/23, revealed that the resident had an unwitnessed fall. Resident #5 was found by the wheelchair on his/her bottom. Although the report noted that neuro checks were initiated, none were attached to the report. Review of the Progress Notes (PN), dated 09/29/23, revealed that the resident slid off the wheelchair to the floor of the dining room, during lunch, and was found seated on their bottom. VS were stable, and the resident denied pain or discomfort. No apparent injuries were noted. A further review of the PN revealed there were no neuro checks documented. Review of the PN, dated 09/30/23, noted that neuro checks were in progress. There were no physical or electronic documentation of the neuro-checks related to this incident in the resident's medical record. Review of the Assessments section in the EMR did not contain neuro-checks regarding the aforementioned incident. On 10/24/23 at 01:10 PM, the surveyor interviewed the LPN who stated that when a resident falls, neuro checks were initiated immediately. The LPN further stated that neuro checks were initially completed at 15 minutes, 30 minutes, and then hourly. On 10/30/23 at 11:12 AM, the surveyor interviewed the Interim DON who stated the neurological checks could not be found and acknowledged that they should have been documented. A review of the in-service on Incident Reports dated 10/26/23, after surveyor inquiry, reflected Program summary: completing incident reports in Risk Management. Complete incident report in [electronic medical record]. Complete individual statements forms - individual or fall. Complete neuro checks if s/p [status post] fall. A review of the facility's Falls Clinical Protocol: Assessment and Recognition, revised 12/2022, included, 2. In addition, the nurse shall assess and document/report the following: a. vital signs; e. neurological status. A review of the facility's Neurological Testing Policy, revised 01/2023, included, if a resident is suspected of having a head injury, has an unwitnessed fall and it is unclear if they hit their head or a resident has a change in mental status, a full neurological exam will be performed. NJAC 8:39-27.1(a) Based on observation, interview, record review, and review of pertinent facility documents, it was determined that the facility failed to consistently conduct neurological evaluations (neuro checks) after an unwitnessed resident fall for two (2) of 2 residents, (Resident #5 and #306) reviewed for falls. This deficient practice was evidenced by the following: 1.) According to the admission Record, Resident #306 was admitted with diagnoses that included, but were not limited to, hypertension (high blood pressure), weakness, other abnormalities of gait (walking) and mobility, cognitive communication deficit and dementia. A review of the Care Plan, initiated 10/26/2022, included the resident was a high risk for fall hx [history] of actual falls. Review of the Incident Reports indicated the following: -An unwitnessed fall on 01/12/23: the resident was noted face first on the floor with an abrasion and bruising to the left forehead. The Neurological Checklist (NCL) was initiated prior to the resident being sent to the emergency room (ER). The report did not include additional neuro checks upon returning to the facility within the 24 hours. -An unwitnessed fall on 01/14/23: the resident was noted laying on the floor bleeding from the right side of forehead. The NCL was initiated but reflected vital signs (VS) from the 01/12/23 NCL. The report did not include accurate and completed neuro checks. -An unwitnessed fall on 01/23/23: the resident was found on the floor complaining of right knee pain. The report did not include an initiation of the NCL until 24 hours later on 01/24/23. A further review did not reflect additional neuro checks. -An unwitnessed fall on 04/14/23: the resident was found sitting on the floor complaining of left hip pain. A review of the NCL reflected VS dated 4/13/23. There were no additional neuro checks documented. On 10/25/23 at 10:27 AM, the surveyor interviewed Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA #1) who stated the process for an incident such as a fall, included that she assured the resident was okay and then got a nurse to assess the resident. She stated that once the resident was assessed and if the resident was not sent to the hospital then they would check on that resident every one to two hours for 24 hours. CNA #1 stated that the nurse completed neuro checks every one to two hours. On 10/25/23 at 10:32 AM, the surveyor interviewed the Licensed Practical Nurse/Infection Preventionist (LPN/IP) who stated that the process for an unwitnessed fall would be for the nurse to assess the resident by checking the VS, initiate neuro checks, assess the resident for pain and for any injuries. The LPN/IP stated that he would then document his assessment in a progress note, reach out to the physician and inform the family. He further stated that he would then continue to assess the resident throughout the shift for any changes. When asked what was the facility's policy on neuro checks, the LPN/IP stated he believed it was every 15 minutes for one hour, then 30 minutes for one hour, and then every four hours for 24 hours. He explained that the neuro checks were documented on the NFS (24-hour neuro checks) that could be passed along to the next shift. The LPN/IP stated that they documented the incident on the 24-hour report as well as completed the NCL. When asked for clarification of the difference between the NFS and the NCL, he stated the NFS was the 24-hour neuro checks and the NCL was completed with the incident report. The surveyor continued to interview the LPN/IP who stated that each time a resident fell, or a new incident occurred then there should be a new incident report. He further stated that new vital signs should also be completed. He emphasized that everything should be new when that incident occurred. The LPN/IP concluded that neuro checks were important because the resident could display an altered mental status and a change in their vital signs could be a sign and symptom that something else was occurring. On 10/25/23 at 10:55 AM, the surveyor interviewed CNA #2 who stated the process for an unwitnessed fall or if an incident occurred, she would stay with resident and call for the nurse, so the nurse could assess the resident to ensure the resident was okay. On 10/25/23 at 11:06 AM, the surveyor interviewed the Interim Director of Nursing (Interim DON) who stated that the process for an unwitnessed fall or for a resident that hit their head included, neuro checked to be initiated, complete a physical assessment, notify the physician and the responsible party. The Interim DON stated that the assessment and the neuro checks should be initiated immediately. She stated the importance of neuro checks was to rule out any neurological trauma. She further stated that for every incident there should be a new incident report as well as obtaining new vital signs and initiating neuro checks. She stated that the neuro checks should be every (q) 15 minutes for the first hour, then q 30 minutes for the next hour, then hourly for the next 4 hours, then every 4 hours until you get to the 24-hour mark. When asked what was the difference between the NFS and the NCL, the Interim DON stated the nurse were using the NFS and every so often then the nurse would use the NCL. She explained the nurses could complete the NFS or the NCL but the downside to the NCL was that it only had space for one set of VS compared to the NFS which reflected every 15 minutes, then 30 minutes, and so on. The Interim DON and the surveyor review together the 01/12/23 and 01/14/23 incident report. At that time, the Interim DON acknowledged that the vital signs were not completed accurately and that the 01/14/23 vital signs were duplicated from 01/12/23. When asked what was the expectation of completing the neurological checks,The Interim DON stated that the staff were expected to do a new assessment each time the incident occurred and not use the same vital signs. She stated the importance of completing the incident report accurately each time was to rule out injury after each incident. The Interim DON also states if the resident was sent out to the ER and did not return within the 24 hours timeframe, then the checklist would be sufficient. The Interim DON did not speak to if the neuro checks should be completed upon return to the facility within the 24-hours. On 10/25/23 at 01:14 PM, the Interim DON provided additional statements that she found. At that time, the surveyor and the Interim DON reviewed the 04/05/23 and 04/14/23 incident reports. The Interim DON acknowledged that the vital signs dated for 04/05/23 were inaccurate as they were dated 03/31/23. She also acknowledged that the respirations dated on 04/14/23 incident report were inaccurate since they were also dated 03/31/23. On 10/26/23 at 11:41 AM, the surveyor interviewed Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) who stated that the process for an unwitnessed fall was to assess the resident by checking the VS and initiating neuro checks. The LPN stated that the neuro checks were completed on the NFS, and they assessed the resident every 15 minutes for one hour, then every 30 minutes for one hour, then every one hour, and then every four hours after that for 24 hours. The LPN stated that if the resident was sent out to the ER and they returned within 24 hours, the neuro checks should still be completed. The LPN explained that the NFS was a hard copy sheet that the nurses used throughout their shift and the NCL was documented in the electronic medical record (EMR). She stated that neuro checks should be initiated at the time of the incident and for each incident.
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0711 (Tag F0711)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review and interview it was determined that the facility failed to ensure that the physician responsible for sup...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review and interview it was determined that the facility failed to ensure that the physician responsible for supervising the care of residents reviewed a resident's urinanalysis and culture and sensitivity (UA and C&S) and prescribed the correct medication to treat an infection for 1 of 13 residents reviewed (Resident #6) and was evidenced by the following: According to the admission Record, Resident #6 was admitted to the facility with the diagnoses which included, but were not limited to, unspecified dementia and chronic kidney disease. The annual Minimum Data Set (MDS), an assessment tool that facilitates a resident's care, dated 08/29/23, indicated that Resident #6 was cognitively intact and required limited to extensive assistance with activities of daily living. The MDS also indicated that Resident #6 had a history of multidrug-resistant organisms (MDROs), required assistance with toileting and was occasionally incontinent of urine and continent of bowel. On 10/19/23 at 10:10 AM during tour, the resident was observed sitting in the chair in her room getting equipment out of a bag to brush his/her hair. The resident was interviewed at that time and did not have any complaints. According to the laboratory results for a urinalysis and culture and sensitivity (UA and C&S), dated 10/12/23, Resident #6 had a colony count 100,000 plus of ESBL (an enzyme that causes an organism to become resistant to extended-spectrum cephalosporins, monobactams and extended-spectrum penicillin). The laboratory report also indicated that the resident was to be on contact isolation. According to the sensitivities reported on the laboratory results, the organism ESBL was resistant to the antibiotic Sulfamethoxazole-Trimethoprim (Bactrim DS). The Order Summary Sheet ([NAME]) reflected a physician's order (PO) dated 10/15/23 for Sulfamethoxazole-Trimethoprim (Bactrim DS) 800-160mg tablet by mouth one time a day for ESBL of the urine. The surveyor reviewed Resident #6's medical records and the Medication Administration Record (MAR) indicated that Resident #6 was started on the antibiotic medication Bactrim DS (double strength) 10/16/23, for the contagious infection called extended spectrum beta-lactamase (ESBL) of the urine even though the organism was resistant to the medication. On 10/20/23 at 10:09 AM, the surveyor conducted an interview with the primary nurse for the A Unit. The nurse identified herself as a Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) and stated that if the facility received a critical lab result such as ESBL of the urine, the nurse would be responsible to notify the physician. She stated that the physicians have remote access to the electronic medical record (EMR) so they are able to review the urine culture and sensitivities. She stated that if the physician's ordered a medication that the organism was resistant to, then the nurse should question the physician to find what his/her rationale was for choosing that medication. The LPN reviewed Resident #6's urine culture and sensitivities with the surveyor and confirmed that the organism ESBL was resistant to the antibiotic that the physician ordered on 10/15/23 for Sulfamethoxazole-Trimethoprim (Bactrim DS). On 10/20/23 at 10:24 AM, the surveyor interviewed the Licensed Practical Nurse Infection Preventionist (LPN/IP) who stated that he had been employed in the position since June 2023. He explained that if a nurse discovered or suspected that a resident had an active infection (does not matter what kind) the nurse was to report it to the Unit Manager and the IP. He stated that after he was notified that the resident had an infection, he would investigate to see what organism it was and then add it to the antibiotic stewardship log. He would then utilize a guideline to see if the antibiotic was appropriate to use and to assure that the antibiotic was sensitive to the organism. The LPN/IP stated that he was not notified by the nurses that Resident # 6 was on antibiotics for UTI. The LPN/IP confirmed that Resident #6 should have been put on the correct antibiotics that the organism was sensitive to. On 10/20/23 at 11:00 AM, the surveyor interviewed the acting Director of Nursing (DON). The DON stated that there was no Unit Manager for the A Unit at this time. She stated that during the interim period other DONs from other facilities were covering the unit. She stated that if the nurse received a positive UA and C&S that indicated that the resident had a UTI the nurse would call the physician to find out what he would recommend for treatment. If there were sensitivities, the nurse would relay that to the physician. If the physician ordered an antibiotic that the organism was resistant too, the nurse should then question the physician to see if he could order a medication that the organism was sensitive to. The DON stated that if the resident had ESBL of the urine, the information should be shared with the physician so that he could make the appropriate treatment decisions. The DON confirmed that Resident #6 should have been put on the appropriate antibiotic when they discovered that the resident had ESBL of the urine. The surveyor reviewed the Physician's Progress Note dated 10/17/2023 at 19:42 (07:42 PM) for a follow up on laboratory result which indicated the following documentation: Pt was seen in wheelchair today for follow-up lab results. Lab results 10/12 UA was + [positive] Esbl in urine and was started on Bactrim for 5 days. Patient doing well with abx [antibiotic] therapy. Nursing reports good urine output, urine still amber in color. Patient denies any dysuria. On 10/20/23 at 01:44 PM, the surveyor telephone interviewed the Medical Director (MD) who stated that approximately 10/10/23, the physician assistant (PA) ordered the UA and CS for Resident #6. He explained that the Nurse Practitioner (NP) ordered the Bactrim DS and that it was not communicated to the NP what the urine sensitivities were. The MD stated that the new NP came to the facility and saw Resident #6 on 10/17/23 and documented that the resident was tolerating the antibiotic well. He confirmed that the NP should have reviewed urine sensitivities and ordered the appropriate antibiotic for the resident. On 10/26/23 11:08 AM, the surveyor interviewed the Medical Director who stated that when a laboratory result comes from the lab, there was a section on the EMAR that it can be documented when a lab is reviewed. However, there were clitches in the EMR and if you hit the wrong button it would not document that the lab result was reviewed even though it was. On 10/26/23 at 11:21 AM, the surveyor interviewed the LPN/IP who stated that if the resident had a positive UA and C&S, the nurse should immediately call the physician to determine what type of antibiotic treatment was to be initiated. He further stated that antibiotic treatment was based off a culture and sensitivity which identified the type of antibiotic treatment appropriate to treat the specific microorganism. He stated that the lab results would have to be reviewed with the Nurse Practitioner or MD to prescribe the appropriate treatment. The surveyor asked the LPN/IP, What if the doctor gave a PO for an antibiotic that was resistant to the infectious organism? and the IP stated that nurse should appropriately communicate what antibiotic treatment that was susceptible to fight the infectious organism based of the laboratory results. He added that if the physician gave an order for an inappropriate antibiotic treatment, the nurse who was reviewing the orders with the physician should intervene and educate the physician. The surveyor asked the LPN/IP, How long after the resident is placed on an antibiotic, should the physician follow up with the care of the resident? and the LPN/IP stated that within 48 hours, it would be appropriate for the physician to check on the resident and their course of antibiotic treatment. When asked if the physician reviewed labs, the LPN/IP stated that the NP comes into the facility a couple times a week to review labs. The LPN/IP stated that the physician that reviewed the lab for the resident should have adequately reviewed the lab while at the facility and prescribed the appropriate antibiotic treatment for the resident. The LPN/IP further stated that it would be important for the resident to be treated with the correct medication, so they would not become further ill. The surveyor reviewed the Duties of the Medical Director with a revised date of 06/2012 which indicated that the MD was to collaborate with the facilities leadership, staff and other practitioners and consultants to help develop, implement, and evaluate resident care policies and procedures that reflect current standards of practice and are consistent with state and federal law and regulation and assist in the implementation and monitoring of such policies. It also indicated that the MD was to interact with the physician's attending residents to review standard of care provided and intervene as necessary when problems with fare or standards of care are identified. A review of the facility's Antibiotic Stewardship Policy and Procedure revised 12/2022 indicated, When a culture and sensitivity (C&S) is ordered lab results and the current clinical situation will be communicated to the prescriber as soon as available to determine if antibiotics therapy should be started, continued, modified, or discontinued. The facility policy titled, Surveillance for Infections with a revised date of 01/2023 indicated that if there is a suspected infection the attending physician will determine if laboratory test are indicated and the treatment plan for the resident. NJAC 8:39-27.1
CONCERN (E) 📢 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

Comprehensive Care Plan (Tag F0656)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

Complaint NJ #: 162553; 164144 Based on interview, record review, and review of facility documents, it was determined that the facility failed to develop a person-centered comprehensive care plan to i...

Read full inspector narrative →
Complaint NJ #: 162553; 164144 Based on interview, record review, and review of facility documents, it was determined that the facility failed to develop a person-centered comprehensive care plan to include the resident's: a.) fall risk, b.) bowel and bladder incontinence, c.) positioning during tube feedings, d.) dysphagia (difficulty swallowing), e.) potential for skin impairment, f.) actual skin impairment, and g.) change in condition in a timely manner for 1 of 17 resident (Resident #13) care plans reviewed. This deficient practice was evidenced by the following: 1. According to the admission Record, Resident #13 had diagnoses which included, but were not limited to, osteomyelitis (bone infection) of the left ankle and foot, hemiplegia and hemiparesis (weakness) following cerebral infarction (stroke) affecting left non-dominant side, dementia, dysphagia, lack of coordination, altered mental status, weakness, post traumatic seizures, and gastrostomy status (procedure to insert a feeding tube through the abdomen into the stomach). Review of the admission Minimum Data Set (MDS), an assessment tool used to facilitate the management of care, dated 01/13/23, included the resident was severely cognitively impaired. Further review of the MDS included the resident had functional limitations on one side of the resident's upper body and lower body, which placed the resident at risk for injury. Review of the admission Assessment, dated 01/06/23, included the resident's fall risk assessment score was 15 and that a score greater than 10 indicated a high risk for falls. Review of the readmission Assessment, dated 03/18/23, included the resident's fall risk assessment score was 19 and that a score greater than 10 indicated a high risk for falls. Review of the Morse Fall Scale assessment, dated 03/18/23, included the resident's risk assessment score was 50, and that a score of 45 or higher indicated a high risk for falls. Review of the Care Plan included a focus of, I am at a high risk for falls r/t [related to] my cognitive deficit, post traumatic seizures, and altered mental status, with corresponding interventions, which was not created until 04/20/23. 2. Further review of the admission MDS included the resident was always incontinent of bowel and bladder. Further review of the admission Assessment included the resident was always incontinent of bowel and bladder. Review of the Bowel and Bladder Assessment, dated 01/08/23, included the resident never voids appropriately without incontinence, and is incontinent of stool, daily. Further review of the readmission Assessment included the resident was always incontinent of bowel and bladder. Further review of the Care Plan included a focus of, [Resident #13] is incontinent of bowel and bladder r/t immobility, with corresponding interventions, which was not created until 06/19/23. 3. Further review of the admission MDS included the resident had a feeding tube and received 51% or more of his/her total calories through the feeding tube. Review of the January 2023 Medication Administration Record (MAR) included a physician's order of Elevate HOB [head of bed] 30 to 45 degrees at all times during feeding and for at least 30 to 40 minutes after the feeding is stopped every shift, with a start date of 01/06/23. Further review of the Care Plan included a focus, created 01/06/23, of, I am on a Tube Feeding to help meet my nutritional needs, with an intervention to, Keep my HOB elevated at least 30 to 45 degrees while feeding is in progress for at least 30 to 40 minutes after feeding is done, which was not created until 06/19/23. 4. Further review of the admission MDS included the resident had complaints of difficulty or pain with swallowing. Review of the Speech Therapy SLP (Speech Language Pathologist) Evaluation & Plan of Treatment, dated 01/09/23 -02/08/23 included a diagnosis of dysphagia and a plan for treatment of swallowing dysfunction and/or oral functioning for feeding. Further review of the Care Plan included a focus of, Swallow techniques/precautions, with corresponding interventions, which was not created until 04/18/23. 5. Further review of the admission MDS included the resident was at risk for developing pressure ulcers/injuries, but did not have any unhealed pressure ulcers/injuries. Further review of the admission Assessment included the resident's Braden Scale score (tool used to assess the risk for pressure ulcers) was 10-12, which indicated a high risk for pressure ulcers. Further review of the readmission Assessment included the resident's Braden Scale score was 9 or less, which indicated a very high risk for pressure ulcers. Further review of the Care Plan included a focus of, [Resident #13] has potential for alteration in skin integrity of pressure areas, with corresponding interventions, which was not created until 04/02/23. 6. Review of the Skin Observation Tool, dated 01/14/23, included the resident had a new skin impairment of Blister to left heel. Review of the Wound Care Consultant Report, dated 01/19/23, included evaluation of a pressure ulcer to the resident's left heel classified as a deep tissue injury (DTI). Further review of the Care Plan included a focus of, [Resident #13] has impaired skin integrity - L [left] heel pressure, with corresponding interventions, which was not created until 03/24/23. 7. Review of the Nurse's Note, dated 03/23/23, included the resident was receiving an antibiotic and had two episodes of loose bowel movements. The progress note further included the physician was notified and a new order for Imodium, an anti-diarrheal medication, was received. Review of a MD/NP (Medical Doctor/Nurse Practitioner) SAR (Subacute Rehab) Visit note, dated 03/24/23, included the resident was seen for acute diarrhea which was most likely caused by antibiotic treatment. The note further included that if the diarrhea persisted, the resident may need stool testing. Review of a MD/NP SAR Visit note, dated 03/29/23, included the resident was seen for acute diarrhea and stool testing was ordered. Review of a Nurse's Note, dated 03/30/23, included the resident continued antibiotic treatment and had three episodes of loose bowel movements. Review of a MD/NP SAR Visit note, dated 04/03/23, included the resident was seen for acute diarrhea and stool testing results were pending. Review of a MD/NP SAR Visit note, dated 04/11/23, included the resident was seen for acute diarrhea which was improving. Further review of the Care Plan included a focus of, [Resident #13] has diarrhea r/t use/side effects of medication of antibiotic therapy and tube feeding, which was not created until 05/02/23. During an interview with the surveyor on 10/24/23 at 11:21 AM, the Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) stated the Unit Manager (UM) was responsible for creating the resident care plans, however, there currently was no UM for the facility. During an interview with the surveyor on 10/26/23 at 11:11 AM, the Regional Director of Nursing (Regional DON), who was overseeing the nursing unit, stated that resident care plans consisted of a focus, which was the identified problem, goals that were specific to the focus, and interventions that were specific to the focus. She further stated that the purpose of a care plan was to identify resident problems and create a plan to address those issues. When asked about the time frames for care plans, the Regional DON stated that the comprehensive care plan should be created within two weeks after the resident was admitted , and if there is a change in condition, the comprehensive care plan should be revised as soon as possible. When asked about the aforementioned care plan issues, the Regional DON stated the following: a.) if a resident was identified as a high fall risk on admission, it should be reflected on the comprehensive care plan within two weeks of admission, b.) if a resident was identified as incontinent of bowel and bladder on admission, it should be reflected on the comprehensive care plan within two weeks of admission, c.) if a resident had a tube feeding on admission, the comprehensive care plan should include the resident's position during and after feeds on the comprehensive care plan within two weeks of admission, d.) if a resident had a diagnosis of dysphagia on admission, it should be reflected on the comprehensive care plan within two weeks of admission, e.) if the resident was identified as at risk for skin impairment on admission, it should be reflected in the comprehensive care plan within two weeks of admission, f.) if the resident obtained a new skin impairment, the comprehensive care plan should be revised as soon as possible to reflect the change in skin condition, and g.) if the resident had a change in condition, occurring multiple days, the comprehensive care plan should be revised as soon as possible to reflect the change in condition. During an interview with the surveyor on 10/26/23 at 11:34 AM, the Interim Director of Nursing (Interim DON), stated that resident care plans are created to guide the care of the resident during their stay at the facility. She further stated the time frames for creating the comprehensive care plan was within 21 days of the resident's admission and should be revised as soon as there is a change. When asked about the aforementioned care plan issues, the Interim DON stated the following: a.) if a resident was identified as a high fall risk on admission, it should be reflected on the comprehensive care plan within 21 days of admission, b.) if a resident was identified as incontinent of bowel and bladder on admission, it should be reflected on the comprehensive care plan within 21 days of admission, c.) if a resident had a tube feeding on admission, the comprehensive care plan should include the resident's position during and after feeds on the comprehensive care plan within 21 days of admission, d.) if a resident had a diagnosis of dysphagia on admission, it should be reflected on the comprehensive care plan within 21 days of admission, e.) if the resident was identified as at risk for skin impairment on admission, it should be reflected in the comprehensive care plan within 21 days of admission, f.) if the resident obtained a new skin impairment, the comprehensive care plan should be revised as soon as possible to reflect the change in skin condition, and g.) if the resident had a change in condition, the comprehensive care plan should be revised as soon as possible to reflect the change in condition. Review of the facility's Fall Risk Assessment policy, revised 01/2023, included, The nursing staff, in conjunction with the attending physician, consultant pharmacist, therapy staff, and others, will seek to identify and document risk factors for falls and establish a resident-centered falls prevention plan based on relevant assessment information. Review of the facility's Enteral Nutrition policy, revised 12/2022, included, Risk for aspiration will be assessed by the Nurse and Physician and addressed in the individual care plan. Risk of aspiration may be affected by: . Improper positioning of the resident during feeding. Review of the facility's Dysphagia - Clinical Protocol policy, revised 12/2022, included, The staff and physician will identify individuals with a history of swallowing difficulties or related diagnoses such as dysphagia, as well as individuals who currently have difficulty chewing or swallowing food, and, the staff and physician will first try to identify and implement simple interventions to manage the situation. Review of the facility's Pressure Ulcer/Injury Risk Assessment policy, revised 12/2022, included, Once the assessment is conducted and risk factors are identified and characterized, a resident-centered care plan can be created to address the modifiable risks for pressure ulcers/injuries. Review of the Pressure Ulcers/Skin Breakdown - Clinical Protocol policy, revised 12/2022, included, The physician will guide the care plan as appropriate, especially when wounds are not healing as anticipated or new wounds develop despite existing interventions. Review of the facility's Change in Condition or Status policy, revised 12/2022, included, The nurse will record in the resident's medical record information relative to changes in the resident's medical/mental condition or status. The policy did not include the resident's care plan. Review of the facility's Care Plans, Comprehensive, Person-Centered policy, revised 01/2023, included, The Interdisciplinary Team (IDT) . develops and implements a comprehensive, person-centered care plan for each resident, and, The comprehensive, person-centered care plan will: . Describe the services that are to be furnished to attain or maintain the resident's highest practicable physical, mental and psychosocial well-being. Further review of the policy included, Identifying problem areas and their causes, and developing interventions that are targeted and meaningful to the resident, are the endpoint of an interdisciplinary process, and, Assessments of residents are ongoing and care plans are revised as information about the residents and the residents' conditions change. NJAC8:39-11.2 (e)(f)
CONCERN (E) 📢 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

Pressure Ulcer Prevention (Tag F0686)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Complaint NJ #: 162553; 1164144 Based on interview, record review, and review of facility documents, it was determined that the ...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Complaint NJ #: 162553; 1164144 Based on interview, record review, and review of facility documents, it was determined that the facility failed to address recommendations from the wound care consultant in a timely manner for 1 of 1 resident (Resident #13) reviewed for pressure ulcers. This deficient practice was evidenced by the following: According to the admission Record, Resident #13 had diagnoses which included, but were not limited to, osteomyelitis (bone infection) of left ankle and foot, hemiplegia and hemiparesis (weakness) following cerebral infarction (stroke) affecting left non-dominant side, dementia, and altered mental status. Review of the quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS), an assessment tool used to facilitate the management of care, dated 04/15/23, included the resident's cognition was severely impaired. Further review of the MDS included the resident had an unstageable pressure ulcer that was not present on admission. Review of the Care Plan included a focus, revised 09/04/23, that, [Resident #13] has impaired skin integrity - L [left] heel pressure (resolved), R [right] heel, Sacral area (resolved), R buttock (resolved), with intervention to, Administer treatment per wound care recommendations, initiated on 01/14/23. Further review of the Care Plan included a focus, revised 07/25/23, that Resident #13 had increased nutritional needs d/t [due to] PU [pressure ulcer] wounds. 1. Review of an Incident Note, dated 01/14/23, included, Blister noted to resident left heel 5.5 cm [centimeter] x [by] 5.0 cm x 0 cm . MD [physician] made aware, new orders to apply skin prep, float heels while in bed, and consult wound doctor. Review of the Wound Care Consultant (WCC) report, dated 01/19/23, included, the resident was seen for an initial evaluation of a left heel pressure ulcer classified as a deep tissue injury. Further review of the WCC report included the recommendation to use heel-float boots to bilateral feet while in bed to offload the heels. Review of the January 2023 Treatment Administration Record (TAR) revealed the treatment, Heel booties at all times every shift for prevention, was not started until 01/23/23, four days after the WCC recommendation. 2. Review of the WCC report, dated 02/02/23, included the resident was seen for a follow-up evaluation of the left heel pressure ulcer which was reclassified as an unstageable pressure ulcer due to hard eschar (dry, dead tissue) covering 80% of the wound base. Further review of the WCC report included the recommendation to discontinue the previous treatment and change the wound treatment to improve healing to, paint the wound and immediate surrounding skin with betadine and allow to dry daily. Review of the February 2023 TAR revealed the treatment, Skin Prep . Apply to left heel topically every day shift for blister, was not discontinued until 02/07/23, and the treatment, Paint the wound and immediate surrounding skin with betadine and allow to dry. Leave open to air every day shift for wound care, was not started until 02/08/23, six days after the WCC recommendation. 3. Review of the WCC report, dated 02/16/23, included the resident was seen for a follow-up evaluation of the left heel unstageable pressure ulcer which was noted with eschar covering 100% of the wound base. Further review of the WCC report included the recommendation to increase dietary protein intake. Review of the WCC report, dated 02/23/23, included the resident was seen for a follow-up evaluation of the left heel unstageable pressure ulcer and included, again, the recommendation to increase dietary protein intake. Review of the Medical Nutrition Therapy Assessments in the evaluations tab of the resident's electronic medical record (EMR) revealed there was only one assessment completed upon the resident's admission on [DATE]. Review of the February 2023 progress notes in the resident's EMR did not include any Nutrition/Dietary Notes after 02/16/23 when the WCC first made the recommendation to increase dietary protein intake. There were no Nutrition/Dietary Notes in February 2023 that indicated the Registered Dietician (RD) addressed the resident's pressure ulcer or the amount of protein needed to promote wound healing. Review of a Nutrition/Dietary Note, dated 03/21/23, revealed the resident was seen by the RD due to the resident's hospital stay from 03/08/23 to 03/17/23 for pneumonia and left foot osteomyelitis. The note further indicated that the RD recommended a liquid protein supplement to assist with wound healing and that she would continue to monitor the resident's left heel for wound healing. This was the first Nutrition/Dietary Note that addressed the resident's left heel wound and the amount of protein needed to promote wound healing since the WCC recommendation over one month prior. Review of the March 2023 Medication Administration Record (MAR) included a physician's order for Proheal Critical Care [a liquid protein supplement] 30 ml [milliliters] PO [oral] two times a day for wound healing, with a start date of 03/21/23. 4. Review of the WCC report, dated 03/21/23, included the resident was seen for a follow-up evaluation of the left heel unstageable pressure ulcer which was deteriorating after the resident's hospital stay. Further review of the WCC report included the recommendation to offload the heels, and the use of, heel float boots to bilateral feet while in bed. Further review of the WCC reports, dated 03/30/23, 04/04/23, and 04/18/23, included the same recommendations made on the 03/21/23 WCC report to offload the heels. Review of the March 2023 MAR and TAR did not include any physician's orders to offload the resident's heels after the 03/21/23 WCC recommendation was made. Review of the April 2023 MAR and TAR revealed a physician's order for, wedge pillows to assist with offloading, reposition pt [patient] Q2HRS [every two hours] every shift for offloading, which was not started until 04/19/23, almost one month after the WCC first made the recommendation. Further review of the MAR and TAR did not include a physician's order for heel float boots. Review of the May 2023 MAR and TAR did not include a physician's order for heel float boots. Review of the June 2023 MAR and TAR revealed a physician's order for, heel booties in place at all times every shift for wound prevention, which was not started until 06/19/23, almost three months after the WCC first made the recommendation. 5. Review of the WCC report, dated 04/18/23, included the resident was seen for an initial wound encounter for the left buttock. Further review of the WCC report included the recommendation to, apply zinc oxide barrier to the wound and surrounding skin. Review of the April 2023 TAR revealed a physician's order for, Acetic acid .Apply to left buttock topically every day shift for wound care. Cleanse with 0.25% acetic acid solution. Apply zinc oxide barrier to the wound and surrounding skin daily and PRN [as needed], which was not started until 04/26/23, eight days after the WCC recommendation was made. During an interview with the surveyor on 10/24/23 at 11:21 AM, the Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) stated that when a resident has a wound, they are seen by the WCC weekly. The LPN further stated that when treatment recommendations are made, the treatments are initiated as soon as possible. During an interview with the surveyor on 10/26/23 at 11:11 AM, the Regional Director of Nursing (Regional DON) stated when a resident has a new wound, the resident is seen by the WCC weekly. She further stated that when the WCC makes a recommendation, the nurse notifies the physician and implements the intervention that same day. When asked about the RD, the Regional DON stated that the RD should be consulted when a resident has a new wound in order to evaluate whether the resident needs a liquid protein supplement. During an interview with the surveyor on 10/26/23 at 11:34 AM, the Interim Director of Nursing (Interim DON) stated when a resident has a wound, the resident is seen by the WCC weekly. She further stated that when the WCC makes a recommendation, the nurse will confirm the recommendation with the physician and enter the physician's order into the EMR. The Interim DON explained that this process should be done as soon as the recommendation is received. When asked about the RD, the Interim DON stated that the RD should be consulted when a resident has a new wound and then the RD should document her assessment in the progress notes or under the evaluations tab in the EMR. During an interview with the surveyor on 10/27/23 at 10:06 AM, the Regional RD, who was assisting the facility while the RD was on vacation, stated that the RD is responsible for reviewing the WCC reports weekly and initiating appropriate interventions. The Regional RD further stated that the RD's assessments were documented in the progress notes or evaluations tab in the EMR. When asked about WCC recommendation to increase dietary protein intake on 02/16/23, the Regional RD reviewed Resident #13's EMR and verified that there was no indication that the RD assessed for the need to increase protein intake in order to promote wound healing prior to 03/21/23. The Regional RD further stated that it is important to assess residents with wounds for adequate nutrition and fluid intake in order to assist with wound healing. Review of the facility's Pressure Ulcers/Skin Breakdown - Clinical Protocol policy, revised 12/2022, included, The physician will order pertinent wound treatments, including pressure reduction surfaces, wound cleansing and debridement approaches, dressings (occlusive, absorptive, etc.), and application of topical agents. Review of the Nutritional Assessment policy, revised 01/2023, included, The multidisciplinary team shall identify, upon the resident's admission and upon his or her change of condition, the following situations that place the resident at increased risk for impaired nutrition . Increased need for calories and/or protein - onset or exacerbation of diseases or conditions that result in a hypermetabolic state and an increased demand for calories and protein (e.g . wounds). Further review of the policy included, Sources of information for the resident nutritional assessment may include the following: . Assessments from other disciplines; . The resident's current medical record. NJAC 8:39-27.1(a)
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** Complaint NJ#: 168234 Based on observation, interview, review of medical records and review of pertinent facility documentation,...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Complaint NJ#: 168234 Based on observation, interview, review of medical records and review of pertinent facility documentation, it was determined that the facility staff failed to a.) provide a safe environment to prevent the potential spread of infection by not implementing transmission-based precautions (TBP) used for persons suspected of having infections, diseases, or germs that are spread by touching the patient or items in the room, for a resident that had a contagious urinary tract infection (UTI), (Resident #6) 1 of 1 resident reviewed for TBP and b.) perform hand hygiene while assisting residents in the dining room for 1 of 1 dining rooms. This deficient practice was evidenced by the following: 1.) On 10/19/23 at 10:10 AM during tour, Resident #6 was observed sitting in the chair in her room getting equipment out of a bag to brush his/her hair. The resident was interviewed at that time and did not have any complaints. The surveyor did not observe any signage or notifications on the resident's door or in the resident's room that the resident was on transmission-based precautions. According to the admission Record, Resident #6 was admitted to the facility with the diagnoses which included, but was not limited to, unspecified dementia and chronic kidney disease. The annual Minimum Data Set (MDS) an assessment tool that facilitated a resident's care, dated 08/29/23, indicated that Resident #6 was cognitively intact and required limited to extensive assistance with activities of daily living. The MDS also indicated that Resident #6 had a history of multidrug-resistant organisms (MDROs), required assistance with toileting, and was occasionally incontinent of urine and continent of bowel. According to the laboratory results for a urinalysis and culture and sensitivity (UA and C&S), dated 10/12/23, Resident #6 had a colony count 100,000 plus of ESBL (an enzyme that causes an organism to become resistant to extended-spectrum cephalosporins, monobactams and extended-spectrum penicillin). The laboratory report also indicated that the resident was to be on contact isolation. The Order Summary Sheet ([NAME]) reflected a physician's order (PO) dated 10/15/23 for Sulfamethoxazole-Trimethoprim (Bactrim DS) 800-160mg tablet by mouth one time a day for ESBL of the urine. Review of the Medication Administration Record (MAR) indicated that Resident #6 was started on the antibiotic medication Bactrim DS (double strength) 10/16/23 for the contagious infection called extended spectrum beta-lactamase (ESBL) of the urine. There was no documentation on the [NAME] that reflected a PO for the implementation of contact precautions for ESBL of the urine. On 10/19/23 at 02:47 PM, the surveyor observed Resident #6's room and there was no signage posted on the door that indicated the resident was on TBP for ESBL. The surveyor reviewed the residents Care Plan (CP) and there was no documentation on the CP that the resident had ESBL of the urine or that the resident was on TBP. On 10/20/23 at 09:40 AM, the surveyor observed Resident #6's room and there were no signage posted on the door that indicated the resident was on TBP for ESBL. The surveyor observed a Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA) coming out of the resident's room after providing resident care and was removing used cups and plates from the resident's bedside without gloves or a gown. On 10/20/23 09:59 AM, the surveyor interviewed the primary care Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA) who stated that she had been employed in the facility through the agency and had been working on and off for the facility for approximately a year. She stated that the resident required extensive assistance with care and that it depended on how his/her breathing was and if the resident was short of breath. The CNA stated that the resident's breathing affected how much she/he could perform. She stated that the resident had labile cognition (memory imairment on and off) and had good days and bad days related to his/her cognitive status. The CNA explained that the resident was currently being treated with antibiotics for a UTI. She stated that she was informed by the nursing staff that the resident had UTI, but not informed as to what the organism was. She continued to add that she usually wore gloves when she provided care, however that no personal protective equipment (PPE) was required to care for Resident #6. She stated that the Infection Preventionist (IP) usually placed signs on the resident's door and isolation bins outside a resident's room with personal protective equipment (PPE) such gloves mask, goggles and gowns that indicated if a resident had a contagious infection. She stated that Resident # 6 utilized the toilet in the morning to have a bowel movement and that family visited frequently. On 10/20/23 at 10:09 AM, the surveyor conducted an interview with the primary nurse for the A Unit. The nurse identified herself as a Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) and stated that she had been employed in the facility since April of 2023. The LPN stated that Resident #6 required total care with aspects related to activities of daily living. She stated that Resident #6 was alert to herself and needs, but had periods of visual hallucinations, yelling out and physical combativeness. She stated that during the day, Resident #6 had infrequent behaviors during the day. The LPN stated that Resident #6 was being treated with antibiotics for ESBL of the urine. She continued to explain that the resident's Care Plan should be updated to reflect that the resident had ESBL of the urine and that the resident was on TBP. She stated that Resident #6 was on contact precautions for ESBL. She continued to explain that a resident with the diagnoses of ESBL of the urine was usually on contact precautions and the staff would have to wear all PPE but only a gown when in contact with the urine. She confirmed that the resident should have had caution signs posted on the door to indicate that they should see the nurse before entering the room. She stated that it would be important for all staff and visitors to know if PPE was required before entering the room. She confirmed that the resident was not on contact precautions or isolation for the diagnoses of ESBL of the urine and should have been. On 10/20/23 at 10:24 AM, the surveyor interviewed the Licensed Practical Nurse Infection Preventionist (LPN/ IP) who stated that he had been employed in the position been since June 2023. He explained that if a nurse discovered or suspected that a resident had an active infection (does not matter what kind) the nurse was to report it to the Unit Manager and the IP. He stated that after he was notified that the resident had an infection, he would investigate to see what organism was and then add it to the antibiotic stewardship log. He would then utilize a guideline to see if the antibiotic was appropriate to use and to assure that the antibiotic was sensitive to the organism. The IP stated that he was not notified by the nurses that Resident # 6 was on antibiotics for UTI. He continued to explain that if he was made aware that the resident had ESBL of the urine he would have assured that the resident was put on contact isolation (staff should wear PPE such gown, mask, gloves, eye protection) for someone on contact precautions. He stated that there should be signs posted on the door that indicated that the staff and visitors should see the nurse before entering the resident's room. The IP stated it would be important that visitors and staff knew that the resident had a contagious infection so that they could wear the appropriate PPE. He stated that isolation bins containing PPE should have been put outside the resident's room. He stated the any contaminated laundry items should have been separated and washed separately to prevent cross contamination and that separate laundry bins and trash bins should have been inside the resident's room for the laundry and trash. He added that ESBL was the type of contagious infection that it would be necessary for laundry and trash BINS to be placed in the room. The IP also stated that according to the documentation in the medical record that family was not notified that the resident had ESBL of the urine. The IP confirmed that the resident should have been put on contact isolation immediately after the resident was diagnosed with ESBL of the urine and signs should have been posted on the resident's door that any visitors and staff needed to see the nurse before entering the resident's room. On 10/20/23 at 11:00 AM, the surveyor interviewed the acting Director of Nursing (DON). The DON stated that there was no Unit Manager for the A Unit at this time. She stated that during the interim period other DONs from other facilities were covering the unit. She stated that if the nurse received a positive UA and C&S that indicated that the resident had a UTI the nurse would call the physician to find out what he would recommend for treatment. If there were sensitivities, the nurse would relay that to the physician. If the physician ordered an antibiotic that the organism was resistant too, the nurse should then question the physician to see if he could order a medication that the organism was sensitive to. She continued to explain that if the organism was contagious then the nurse should follow Center for Disease (CDC) recommendations for TBP for that organism. The DON stated that if the resident had ESBL of the urine the information should be shared with the physician so that he could make the appropriate treatment decisions. The surveyor asked the DON if a resident should be put on contact precautions, and she stated that she would follow the CDC recommendations. The DON confirmed that Resident #6 should have been put on the appropriate antibiotic when they discovered that the resident had ESBL of the urine. The DON indicated that she did not know what PPE was supposed to be put in place when the resident was discovered that she had ESBL of the urine. But the resident should have been put on contact precautions until she found out what the CDC recommended. On 10/20/23 at 01:44 PM, the surveyor interviewed the Medical Director (MD). stated that the resident should have been put on TBP and isolated to prevent further transmission of ESBL. The facility policy titled, Multidrug-Resistant Organisms with a revised date of 01/2023 indicated that the facility staff was to take the precautions needed for caring of residents known or suspected of having an infection or colonization, with a MDRO. The policy indicated that when a resident was placed on contact precautions the facility would implement the following: -Consult with the appropriate isolation policy. -Provide isolation setup. -A soiled linen hamper/refuse container is placed, when required, within the cubicle of the infected resident's area. -Post the proper isolation signage on the resident's door. -An explanation of the procedures and precautions was to be given to visitors. The facility policy titled, Categories of Transmission-Based Precautions with a revised date of 01/2023 indicated that TBP shall be used when caring for residents who were documented or suspected to have communicable diseases or infections that can be transmitted to others. 2.) On 10/20/23 at 12:15 PM, the surveyor observed resident dining on the A and B unit. The surveyor observed a Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA) helping a resident set up their meal that the resident was already eating. The CNA was observed stirring the resident's coffee with a spoon that the un-sampled resident already touched and then the CNA was observed opening the resident ice cream cup that he/she had also already the touched. The same CNA then without performing hand hygiene, went over to another un-sampled resident's tray and assisted that resident in cutting up that resident's meat with a fork and knife that that resident already handled. The CNA then left that resident failed to perform hand hygiene afterward and went over to the serving cart that contained resident liquids and pulled cleaned cups of the cart. The surveyor asked the CNA at that time what she should have done when going from one resident's tray to another resident's tray and then to the serving cart that all residents drink from and she stated that she should have performed hand hygiene after setting up each resident and before touching the serving cart that they serve drinks to all residents. On 10/20/23 12:20 PM, the surveyor interviewed a Registered Nurse who identified herself as a DON (RN/DON) from another facility who was monitoring the A and B unit dining room. The surveyor asked the RN/DON what the CNA should have done after touching a resident's tray and then going to another resident's tray and the to the serving cart and she stated that the CNA should have performed hand hygiene to prevent any cross contamination. On 10/30/2023 at 11:32, in the presence of the survey team the DON stated that she did not have any addition information to provide to the surveyor. Reference: The Center for Disease Control (CDC); Guidelines for Hand Hygiene in Healthcare Setting, Vol [volume]. 51/No. RR-16 (dated 10/25/02). Recommendations included but were not limited to the following: 1. Indications for hand washing and hand antiseptics: A). When hands are visibly dirty or contaminated with proteinaceous material or are visibly soiled with blood or other body fluids, wash hands with either a non-microbial soap and water or an antimicrobial soap and water. C). Decontaminate hands before having direct contact with the patient. I.) Decontaminate hands after contact with inanimate objects (including medical equipment) in the immediate vicinity of the patient. J.) Decontaminate hands after removing gloves. The facility policy titled, Handwashing/Hand Hygiene: with a revised date of 01/2023 indicated that the facility considered that hand hygiene was the primary means to prevent the spread of infections. The policy also indicated that alcohol-based hand rub and soap and water would be used before and after assisting a resident with meals. NJAC 8:39-27.1 (a)
CONCERN (F)

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

Food Safety (Tag F0812)

Could have caused harm · This affected most or all residents

Based on observation, interviews, and review of facility documentation it was determined that the facility failed to: a.) properly handle and store potentially hazardous foods in a manner that is inte...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, interviews, and review of facility documentation it was determined that the facility failed to: a.) properly handle and store potentially hazardous foods in a manner that is intended to prevent the spread of food borne illnesses, b.) maintain equipment and kitchen areas in a manner to prevent microbial growth and cross contamination, and c.) maintain adequate infection control practices during food service in the kitchen. This deficient practice was observed and evidenced by the following: On 10/19/23 at 09:59 AM, in the presence of the cook, two surveyors toured the kitchen and observed the following: 1. In a metal knife station on a food prep area, there was one white handled knife with a serrated blade with greasy marks on the blade and green debris on the handle. There was one red handled knife with a serrated blade with liquid on the blade. The cook acknowledged that the knives were not clean and that they should have been washed with soap and hot water and sanitized. The cook stated it was important to keep the knives clean to prevent cross contamination. 2. There was a large free standing soup pot with debris on the pouring rim and white and brown debris in the pot. The cook acknowledged the debris and stated the pot was not clean and that she would not have used it. 3. On the top convection oven, there was greasy debris on the inside doors and black and red debris on the oven floor. The cook acknowledged the debris and stated that it was from cooking and that it got cleaned weekly. The cook stated it was important to make sure the oven was clean to prevent contamination. 4. On a cook prep area, there was a Robot coupe base with the container next to the base and the blade resting inside of the container. There was clear liquid inside of the container and green debris on the outside of the container. There was tan debris on the metal rotator rod on the base. The cook stated that the container and blade were clean and that they were just washed. The surveyor inquired as to whether the liquid should have been in the container and the cook stated no, that it should have been dry and that it was important to make sure everything was clean and dry to prevent cross contamination. At 10:39 AM, the Food Services Director (FSD) arrived and joined the tour with the surveyors. 5. On the coffee station there was a stack of exposed coffee filters resting on a bag of coffee filters. The FSD acknowledged the exposed coffee filters and stated that they were not stored correctly. She stated that it was important to store the coffee filters correctly to prevent contamination. 6. On a wheeled prep area there was a slicer covered with a clear plastic bag which the FSD stated meant that the slicer was clean. The FSD removed the bag and there was brown debris on the slicer and white debris on the base and the side of the slicer. The FSD acknowledged the debris and stated it should not have been there and that the slicer should have been clean and free from any type of food particles. 7. On a rack under the prep area were several cutting boards. There was one red cutting board with black smudges and scratches, one yellow cutting board with dark scratches, and one red cutting board with black smudges. The FSD acknowledged the smudges and scratches and stated that they should not have been there and that they should have been clean and free of any smudges or cracks. The FSD stated it was important to keep the cutting boards clean to prevent bacteria from forming. During the tour at that time, the surveyor informed the FSD of the observations made prior to her arrival. The FSD stated it was important to make sure equipment was clean and dry for proper sanitization and to prevent food contamination. 8. In the ice machine, the surveyor wiped the inside cover with a white napkin and observed pink debris. The FSD stated the debris should not have been there and that it was important to keep the ice machine clean to prevent contamination. 9. On the metal clean pot storage rack, there was a six-inch third pan with green debris in the pan. The FSD stated it was food particles and that it should not have been there. The FSD returned the pan to the dishwashing area. 10. On the clean side of the dishwashing area, there was a dietary aide (DA) who stated he was sorting clean silverware. The DA was wearing a hairnet with the left side and the right side of his shoulder length hair exposed. The DA acknowledged he was not wearing the hairnet correctly and stated that it was not sanitary to wear the hairnet incorrectly and that hair could have gotten in the food. During an interview with the surveyor at that time, the FSD acknowledged that the DA was not wearing the hairnet correctly and stated that hairnets should have been worn in the kitchen, at all times, and that the entire head should have been covered. At 11:11 AM, the FSD escorted the surveyors to the basement refrigerator. In the walk-in refrigerator was a freezer. The freezer temperature gauge, mounted on the wall next to the outer door, read 28 degrees. The surveyors entered the freezer with the FSD and observed ice buildup on the left side of the fan unit with large pieces of ice resting on the rack below the unit. The FSD stated, We are waiting on a part. 11. On a metal rack on the right side of the freezer there was: one box of jumbo franks containing two eight count packages of hot dogs marked use by 10/31/23 that were not frozen, soft to touch; one 10-pound ham in a box dated 10/16/23 that was not frozen, soft to touch; one 2.5 pound package of imitation crabmeat marked best by 5/20/25 that was not frozen, soft to touch; one open box containing three sealed clear bags and two tied plastic bags containing mozzarella cheese sticks, dated 4/28/22, that was not frozen, soft to touch; one box of chicken tender fritters, dated received on 10/9/23, that were not frozen, soft to touch; one box of breakfast turkey sausage links, dated 10/16/23, that were not frozen, soft to touch. During an interview at that time, the FSD acknowledged that the food items were not frozen and stated that anything in the freezer should have been frozen solid. The FSD stated that she had noticed on 10/14/23, in the freezer, that some of the food items were starting to thaw and that the freezer temperature was going to 19 degrees. The FSD stated that she had called the Maintenance Director (MD) and that he looked at the freezer on 10/15/23 and chipped off the ice from the fan unit and the FSD was instructed to give it time until the temp comes up. The FSD then corrected herself and stated that on 10/13/23 that the MD came and chipped off the ice from the fan unit and that on 10/14/23 she contacted the MD again when she noticed the temperatures were not in the negative anymore and that some food was thawing. The FSD stated that the MD reached out to his Regional MD and that she discussed the freezer with the MD again on 10/16/23 and 10/17/23 and was told that a part was being ordered for the compressor. At 11:49 AM, the surveyors met with the FSD in the kitchen at the steam table. The FSD stated that the process for food prep was that the staff pulled the meat from the freezer the night before, labeled it, stored it in the refrigerator, prepped the meat the day of service, and then two hours prior to the meal the staff started cooking. At 12:06 PM, along with the FSD, the surveyor continued the tour of the basement freezer and observed to following: On a metal rack on the right side of the freezer there was: one box labeled deli turkey with two sealed packages of turkey with received sticked dated 10/16/23, that was not frozen, soft to touch; one box of breakfast turkey sausage links with received sticker dated 10/9/23, that was not frozen, soft to touch; one box fully cooked pork sausage patty with received sticker dated 10/2/23, that was not frozen, soft to touch; one box chicken tenderloin fritters with received sticker dated 10/16/23, that were not frozen, soft to touch. During an interview with the surveyor at that time, the FSD acknowledged that the food items were not frozen and stated that if the food was in the freezer, that it should have been frozen. The FSD stated that if she had found thawed food in the freezer, that most of it was to be thrown away, but that the food items that came in on 10/16/23 were able to be used. At 12:13 PM, the Regional Licensed Nursing Home Administrator (RLNHA) joined the surveyor and FSD in the basement refrigerator and observed the soft chicken fritters, then left the refrigerator. On the same metal rack on the right side of the freezer there was: one box single sliced bacon with a received sticker dated 9/18/23, that was not frozen, soft to touch; one box single sliced bacon with a received sticker dated 9/25/23 that was not frozen, soft to touch; one box of crispy chicken breast filet with a received sticker dated 10/16/23, that was soft to touch with a hard center; one box of chicken breast filets with a received sticker dated 10/2/23 that was soft to touch with a hard center; one box of golden crispy portioned chicken breast filets with a received sticker dated 10/16/23 that were soft to touch with a hard center; one box of tilapia fillets with received sticker dated 8/28/23 that were soft to touch with a hard center; one box hamburger patties with received sticker dated 10/9/23, that were soft to touch with a hard center. During an interview at that time, the FSD acknowledged the soft food items and stated that they were thawed out, starting to thaw, or not fully frozen. At 12:30 PM, the Licensed Nursing Home Administrator (LNHA) met with the surveyor and the FSD in the basement refrigerator. The LNHA asked the FSD when maintenance was notified of a problem with the freezer and the FSD stated on 10/13/23. The LNHA then left the area. On the same metal rack on the right side of the freezer there was: one box dated 9/19/23 which contained one 10 pound log of ground beef marked best before or freeze by 10/12/23, that was soft to touch; one box deli turkey with a received sticker dated 10/9/23 that contained two turkey breasts that were soft to touch; one box dated 8/31/23 which contained four 10 pound logs of ground beef that were soft to touch with a hard center; one box of French toast with a received sticker dated 10/9/23 that was soft to touch; one box of charbroil pattie for Salisbury with a received sticker dated 10/16/23 that was soft to touch with a hard center. During an interview with the surveyor at that time, the FSD acknowledged that the soft ground meat should not be used. At 01:52 PM, two surveyors met with the Maintenance Director (MD) and observed him check the basement freezer temperature with an infrared thermometer which read 18.9 degrees. The thermometer mounted on the outside wall of the freezer read 26 degrees. The MD stated that the freezer was, a little warm, and acknowledged that the temperature should have been 0 degrees. The MD stated that the maintenance department checked the refrigerator and freezer temperatures daily and if they were too busy then they would only get checked twice a week. The MD stated the last temperature check for the freezer was 09:00 AM this morning and that it was 26 degrees. The MD stated that he was first notified by the FSD that there was an issue with the freezer temperature on 10/17/23, that he came and checked it, and the temp was 30 degrees using the infrared thermometer and the mounted wall temperature reading was 2 degrees off. The MD stated that the facility used an electronic notification system to alert the maintenance department to any concerns and that he would have been notified via his cell phone right away with any work orders. The MD stated that he was verbally notified by the FSD on 10/17/23 and he assessed the freezer at that time. The MD stated he deiced the fans using his hands to remove the ice from the fan unit as well as a heat gun to melt the ice. He then stated that the temperature then started dropping on 10/17/23. The MD stated that he checked the freezer temperature again on 10/18/23 and the temperature read 24 degrees and that he then emailed the Chief of Operations (COO) for the technician to come out to assess the freezer. The MD stated that as of now that the technician has still not arrived but was due to visit today and that he verbally communicated with the COO about the freezer again today. At 03:59 PM, the surveyors met in the conference room with the LNHA, the RLNHA and the Interim Director of Nursing and they were told of the kitchen concerns. The RLNHA stated, I personally removed all those items from the freezer. On 10/26/23 at 10:15 AM, the surveyor interviewed the FSD who stated that on 10/20/23 the contractor fixed the basement freezer and that the remaining frozen food items had been placed into two newly purchased box freezers. The basement freezer was kept empty until the proper temperature of negative 8 degrees was met on 10/21/23. She stated that the emergency order of meat came in on 10/21/23 and was immediately placed into the freezer. The FSD then stated that on 10/22/23 that the freezer was functioning properly and that they were in the process of placing the remaining food items from the box freezers back into the basement freezer. At 10:20 AM, the surveyor interviewed the FSD who stated that she told the MD via his cell phone about her concern with the freezer temperature on 10/14/23 and that he came and removed ice from the fan unit. The FSD then stated that during the morning meeting on 10/16/23, that she let all the department heads know of her concerns over the weekend with the freezer temperature being 12 degrees and not a negative temperature. The FSD stated that on 10/17/23 that she spoke with the MD again about the temperature going up again and that he stated that, he reached out to the regional to have the part ordered. At 12:32 PM, the surveyor interviewed the MD who stated he was first notified about the basement freezer temperatures on 10/17/23 and that he deiced the condenser coil on the back of the fan unit at that time. He stated that when he checked it again on 10/18/23 that the temperature was rising again so he sent the email for the contractor to come out. The MD stated he did not work in the facility on the weekend of 10/14/23-10/15/23. The MD acknowledged that the technician did visit the facility on 10/20/23 and repaired the freezer at that time. The MD stated he had checked the temperature of the freezer daily since the repair and has had no issue. On 10/26/23 at 01:13 PM, the surveyors met with the administration team to discuss the kitchen concerns again. At 01:25 PM, the surveyor interviewed the LNHA who stated he was unsure when he was notified about the basement freezer issue and that he would look at his timeline. The LNHA acknowledged that the freezer temperature should not have been 28 degrees and that the freezer temperatures should have been maintained at a level to keep the frozen foods solid. The LNHA further stated that it was important to make sure the freezer kept food frozen to preserve the food over an extended amount of time. A review of the facility's Food Prep Policy, revised 1/2023, revealed Policy: It the policy of the facility that meats, poultry and fish will be prepared and cooked in a manner that will ensure sanitary preparation. A review of the facility's Food Storage Policy, revised 1/2023, revealed Policy Statement: Food storage areas shall be maintained in a clean, safe, and sanitary manner. Policy Interpretation and Implementation: 4. Food shall be rotated as delivered and used in a First In, First Out method. Items will be dated on receipt to facilitate this procedure. 9. Frozen foods will be stored at 0 degrees F (Fahrenheit) or below at all times. A review of the facility policy, Food Preparation and Service, revised 5/2023, revealed Policy Statement: Food service employees shall prepare and serve food in a manner that complies with safe food handling practices. Thawing Frozen food 1. E. 5 days labels must be used to defrost meats, 2 days to defrost, and 3 days to use. Must be discard after 5 days. 7. Dietary staff shall wear hair restraints (hair net, hat, beard restraints, etc.) so that hair does not contact food. A review of the undated facility policy, Food Safety-General Personal Hygiene-Hairnets, [NAME] Guards, & Head Covers, revealed, Policy Statement: Food service employees will follow department guidelines and proper procedures for hairnets, beard guards, and head covers to prevent any physical contamination of food or beverage within the department. Policy Interpretation and Implementation: 3. Hairnets must cover and contain all body of hair. A review of the undated facility documentation, Sanitation Standard Operating Procedure for Riverview Estates, revealed, I.A. General equipment cleaning. All equipment, used for mixing, will be cleaned and sanitized after production. 1. Established cleaning procedures include: Food debris is removed from equipment . Equipment parts are brushed where required and then rinsed with water to remove remaining food debris. Equipment/parts are inspected for cleanliness, and re-cleaned if necessary. II. C. Food processing operations. Food processing is performed under sanitary conditions to prevent direct and cross-contamination of ingredients. 8. Established personal hygiene procedures for employees processing products includes: All employees handling food ingredients will wear hairnets .All employees will clean and sanitize hands, knives, scoops, etc., as necessary during processing to prevent contamination of finished products. A review of the undated facility policy, Food Safety-Food Storage-Use By & Expired Foods, revealed, Policy Interpretation and Implementation. 1. All food service workers will follow safe food handling practices and guidelines as it is stated for labeling and dating perishable items. 6. All expired items inside or out of original manufactures [sic] packaging will be discarded and will not be used further. A review of the facility policy, Ice Machines and Ice Storage Chests, revised 1/2012, revealed, Policy Statement: Ice machines and ice storage/distribution containers will be used and maintained to assure a safe and sanitary supply of ice. Policy Interpretation and Implementation: 2. To help prevent contamination of ice machines, ice storage chests/containers or ice, staff shall follow these precautions: f. clean and sanitize the tray and ice scoop daily. A review of the facility's undated ice machine Cleaning/Sanitizing Procedure documentation provided by the MD revealed, Preventive maintenance cleaning procedure: Step 8: while components are soaking, use ½ of the cleaner/water solution to clean all food zone surfaces of the ice machine and bin (or dispenser). Use a nylon brush or cloth to thoroughly clean the following ice machine areas: side walls, base (area above water trough), evaporator plastic parts-including top, bottom, and sides, bin or dispenser. Rinse all areas thoroughly with clean water .Step 11: use ½ of the sanitizer/water solution to sanitize all food zone surfaces of the ice machine and bin .pay particular attention to the following areas: side walls, base (area above water trough), evaporator plastic parts-including top, bottom, and sides, bin or dispenser. Do not rinse the sanitized areas. A review of the facility documentation, In-Service Training Report, dated 7/6/23, revealed a signature from the DA that confirmed his attendance at an in-service for Hairnet and [NAME] Restraints. On 10/19/23 at 12:45 PM, the FSD provided the surveyor with the basement Refrigerator and Freezer temperature (temp) log for October 2023. The Freezer log temperatures were documented as follows on: 10/13/23 AM temp minus 16 degrees, PM temp minus 16 degrees; 10/14/23 AM temp minus 16 degrees, PM temp minus 16 degrees; 10/15/23 AM temp minus 16 degrees, PM temp minus 16 degrees; 10/16/23 AM temp minus 16 degrees, PM temp minus 16 degrees; 10/17/23 AM temp minus 18 degrees, PM temp minus 16 degrees; 10/18/23 AM temp minus 16 degrees, PM temp minus 16 degrees; 10/19/23 AM temp minus 16 degrees. On 10/19/23 at 02:12 PM, the MD provided the surveyor with email communication that was sent on 10/18/23 at 12:50 PM to the Director of Operations and the LNHA. The email discussed the temperature issues with the walk-in freezer and requested a contractor to assess the issue. On 10/20/23 at 01:45 PM, the LNHA provided the surveyor with a copy of the service ticket for the service performed on the walk-in freezer and was documented that the freezer was working ok. On 10/26/23 at 10:35 AM, the FSD provided the surveyor with the basement Refrigerator and Freezer temperature log for October 2023. The Freezer log temperatures were documented as follows on: 10/21/23 AM temp minus 10 degrees, PM temp minus 9 degrees; 10/22/23 AM temp minus 11 degrees, PM temp minus 10 degrees; 10/23/23 AM temp minus 10 degrees, PM temp minus 12 degrees; 10/24/23 AM temp minus 11 degrees, PM temp minus 11 degrees; 10/25/23 AM temp minus 10 degrees, PM temp minus 11 degrees; 10/26/23 AM temp minus 5 degrees. NJAC 8:39-17.2(g)
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
  • • Licensed and certified facility. Meets minimum state requirements.
Concerns
  • • Multiple safety concerns identified: 1 life-threatening violation(s), $38,455 in fines. Review inspection reports carefully.
  • • 17 deficiencies on record, including 1 critical (life-threatening) violation. These warrant careful review before choosing this facility.
  • • $38,455 in fines. Higher than 94% of New Jersey facilities, suggesting repeated compliance issues.
  • • Grade F (38/100). Below average facility with significant concerns.
Bottom line: Trust Score of 38/100 indicates significant concerns. Thoroughly evaluate alternatives.

About This Facility

What is Riverview Estates Rehab And Senior Living Center's CMS Rating?

CMS assigns RIVERVIEW ESTATES REHAB AND SENIOR LIVING CENTER an overall rating of 2 out of 5 stars, which is considered 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 Riverview Estates Rehab And Senior Living Center Staffed?

CMS rates RIVERVIEW ESTATES REHAB AND SENIOR LIVING CENTER's staffing level at 4 out of 5 stars, which is above average compared to other nursing homes. Staff turnover is 52%, compared to the New Jersey average of 46%.

What Have Inspectors Found at Riverview Estates Rehab And Senior Living Center?

State health inspectors documented 17 deficiencies at RIVERVIEW ESTATES REHAB AND SENIOR LIVING CENTER during 2023 to 2024. These included: 1 Immediate Jeopardy (the most serious level, indicating potential for serious harm or death) and 16 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 Riverview Estates Rehab And Senior Living Center?

RIVERVIEW ESTATES REHAB AND SENIOR LIVING CENTER 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 ALLAIRE HEALTH SERVICES, a chain that manages multiple nursing homes. With 66 certified beds and approximately 55 residents (about 83% occupancy), it is a smaller facility located in RIVERTON, New Jersey.

How Does Riverview Estates Rehab And Senior Living Center Compare to Other New Jersey Nursing Homes?

Compared to the 100 nursing homes in New Jersey, RIVERVIEW ESTATES REHAB AND SENIOR LIVING CENTER's overall rating (2 stars) is below the state average of 3.2, staff turnover (52%) is near the state average of 46%, and health inspection rating (2 stars) is below the national benchmark.

What Should Families Ask When Visiting Riverview Estates Rehab And Senior Living Center?

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 Riverview Estates Rehab And Senior Living Center Safe?

Based on CMS inspection data, RIVERVIEW ESTATES REHAB AND SENIOR LIVING CENTER has documented safety concerns. Inspectors have issued 1 Immediate Jeopardy citation (the most serious violation level indicating risk of serious injury or death). The facility has a 2-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 Riverview Estates Rehab And Senior Living Center Stick Around?

RIVERVIEW ESTATES REHAB AND SENIOR LIVING CENTER has a staff turnover rate of 52%, which is 6 percentage points above the New Jersey average of 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 Riverview Estates Rehab And Senior Living Center Ever Fined?

RIVERVIEW ESTATES REHAB AND SENIOR LIVING CENTER has been fined $38,455 across 1 penalty action. The New Jersey average is $33,463. 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 Riverview Estates Rehab And Senior Living Center on Any Federal Watch List?

RIVERVIEW ESTATES REHAB AND SENIOR LIVING CENTER 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.