CHRISTIAN HEALTH CARE CENTER

301 SICOMAC AVE, WYCKOFF, NJ 07481 (201) 848-5200
Non profit - Church related 304 Beds Independent Data: November 2025 4 Immediate Jeopardy citations
Trust Grade
15/100
#111 of 344 in NJ
Last Inspection: October 2024

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

Overview

Christian Health Care Center in Wyckoff, New Jersey has received a Trust Grade of F, indicating significant concerns about the quality of care provided. With a state rank of #111 out of 344 facilities, they are in the top half of New Jersey options, but their county rank of #15 out of 29 suggests that there are better local alternatives. The facility's situation appears to be worsening, with the number of reported issues increasing from 9 in 2023 to 16 in 2024. Staffing is a notable strength, receiving a perfect score of 5/5, with a low turnover rate of 23%, indicating that staff members are experienced and familiar with residents' needs. However, there are serious weaknesses, including critical incidents of resident-to-resident abuse, where one resident's aggressive behavior led to harm to others, raising significant safety concerns. Additionally, the facility has accrued $15,593 in fines, which is average compared to other facilities, but reflects ongoing compliance problems.

Trust Score
F
15/100
In New Jersey
#111/344
Top 32%
Safety Record
High Risk
Review needed
Inspections
Getting Worse
9 → 16 violations
Staff Stability
✓ Good
23% annual turnover. Excellent stability, 25 points below New Jersey's 48% average. Staff who stay learn residents' needs.
Penalties
○ Average
$15,593 in fines. Higher than 69% of New Jersey facilities. Some compliance issues.
Skilled Nurses
✓ Good
Each resident gets 52 minutes of Registered Nurse (RN) attention daily — more than average for New Jersey. RNs are trained to catch health problems early.
Violations
⚠ Watch
43 deficiencies on record. Higher than average. Multiple issues found across inspections.
★★★★☆
4.0
Overall Rating
★★★★★
5.0
Staff Levels
★★★★★
5.0
Care Quality
★★☆☆☆
2.0
Inspection Score
Stable
2023: 9 issues
2024: 16 issues

The Good

  • 5-Star Staffing Rating · Excellent nurse staffing levels
  • 5-Star Quality Measures · Strong clinical quality outcomes
  • Low Staff Turnover (23%) · Staff stability means consistent care
  • Full Sprinkler Coverage · Fire safety systems throughout facility
  • No fines on record
  • Staff turnover is low (23%)

    25 points below New Jersey average of 48%

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

The Bad

Federal Fines: $15,593

Below median ($33,413)

Minor penalties assessed

The Ugly 43 deficiencies on record

4 life-threatening 2 actual harm
Oct 2024 16 deficiencies
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0578 (Tag F0578)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

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

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview, record review, and review of other facility documentation, it was determined the facility failed to ensure accurate documentation and review of a resident's advance directives for one (1) of five (5) residents (Resident #253) reviewed. This deficient practice was evidenced by the following: The surveyor reviewed the hybrid (electronic and paper) medical records of Resident #253. The Resident Face Sheet (a summary of important information about the resident) documented the resident had diagnoses that included but were not limited to, dementia, spondylosis (degeneration of the bones and disks in the neck), and type 2 diabetes mellitus. A comprehensive Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment, a tool to facilitate the management of care, dated [DATE], indicated the facility assessed the resident's cognition using a Brief Interview Mental Status (BIMS) test. Resident #253 scored a 09 out of 15, which indicated the resident had moderate cognitive impairment. A physician's order (PO) dated [DATE] read, Do Not Intubate (DNI). A PO dated [DATE] read, Do Not Resuscitate (DNR). The resident's paper chart included a New Jersey Practitioner Orders for Life-Sustaining Treatment (POLST) form, dated [DATE], which documented the resident had advance directives (AD) that they desired attempt resuscitation/CPR[Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation] and Do not Intubate. The form was signed by the resident's representative (RR) and an advance practice nurse (APN). A review of progress notes revealed there was no documentation that indicated the resident desired to have a DNR status. On [DATE] at 10:44 AM, the surveyor interviewed a Registered Nurse (RN) about AD protocol. The RN stated nurses could find the resident's AD and code status in the electronic medical record (EMR). The RN further explained on the main screen for a resident in the EMR, the code status would be indicated at the top of the screen and could also be found under the PO. The RN stated the nurses, health care providers (physicians and APNs), and the social worker (SW) would follow up about AD. On [DATE] at 10:52 AM, the surveyor interviewed the Registered Nurse/Team Leader (RN/TL) about AD protocol. The RN/TL stated upon admission the resident/RR would be asked to provide AD, which would include living wills, and/or POLST. The RN/TL further explained if they had no AD, staff would provide education and offer to complete a POLST. The nurses and SW would follow up on a resident's AD. The physician would be notified, orders obtained for a resident's code status. Furthermore, a health care provider would review with the resident/RR the POLST, and it would be signed. The RN/TL stated the staff would make sure AD information in the EMR and provided AD documentation would match. The surveyor reviewed with the RN/TL Resident #253's POLST and documentation in the EMR. The RN/TL stated she would follow up and provide further information. On [DATE] at 11:57 AM, the surveyor requested from the Licensed Nursing Home Administrator (LNHA) the facility's AD policy. On [DATE] at 01:14 PM, the Director of Nursing (DON) provided the AD Policy. On [DATE] at 01:26 PM, the RN/TL informed the surveyor that she had confirmed with the RR the desired AD. The RN/TL stated they wished resuscitation to be attempted and a DNI code status for the resident. The surveyor asked the RN/TL why a DNR order was entered in Resident #253's EMR. The RN/TL acknowledged the POLST was correct and the DNR order should not have been entered in the resident's EMR. On [DATE] at 01:15 PM, the survey team met with the DON and the LNHA. The surveyor notified the facility management of the above concerns for Resident #253's AD. There was no verbal response by the facility at this time. On [DATE] at 12:32 PM, the DON and the LNHA met with the survey team. The DON acknowledged the concern with Resident #253's AD. The DON stated an audit of other residents' medical records was conducted, and re-education was provided to the staff. A review of the facility provided policy titled, Advance Directives, POLST, Emergency Orders with an effective date of 10/23 read under Procedure, B. Choices and Orders for Emergency Care: a. A completed and executed POLST is a legal physician/LIP [Licensed Independent Practitioner] order and is transferrable and immediately actionable . N.J.A.C. 8:39-9.6
CONCERN (D)

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

Assessment Accuracy (Tag F0641)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

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

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview, record review, and review of pertinent facility documentation, it was determined that the facility failed to accurately code the Minimum Data Set (MDS), an assessment tool used to facilitate the management of care, for four (4) of 38 residents, (Residents #15, #153, #194, and #253) reviewed for accuracy for MDS coding. This deficient practice was evidenced by the following: According to the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) Long-Term Care Facility Resident Assessment Instrument (RAI) User's Manual October 2024, for Use Effective October 1, 2024, revealed: Section C Cognitive Patterns: C0100: Should Brief Interview for Mental Status Be Conducted? Coding Instructions o Code 1, yes: if the interview should be conducted because the resident is at least sometimes understood verbally, in writing, or using another method, and if an interpreter is needed, one is available. Section J Health Conditions: J1900: Number of Falls Since Admission/Entry or Reentry or Prior Assessment, whichever is more recent. Coding Instructions for J1900. Determine the number of falls that occurred since admission/entry or reentry or prior assessment and code the level of fall-related injury for each. Code each fall only once. If the resident has multiple injuries in a single fall, code the fall for the highest level of injury. Definitions: Injury (Except major) Includes skin tears, abrasions, lacerations, superficial bruises, hematomas, and sprains; or any fall-related injury that causes the resident to complain of pain. Section M-5, under M0210 (Unhealed Pressure Ulcers/Injuries) Coding Instructions read: .Code 0, no: if the resident did not have a pressure ulcer/injury in the 7-day look-back period. Then skip to M1030, Number of Venous and Arterial Ulcers .Code 1, yes: if the resident had any pressure ulcer/injury (Stage 1, 2, 3, 4, or unstageable) in the 7-day look-back period. Proceed to M0300, Current Number of Unhealed Pressure Ulcers/Injuries at Each Stage Chapter 3-page M-11, under M0300A (Number of Stage 1 Pressure Injuries) it read, Stage 1: Intact skin with non-blanchable redness of a localized area usually over a bony prominence . 1. On 9/30/24 at 11:21 AM, Surveyor #1 (S#1) observed Resident #15 lying in their bed with a visitor at the bedside. The resident was using oxygen via nasal cannula (a medical device that consists of a small, flexible tube with two prongs that sit inside a patient's nostrils) that was attached to the concentrator. On 10/02/24 at 12:47 PM, Surveyor #2 (S#2) observed Resident #15 awake while resting in their bed. The surveyor greeted the resident. The surveyor reviewed the medical records of Resident #15 and revealed the following: A review of the Face Sheet (FS; an admission summary) reflected that the resident was admitted to the facility with a diagnoses that included but was not limited to: Diabetes mellitus (abnormal level of sugars in blood), and HTN (high blood pressure). A review of significant change in status MDS (SCMDS) with an Assessment Reference Date (ARD) of 9/13/24, under Section B0700. Makes Self Understood- Ability to express ideas and wants, consider both verbal and non-verbal expression- reflected Code 2 which indicated: 2.) Sometimes understood- ability is limited to making concrete request. Review of Section C - Cognitive Pattern did not reflect Resident #15's Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score. Further review of MDS question C0100: Should BIMS (C0200-C0500) be conducted? Reflected Code 0 which indicated No (resident is rarely/never understood) 'Skip to and complete C0700-C1000, Staff Assessment for Mental Status. On SMDS, Surveyor #2 observed that BIMS interview was not conducted. On 10/08/24 at 9: 47 AM, the surveyor met with Director of Nursing (DON) and notified the above findings and concerns. 2. On 9/30/24 at 11:43 AM, during an initial tour, S#2 observed Resident #194 in Resident lounge/C lounge. The resident was resting, with eyes closed in their geri-chair. On 10/02/24 at 11:11 AM, S#2 observed resident asleep in their bed. There was an orange-colored round sticker [dot] next to their name on the name plate. The surveyor reviewed the medical records of Resident #194 and revealed the following: A review of the FS reflected that the resident was admitted to the facility with a diagnoses that included but was not limited to bipolar disorder, anxiety disorder and major depressive disorder. A review of SCMDS with an ARD of 8/09/24, under Section B0700. Makes Self Understood- Ability to express ideas and wants, consider both verbal and non-verbal expression- reflected Code 2 which indicated: 2.) Sometimes understood- ability is limited to making concrete request. Review of Section C - Cognitive Pattern did not reflect Resident #15's BIMS score. Further review of MDS question C0100: Should BIMS (C0200-C0500) be conducted? Reflected Code 0 which indicated No (resident is rarely/never understood) 'Skip to and complete C0700-C1000, Staff Assessment for Mental Status. On SCMDS, Surveyor #2 observed that BIMS interview was not conducted. During an interview with S#2 on 10/07/24 at 11:33 AM, Registered Nurse/MDS Coordinator #1 (RN/MDSC#1) stated that if a resident was coded as sometimes understood in Section B, BIMS would be attempted. On 10/07/24 at 01:09 PM, the survey team met with Licensed Nursing Home Administrator (LNHA) and DON and notified the above findings and concerns. 4. On 9/30/24 at 10:18 AM, Surveyor #3 (S#3) observed Resident #253 lying in their bed, alert and verbally responsive. The resident reported they had a wound on their backside. The resident stated the wound was being treated by the staff and a wound consultant who would visit. S#3 reviewed the electronic and paper medical record for Resident #253. The Resident FS documented that the resident had diagnoses that included but were not limited to, dementia, spondylosis (degeneration of the bones and disks in the neck), dorsalgia (pain in the back), anxiety, and type II diabetes mellitus. A comprehensive MDS assessment with an ARD of 9/04/24, indicated the facility assessed the resident's cognition using a BIMS test. Resident #253 scored a 09 out of 15, which indicated the resident had moderate cognitive impairment. In Section M of the MDS, the resident was coded as having no unhealed pressure ulcers or injuries. An assessment dated [DATE] which included a skin exam of the resident documented Resident #253 had non-blanchable redness (stage I pressure injury) to the sacrum. On 10/03/24 at 01:56 PM, S#3 interviewed Registered Nurse/MDS Coordinator #2 (RN/MDSC#2) who stated a resident's medical records including but not limited to, assessments, physician orders, treatments and preventative measures would be reviewed. RN/MDSC#2 stated if a resident had a wound within the look back period from the assessment reference date of the MDS, it should be coded in the assessment. S#3 reviewed the concern for Resident #253 who had non-blanchable redness (stage I) at time of MDS assessment, and it was not coded. RN/MDSC#2 would review the medical record and provide further information. On 10/04/24 at 9:11 AM, the DON informed the surveyor that she audited with RN/MDSC#2 the MDS of Resident #253. The DON stated the non-blanchable redness (stage I) should have been coded in the MDS assessment. On 10/07/24 at 01:10 PM, S#3, in the presence of the survey team, informed the LNHA and the DON of the concern for Resident #253's MDS accuracy. The DON stated RN/MDSC#2 modified the MDS assessment. On 10/08/24 at 12:25 PM, the survey team met with the LNHA, DON, Medical Director, and the VP (Vice President) of Senior Services for an Exit Conference. The facility management did not provide additional information and did not refute the findings. NJAC 8:39-33.2 (d) 3. On 9/30/24 at 11:29 AM, S#1 observed Resident #153 was not in their room. The room was observed with a bed alarm on top of the nightstand table and a low bed. The bed had a regular mattress [not specialized]. S#1 reviewed the medical records of Resident #153 and revealed the following: The FS showed that the resident was admitted to the facility with a diagnosis that included but was not limited to Alzheimer's disease unspecified, dementia in other diseases classified elsewhere, muscle weakness (generalized), other sequelae of cerebral infarction (stroke), and repeated falls. A review of the provided Matrix for Providers by the DON showed that the resident was triggered for Alzheimer's dementia and fall. A review of the provided fall investigations by the DON revealed: -3/25/24 at 8:10 AM unwitnessed fall, hit head, and complaint (c/o) pain on the left side of the head. -5/11/24 at 10:15 AM unwitnessed fall and no injury. -8/04/24 unwitnessed fall, no injury, and pad alarm was sounding off. The most recent SCMDS, with an ARD of 6/29/2024, showed that the cognitive skills for daily decision-making were coded #2 which indicated that the resident had moderately impaired cognition. Section J Health Conditions indicated that the resident had a fall incident with no injury. The quarterly MDS (qMDS) with an ARD of 3/29/24 revealed that on Section J, the resident had a fall incident with no injury. Further review of the above documents showed there were three unwitnessed fall incidents with two with no injuries and one with c/o pain on the left side of the head on 3/25/24. The 3/29/24 qMDS showed that Section J for fall was coded for no injury even though the resident c/o pain (minor injury). On 10/02/24 at 8:57 AM, S#1 in the presence of another surveyor interviewed the MDS Manager (MDSM). The MDSM stated we follow the RAI manual and that there was no separate policy for MDS. The MDSM further stated we gather the information from the interviews, charts which included notes and orders when doing MDS. She also stated that for falls we check the investigation. On that same date and time, the surveyor asked the MDSM if the resident c/o pain during fall incident, would that be considered an injury. The MDSM stated yes, minor injury and should be coded in the MDS. S#1 then notified the MDSM of the above findings and concerns regarding MDS accuracy for qMDS on 3/29/24. The MDSM stated that she will get back to the surveyor. On 10/02/24 at 01:13 PM, the survey team met with the LNHA and DON. The surveyor notified the facility management of the above findings and concerns.
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 observation, interview, and record review it was determined the facility failed to consistently follow standards of clinical practice with regards to ensuring completion of neuro (neurologica...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, interview, and record review it was determined the facility failed to consistently follow standards of clinical practice with regards to ensuring completion of neuro (neurological) checks after a resident had a fall for one (1) of three (3) residents (Resident #415) reviewed for falls. This deficient practice was evidenced by the following: Reference: New Jersey Statutes Annotated, Title 45. Chapter 11. Nursing Board. The Nurse Practice Act for the State of New Jersey states: The practice of nursing as a registered professional nurse is defined as diagnosing and treating human responses to actual and potential physical and emotional health problems, through such services as case-finding, health teaching, health counseling, and provision of care supportive to or restorative of life and wellbeing, and executing medical regimens as prescribed by a licensed or otherwise legally authorized physician or dentist. Reference: New Jersey Statutes Annotated, Title 45, Chapter 11. Nursing Board. The Nurse Practice Act for the State of New Jersey states: The practice of nursing as a licensed practical nurse is defined as performing tasks and responsibilities within the framework of case finding; reinforcing the patient and family teaching program through health teaching, health counseling, and provision of supportive and restorative care, under the direction of a registered nurse or licensed or otherwise legally authorized physician or dentist. On 10/01/24 at 11:57 AM, the surveyor requested from the Licensed Nursing Home Administrator (LNHA) the fall investigation for Resident #415. On 10/03/24 at 9:10 AM, the surveyor reviewed a fall investigation, dated 9/27/24 for Resident #415. The resident had an unwitnessed fall incident at approximately 3:00 AM in which Resident #415 was found lying on the floor. The resident reported they fell and hit their right knee and head. The physician and the resident's representative were notified. The resident had an abrasion to the right side of their head and neuro-checks (brief neurological assessments performed repeatedly to monitor and evaluate a person's mental status and brain function) were initiated. The surveyor reviewed the paper and electronic medical record (EMR) of Resident #415. The Resident Face Sheet (a summary of important information about the resident) documented the resident had diagnoses that included but were not limited to, colon cancer, chronic obstructive pulmonary (lung) disease, muscle weakness, and atrial fibrillation (a heart condition that causes an irregular, often very fast heartbeat). A Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment, a tool to facilitate the management of care, with an assessment reference date of 10/01/24, indicated the facility assessed the resident's cognition using a Brief Interview Mental Status (BIMS) test. Resident #415 scored a 12 out of 15, which indicated the resident had moderate cognitive impairment. A physician's order (PO) dated 9/27/24 read, Neuro-checks every 30 minutes for an hour then every hour for 2 hours, and then every 4 hours for 24 hours. A nurse progress note (PN) by the Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) dated 9/27/24 at 7:41 AM documented that the resident had a fall incident at three in which the resident was found on the floor with a small abrasion to the right side of their head. A PN by the LPN dated 9/27/24 at 7:41 AM, had a start date/time 9/27/24 3:38 AM, documented a detailed neuro check assessment and vital signs for resident. The other sections of the note included mental status assessments, pupil assessment, pain assessment, and range of motion of extremities were completed. In the section that read time observed, the LPN checked 3 AM, 4 AM, 5 AM and 6 AM. The note did not detail a neuro check assessment for each time indicated that the resident was observed. A follow up PN by LPN dated 9/27/24 at 7:46 AM documented that neuro checks were initiated, and the physician was notified. A PN dated 9/27/24 at 11:48 AM, included a detailed neuro-check assessment and vital signs with an observed time of 11:15 AM. A PN dated 9/27/24 at 4:27 PM included a detailed neuro-check assessment and vital signs with an observed time of 3:15 PM and 11:15 PM. The note did not detail a neuro check assessment for each time the resident was observed. A PN dated 9/27/24 at 7:47 PM, included a detailed neuro-check assessment and vital signs with an observed time of 7:15 PM. A PN dated 9/28/24 at 4:58 PM, included a detailed neuro-check assessment and vital signs with an observed time of 7:15 AM. There were no other PN found that documented any other neuro-check assessment done after the resident's fall. On 10/03/24 at 10:56 AM, the surveyor interviewed the Registered Nurse (RN) about falls and neurochecks. The RN stated for unwitnessed falls neuro-checks would be initiated and the PO would be obtained. The RN further explained the PO for neuro-checks would outline the frequency it was to be done. On 10/03/24 at 11:24 AM, the surveyor interviewed the Assistant Director of Nursing (ADON) about neurochecks. The ADON confirmed neuro-checks would be performed with unwitnessed falls. The ADON reviewed in the EMR, the protocol of neuro-check orders to inform the surveyor of its frequency. The ADON stated neurochecks were to be completed every 15 minutes for one hour, every 30 minutes for one hour, every one for 2 hours, every four hours for 20 hours. The PO would prompt in the EMR for when the nurses were to document their neuro-check assessments. On 10/03/24 at 02:14 PM, the surveyor placed a call to the LPN who was assigned to care for Resident #415 at the time of the fall with no answer and a message to return the call was left. The surveyor did not receive a return call. On 10/04/24 at 02:40 PM, the surveyor informed the Director of Nursing (DON) of the concern regarding the neuro-checks completed for Resident #415. The DON confirmed the PO for neuro-checks would specify the frequency for assessments and documentation to be completed. The DON stated would follow up and provide additional information. On 10/07/24 at 01:10 PM, the Licensed Nursing Home Administrator (LNHA) and the DON met with the survey team. The DON acknowledged the neuro check assessments were not complete and in-service education was being provided to the nurse about it. On 10/08/24 9:00 AM, the surveyor requested for any policy related to neuro-check assessments. On 10/08/24 at 10:37 AM, the DON stated there was no policy related to neuro-checks found. On 10/08/24 at 12:04 PM, the LNHA and DON met with survey team. The DON stated for education was being provided regarding neuro-checks protocols and they were working to optimize the documentation process. There was no additional information provided by the facility. The surveyor reviewed the facility provided policy titled, Resident Safety Program- Fall Prevention with a last reviewed date of 5/24. The policy did not address neuro-check assessments or protocols. NJAC 8:39-11.2 (b); 27.1 (a)
CONCERN (D)

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

Accident Prevention (Tag F0689)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on observations, interviews, record review and review of other pertinent facility provided documentation, the facility failed to provide appropriate interventions, implement interventions, and e...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observations, interviews, record review and review of other pertinent facility provided documentation, the facility failed to provide appropriate interventions, implement interventions, and ensure that interventions to prevent further falls were documented and monitored for one (1) of three (3) residents, Resident #153, reviewed for incident and accident. This deficient practice was evidenced by the following: On 9/30/24 at 11:29 AM, the surveyor observed Resident #153 was not in their room. The room was observed with a bed alarm on top of the nightstand table and a low bed. The bed had a regular mattress [not specialized]. The surveyor reviewed the medical records of Resident #153 and revealed the following: The Resident Face Sheet (an admission summary) showed that the resident was admitted to the facility with a diagnosis that included but was not limited to Alzheimer's disease unspecified, dementia in other diseases classified elsewhere, muscle weakness (generalized), other sequelae of cerebral infarction (stroke), and repeated falls. A review of the provided Matrix for Providers by the Director of Nursing (DON) showed that the resident was triggered for Alzheimer's dementia and fall. A review of the provided fall investigations by the DON revealed: -3/25/24 at 8:10 AM unwitnessed fall. The Certified Nursing Aide (CNA) found resident in the bathroom sitting up on the floor with back in front of sink. The resident hit head, and complaint (c/o) pain on the left side of the head. -5/11/24 at 10:15 AM unwitnessed fall with no injury. The resident was found lying on the floor, outside the bathroom. -8/04/24 unwitnessed fall with no injury. The resident was found sitting upright by the foot side of the bed. The pad sensor alarm was sounding. Resolution Comment: New intervention: scoop mattress. The most recent Significant Change in status MDS, with an Assessment Reference Date of 6/29/2024, showed that the cognitive skills for daily decision-making were coded #2 which indicated that the resident had moderately impaired cognition. Section J Health Conditions indicated that the resident had a fall incident with no injury. A review of the personalized care plan (CP) revealed a focus on falls with interventions that included the following: -revised, effective date 3/25/24, offer toileting assistance prior to breakfast meal. -revised, effective date 5/11/24, offer toileting assist after breakfast. -active, effective date 8/03/24, scoop mattress as indicated for safety. -resolved, effective date 12/30/22, tab alarm to w/c (wheelchair). Further review of the above CP showed that there was no CP intervention for low bed, bed alarm, and pad sensor. On 10/01/24 at 12:03 PM, the surveyor interviewed the Assistant Director of Nursing (ADON) from Heritage Manor East (HME). Afterward, both the surveyor and the ADON went to resident's room and the surveyor asked the ADON to check if the resident had scoop mattress. The ADON pulled the foot part bedsheet and touched the mattress. The ADON then performed hand hygiene with use of ABHR (alcohol base hand rub) that was inside the resident's room. On that same date and time, outside the resident's room the ADON confirmed that the resident had no scoop mattress, and it was a regular mattress. Furthermore, inside the ADON's office, the surveyor asked the ADON should the fall incidents be in the CP and why the scoop mattress intervention was not followed. The ADON confirmed that the scoop mattress was in the fall CP intervention. The ADON stated that she had to check why the scoop mattress was not in use at the time of observation. She further stated that they did not CP the actual fall but update the current CP for fall interventions. The surveyor notified the ADON of the initial observation on 9/30/24 that the resident had no scoop mattress. On 10/02/24 at 01:13 PM, the survey team met with the Licensed Nursing Home Administrator (LNHA) and DON. The surveyor notified the facility management of the above findings and concerns. On 10/02/24 at 02:03 PM, the surveyor interviewed the DON. The surveyor asked the DON how the facility know and determine that the fall CP interventions were followed and if there were an accountability that the resident was offered toileting before and after breakfast. The DON acknowledged that there was no documented evidence that the resident was offered toileting according to fall interventions. The DON at that time checked the electronic medical records. At that same time, the DON stated that there was no option for the electronic records in the CP to add actual fall as the focus. The DON further stated that what facility can do was to update CP in each fall for new interventions and it was facility's process to update CP for new interventions for each fall. On 10/04/24 at 11:44 AM, the surveyor interviewed the assigned CNA of the resident. The CNA stated that Resident #153 was cognitively impaired had periods of incontinence. The CNA stated that she was unable remember if the resident had history of falls. The surveyor asked the CNA how she would know what kind of assistance and safety precautions the resident had. The CNA stated that it would be available in the kiosk (a small structure in public area used for providing information) where the CNA task and accountability can be found. She further stated that as for her a floater, she relied on the kiosk and nurse's verbal instructions. At that same time, the CNA stated that she was unable to remember if the resident should be with tab alarm. The surveyor and the CNA went to see the resident's mattress, the surveyor asked the CNA what kind of mattress the resident had. The CNA stated that it was not an air mattress, and it was a regular mattress. At that time, the CNA was not able to identify the scoop mattress which was in resident's bed. On 10/04/24 at 01:46 PM, the surveyor notified the DON the concern about tab alarm observed on the 1st day of tour on 9/30/24 on top of the nightstand and the 8/04/24 fall incident investigation that was mentioned about the pad alarm sounding off and that were not included in the active CP interventions. The DON stated that the facility discontinued (d/c) tab alarms before and not sure why it was in the fall incident investigation and why it was in the resident's room on the time the surveyor observed the resident's room. On 10/08/24 at 9:58 AM, the surveyor reviewed and printed out the CNA tab in the electronic medical records that included the aide's accountability and tasks and revealed: The electronic CNA Monitoring under Safety (searched data from December 2023 through October 2024) showed: -4/13/24 at 6:06 PM, changed by admission Nurse/Registered Nurse, and the details were blank. -8/06/24 at 9:38 AM, changed by ADON. Details: Notes changed from non-slip footwear, remind to call for assist to non-slip footwear, remind to call for assist, scoop mattress. -10/03/24 9:41 AM, changed by ADON. Details: Alarms changed from j-wander/elopement alarm to blank. Notes changed from non-slip footwear, remind to call for assist, scoop mattress to offer toileting assist before and after breakfast, non-slip footwear, remind to call for assist, scoop mattress. Further review of the above CNA Monitoring under Safety for the CNAs tasks and accountability revealed that the fall interventions for offering toileting before and after breakfast were entered in the CNAs monitoring for safety not until 10/03/24, which was after surveyor's inquiry. On 10/08/24 at 10:30 AM, the surveyor showed to the DON the history when the CP interventions for fall incidents that happened on 3/25/24 and 5/11/24 for offer toileting before and after breakfast was entered to CNA task for monitoring for safety after surveyor's inquiry which was on 10/03/24. The DON acknowledged the surveyor's concerns about CP interventions entered in the CNAs task after surveyor's inquiry. A review of the facility's Resident Safety Program-Fall Prevention Policy with an effective date of 5/24 that was provided by the DON showed: Policy: All residents who are at risk for falls will be identified through a comprehensive assessment process. This risk will be addressed in the residents individualized treatment plan and be evaluated through the IDC (Interdisciplinary) Process. Procedure: 1. Interventions are implemented based on risk areas identified by the Falls Risk Assessment . 5. Safety devices (Physician Order is required) i.e. tab alarms to chair or bed or both, side rails up or down, self-release safety belt, wedge cushions, antitippers for wheelchairs. On 10/08/24 at 12:25 PM, the survey team met with the LNHA, DON, Medical Director, and the VP (Vice President) of Senior Services for an Exit Conference. The facility management did not provide additional information and did not refute the findings. NJAC 8:39-33.1(d)
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0692 (Tag F0692)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on observation, interview, record review, and review of other pertinent facility provided documentation, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure a.) complete documentation of supple...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, interview, record review, and review of other pertinent facility provided documentation, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure a.) complete documentation of supplemental intake, for residents identified as at risk for malnutrition according to the physician's order and care plan interventions for two (2) of four (4) residents, Residents #90 and #124, and b.) monitored weight according to the physician order for one (1) of four (4) residents, Resident #124, reviewed for nutrition. This deficient practice was evidenced by the following: 1. On 10/03/24 at 10:46 AM, the surveyor observed Resident #90 sitting up in bed, alert and verbally responsive. The resident stated that they would lose weight, gain weight back, and lose weight again. The resident stated recently they had a good appetite and did receive supplement drinks that they usually consumed. The resident had no concerns with their care. The surveyor reviewed the paper and electronic medical record (EMR) of Resident #90. The Resident Face Sheet (FS; a summary of important information about the resident) documented the resident had diagnoses that included but were not limited to, right lower leg fracture, anemia, thalassemia (a blood disorder that occurs when the body doesn't produce enough hemoglobin, a protein in red blood cells that carries oxygen), congestive heart failure, chronic kidney disease, and atrial fibrillation (a heart condition that causes an irregular, often very fast heartbeat). A comprehensive Minimum Data Set (MDS), an assessment tool used to facilitate the management of care, with an assessment reference date (ARD) of 7/11/24, indicated the facility assessed the resident's cognition using a Brief Interview Mental Status (BIMS) test. Resident #90 scored a 11 out of 15, which indicated the resident had moderate cognitive impairment. A physician's order (PO) dated 8/18/24 read, Ensure Plus, one can two times a day as supplement; every day at 10 AM and 7 PM; please record amount taken in monitoring section. A care plan (CP) with a focus that read, at risk for Nutrition/hydration deficits due to the following areas: recent surgery, bowel concerns; at risk for constipation; risk for skin breakdown; edema; characteristics of malnutrition; recent poor by mouth intake for food and fluids. The CP included goal, [Resident] will consume greater than 75% of fluids provided. Interventions included Encourage by mouth fluids and provide nutrient dense supplements Ensure BID [two times a day]. A review of the August 2024 Medication Administration Record (MAR) and the monitoring section for intake documentation in the EMR revealed there was no recorded amount of the ensure supplement consumed by the resident on the following entries: 8/01/24 at 10 AM and 7 PM 8/02/24 at 10 AM 8/03/24 at 10 AM and 7 PM 8/04/24 at 10 AM and 7 PM 8/05/24 at 10 AM 8/06/24 at 10 AM 8/08/24 at 10 AM and 7 PM 8/09/24 at 10 AM 8/10/24 at 10 AM 8/11/24 at 10 AM and 7 PM 8/12/24 at 10 AM 8/14/24 at 10 AM and 7 PM 8/15/24 at 10 AM A review of the September 2024 MAR and the monitoring section for intake documentation in the EMR revealed there was no recorded amount of the ensure supplement consumed by the resident on the following entries: 9/02/24 at 7 PM 9/03/24 at 7 PM 9/07/24 at 10 AM and 7 PM 9/08/24 at 10 AM and 7 PM 9/09/24 at 7 PM 9/11/24 at 7 PM 9/12/24 at 10 AM and 7 PM 9/13/24 at 7 PM 9/14/24 at 10 AM 9/16/24 at 10 AM and 7 PM 9/17/24 at 7 PM 9/18/24 at 10 AM and 7 PM 9/19/24 at 7 PM 9/20/24 at 7 PM 9/21/24 at 7 PM 9/25/24 at 10 AM and 7 PM 9/26/24 at 7 PM 9/27/24 at 7 PM 9/29/24 at 10 AM 9/30/24 at 10 AM and 7 PM A review of the Dietician progress note (PN), dated 8/19/24 indicated the resident had a fair to good appetite, and had significant weight loss during a recent hospitalization. The resident weighed 198 pounds (lbs) on 7/08/24 and 176.8 lbs on 8/17/24, 21 lbs down. The Dietician's recommendations included but were not limited to, provide ensure plus two times a day and to monitor weights, labs (laboratory), by mouth intake and bowel movements. A follow up Dietician PN, dated 9/04/24, revealed the resident had some weight fluctuations, wanted to reduce the Ensure to once a day, and had varying by mouth intake. On 10/03/24 at 10:56 AM, the surveyor interviewed the Registered Nurse (RN) assigned to care for Resident #90. The RN stated the resident's appetite and food intake varied. Additionally, the RN stated the resident's supplement intake varied and they would refuse the supplement sometimes. On that same date and time, the surveyor asked about the documentation of the consumed intake by the resident. The RN confirmed the supplement entry in the MAR would be signed and the amount consumed recorded. The RN further explained when signing the entry, it would prompt the nurse to record the amount consumed. The surveyor asked about the blank entries observed in the MAR. The RN acknowledged it was expected for the supplement amount consumed to be recorded in the EMR and that there were times the resident did not want to drink the supplement at the time administered. The surveyor asked if the resident's intake of the supplement was monitored and recorded later. The RN stated no. On 10/04/24 at 01:10 PM, the surveyor interviewed the Assistant Director of Nursing (ADON) about supplement documentation. The ADON stated the nurse would review the PO in the MAR, administer as ordered and record the amount the resident had consumed. The surveyor discussed the concern for entries identified in the EMR of the supplement amount consumed not be recorded by the nurses. The ADON acknowledged it was expected for the amount consumed to be documented and if it could not be entered at the time of administration a PN could be written by the nurses. On 10/07/24 at 01:10 PM, the surveyor, in the presence of the survey team, notified the Licensed Nursing Home Administrator (LNHA) and the Director of Nursing (DON) of the identified in the EMR of the supplement amount consumed not be recorded by the nurses for a resident at risk for malnutrition. On 10/08/24 at 12:04 PM, the LNHA and the DON met with the survey team. The DON stated nursing staff were in-serviced about the supplement omissions and would continue to monitor to optimize the documentation process. There was no additional information provided by the facility. 2. On 9/30/24 at 11:34 AM, the surveyor observed Resident #124 lying on their air mattress. The resident stated he/she was a picky eater, and aware that had loss some weight. The resident further stated that they were on a supplement to gain weight. On 10/02/24 at 8:30 AM, the surveyor interviewed the resident inside their room. The resident stated that the facility food was okay and had no concerns. The surveyor reviewed the medical records of Resident #124 and revealed: According to the Resident FS, the resident was admitted to the facility with a diagnosis that included but was not limited to hypertensive heart and chronic kidney disease with heart failure and stage 1 through stage 4 chronic kidney disease, anemia (low blood count), anxiety disorder, and dependence on supplemental oxygen. The resident's most recent quarterly MDS (qMDS) with an ARD of 8/13/24 revealed in Section C Cognitive Status with a BIMS score of 14 out of 15 which reflected that resident was cognitively intact. The qMDS Section K Swallowing/Nutritional Status revealed that the resident had a weight loss of 5% or more in the last month or a loss of 10% in the last six months. The personalized CP with a focus on Nutrition with an effective date of 02/10/24 showed the resident's admission weight was 190 lbs. The CP interventions included but were not limited to provide nutrient-dense supplements and provide a selective menu for residents with an effective date of 02/10/24. A review of the PN that was electronically signed by the Registered Dietician (RD) on 9/23/24 showed that Resident #124 had a significant weight loss in the past six months, 39.5 lbs, the appetite was inconsistent, and ensure plus (strawberry) was offered and accepted by the resident. The PN included will continue to monitor intake/weight and intervene as appropriate. Further review of the PN showed that on 9/25/24 the Physician documented on their monthly notes that there was no mention in the conversation of any associated symptoms such as pain, and weight loss. The PN included an assessment and plan: -Diastolic CHF (congestive heart failure): on diuretics torsemide 10 mg (milligrams) once daily, monitor weights and cardiology follow-up outpatient. A review of the September and October 2024 PO revealed: -order date 8/23/24 Ensure plus one can 1 x a day as supplement flavor strawberry at 02:00 PM. Please record the amount taken in monitoring. -02/07/24 Please take daily weight in AM, before breakfast. Protocol: Please record weight in the monitoring section. Monitoring Weight. The above PO for Ensure plus and daily weight were transcribed to the MAR and showed: -September 2024 Ensure: four (4) out of 30 days were administered with 237 ml (milliliters) amount, five (5) out of 30 days coded with an asterisk (not administered), and the rest of the days were blank. -September 2024 Daily weight: two (2) out of 30 days had documentation of the resident's weight, 27 out of 30 days coded as refused, and one (1) out of 30 days was blank. -October 2024 Ensure: 2 out of 2 were blanks. -October 2024 Daily weight: 2 out of 2 were coded refused. Further review of the medical records showed that there was no documented evidence that the Physician was notified of the resident's refusal for daily weight and supplements. There was no documented evidence as to why the supplement and weight were refused and if they were addressed by the clinical team. On 10/03/24 at 10:59 AM, the surveyor interviewed the Team Leader/Registered Nurse (TL/RN) who was at the medication (med) cart for Beach St (street) in Heritage Manor East (HME). The TL/RN informed the surveyor that the supplement Ensure should be in the MAR and the intake amount should be documented in the MAR. The surveyor then notified the TL/RN of the above concerns and findings. At that same time, the surveyor asked the TL/RN what the expectation for nurses was when the resident had multiple refusals to obtain daily weight and the resident's supplement. The TL/RN stated that the nurse should have called the Physician and notify that daily weight was not done or refused as well as the ensure. She also stated that the nurse should document it in the EMR communication with the Physician. On 10/03/24 at 12:32 PM, the survey team met with the LNHA and DON. The surveyor notified the facility management of the above concern and findings. On 10/04/24 at 11:56 AM, the surveyor interviewed the RD in the nursing station of HME. The RD informed the surveyor that she had been working in the facility for four years and that she covered all LTC (Long Term Care) units including HME. While the surveyor and RD reviewing the white binder for weights, the RD stated that the records for weights were the monthly weights that she prepared for each unit and there was no separate list for daily weights, and it was the nurses who entered the daily weights. She further stated that the process for monthly weights, I put a list collected by the 6th of the month, I review who needs to reweigh and complete the reweigh. The RD also stated that everything should be completed including the reweigh on the 10th of the month. On that same date and time, the RD informed the surveyor that the weight meeting was every 3rd of the week of the month. She stated that a significant weight loss of 5% in a month and 10% weight loss in 6 months weight loss of body weight then intervention provided. She further stated that she verbally follows up on how the resident takes supplements like Ensure or Glucerna. The RD also stated that I do not check the record or staff input of the intake, I don't know where to see and check them. At that same time, the surveyor asked how you know and follow up on the intervention if they were effective, and the RD stated, I don't know where to look. The surveyor also asked about the daily weight and how do you know it was being done. The RD stated, I don't order the daily weights, usually they order that daily weights in PACU (Post-acute care unit) specifically for CHF residents, and when the resident transitioned to LTC I usually recommend to discontinue (d/c) the order for daily weight. At that time, the surveyor notified the RD of the above concerns with Resident#124. The surveyor asked the RD if she recommended d/c the daily weight of the resident, and the RD stated, I can not answer that. On 10/07/24 at 01:09 PM, the survey team met with the LNHA and DON. The DON stated that I could only move forward with concerns with Resident#124. The facility did not provide additional information. On 10/08/24 at 12:04 PM, the survey team met with the LNHA and DON. The DON stated that from the clinical discussion, we had about the supplement, we did education and continually did tight audits. The DON stated that we talked about the omission to the MAR which we continually educate staff and auditing acuities. A review of the facility's High Calorie/High Protein Supplements Policy with an effective date of 01/24 that was provided by the DON revealed: Purpose: To provide supplemental caloric support to at risk residents. Procedure: A. Amount of supplement and frequency will be determined through nutrition assessment based on individual needs. B. All commercial medical food supplements will be ordered or approved by a physician or designee. C. Nursing staff will supervise the delivery and consumption of all supplements and record them appropriately in the MAR. D. Supplement acceptance will be documented in the progress notes, care plans, and assessments as appropriate A review of the facility's Weight Taking and Review Policy with an effective date of 01/24 that was provided by the DON showed: Policy: Residents will be weighed on a monthly basis unless more frequent monitoring is indicated. These weights will be reviewed for trending or significant changes with the IDC (Interdisciplinary) Team monthly. Procedure: D. The wing weight sheets will have specific dates for weighing residents J. Weighing intervals more often than monthly should be ordered for specified time periods and will be supervised by the wing nurse and recorded on the MAR for those specific time frames. These weights will be reviewed by the RD as per weighing interval and reported at the IDC meeting. K. All resident weights will be entered into the resident's medical record by the Nutrition Services or Nursing designee into the monitoring section of electronic medical records On 10/08/24 at 12:25 PM, the survey team met with the LNHA, DON, Medical Director, and the VP (Vice President) of Senior Services for an Exit Conference. The facility management did not provide additional information and did not refute the findings. NJAC 8:39-17.1(c), 17.2(d), 27.1(a)
CONCERN (D)

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

Tube Feeding (Tag F0693)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on observation, interview, and record review, it was determined that the facility failed to monitor enteral tube feeding administration to assure the total volume administered was in accordance ...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, interview, and record review, it was determined that the facility failed to monitor enteral tube feeding administration to assure the total volume administered was in accordance with physician's orders. This deficient practice was identified for two (2) of two (2) residents (Residents #157 and #230), reviewed for enteral tube feeding. This deficient practice was evidenced by the following: During an initial tour on 9/30/24 at 11:48 AM, Surveyor #1 (S#1) observed Resident #157 in bed, with their head of bed elevated. The surveyor observed there was a tube feeding (TF) pump and a pistol syringe hung on the pole, which was inside a plastic bag. The resident was not receiving TF at that time. On 10/03/24 at 11:07 AM, Surveyor #2 (S#2) observed Resident #157 sitting in chair. The surveyor observed the TF pump next to resident's chair. The resident was not receiving TF at the time. S#2 reviewed the paper and electronic medical record of Resident #157: The Resident Face Sheet (RFS; an admission summary) reflected that Resident #157 was admitted to the facility with diagnoses which included but was not limited to: Acute respiratory failure (a condition where there's not enough oxygen) with hypercapnia (too much carbon dioxide in your body), history of pneumonia (an infection of the air sacs of one or both lungs), anemia (deficiency of red blood cells), gastrostomy (a surgical procedure to make a hole into the stomach through the abdomen to insert a TF into the stomach), and dysphagia (difficulty in swallowing). A review of the Quarterly Minimum Data Set (QMDS), an assessment tool used to facilitate the management of care, with an assessment reference date (ARD) of 7/27/2024, the resident had a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of 10, indicating that the resident had a moderate impaired cognition. In Section K, Resident #157 was coded as receiving nutrition through a TF while a resident. A physician's order (PO) with a start date of 9/19/24 read: TF method with pump via PRN (as needed) tub: Nutren 1.5 stop enteral feedings when 1000 ml (milliliter) is delivered; stop time: 9 AM. The above PO for TF Nutren 1.5 was transcribed to the September 2024 Medication Administration Record (MAR). Further review of MAR revealed that the resident was delivered 1600 ml on 9/03/24 and 1900 ml of enteral feedings on 9/12/24, 9/20/24, 9/24/24, and 9/26/24. A review of the PO dated 8/01/24 revealed an order for Jevity 1.2 stop enteral feedings until 1350 ml is delivered; stop time 9 AM. The above PO for Jevity 1.2 was transcribed to the August 2024 MAR. Further review of the August 2024 MAR revealed that the resident was delivered 1450 ml on 8/03/24, 1720 ml on 8/05/24, and 2450 ml on 8/06/24. Another PO dated of 8/06/24 for Nutren 1.5 stop enteral feedings when 1000 ml is delivered; stop time: 8 AM. The above PO for Nutren 1.5 on 8/06/24 was transcribed to the August 2024 MAR. Further review of MAR revealed that the resident was delivered 2100 ml on 8/07/24, 8/09/24 and 8/11/24. Resident was delivered 1100 ml on 8/15/24, 500 ml on 8/20/24, 100 ml on 8/21/24 and 1600 ml on 8/29/24. A review of PO dated 3/05/24 showed an order of Nepro stop enteral feedings until 1000 ml is delivered; stop time: 8 AM. The above order for 3/05/24 Nepro was transcribed to the July 2024 MAR. Further review of MAR revealed that the resident was delivered 0 ml on 7/01/24, 650 ml on 7/15/24, 100 ml on 7/21/24, 1400 ml on 7/22/24 and 1500 ml on 7/23/24. Further review of the above PO and MARs revealed that the PO for TF total volume to be administered was not followed. During an interview with S#2 on 10/07/24 at 10:26 AM, Licensed Practical Nurse #1 (LPN#1) stated that she would check PO for amount of total volume that would be delivered to the resident. The surveyor reviewed the July, August, and September 2024 MARs with LPN#1 and the LPN acknowledged that the Resident #157 should not have received more than what the physician had ordered. S#2 and LPN#1 checked the TF pump to look at the history of total volume the resident received during the previous shift and the total volume displayed 0 on the feeding pump screen. On 10/07/24 at 10:46 AM, S#2 interviewed Team Leader/Registered Nurse #1 (TL/RN#1) about the TF administration and total volume documentation. TL/RN#1 reviewed the PO in the presence of S#2 and stated, this order is clear, it said stop enteral feedings when 1000 ml is delivered. TL/RN#1 acknowledged that it was not acceptable that the resident received wrong total volume of tube feeding than ordered by the physician. On 10/07/24 at 12:21 PM, S#2 interviewed Registered Dietician #1 (RD#1) about TF administration and total volume documentation. RD#1 stated I am assuming the residents are receiving the prescribed amount of TF. RD#1 acknowledged that she did not review the MARs for Resident #157. S#2 reviewed the July, August, and September 2024 MARs with RD#1 and she could not speak as to why the documented amount of TF was incorrect. On 10/07/24 at 01:09 PM, S#2, in the presence of the survey team, notified the Director of Nursing (DON) and Licensed Nursing Home Administrator (LNHA) of the above concerns regarding the incorrect amount of total volume Resident #157 received upon completion of their feeding. On 10/08/24 at 12:05 PM, the survey team met with DON and LNHA. The DON stated the staff received in-service and education about total volume documentation. The DON did not provide any additional information. 2. On 9/30/24 at 11:27 AM, Surveyor #3 (S#3) observed Resident #230 lying in bed with the head of bed elevated, eyes open, and non-verbal. The resident was receiving an enteral feeding (a way of delivering nutrition directly to the stomach or small intestine) which was running at 55 milliliters/hour (ml/hr) on the TF pump. The surveyor reviewed the paper and electronic medical record of Resident #230. The RFS documented the resident had diagnoses that included but were not limited to, metabolic encephalopathy (brain disorder caused by a chemical imbalance in the blood that affects brain function), dysphagia, acute respiratory failure, and epilepsy (a chronic brain disorder that causes seizures). The QMDS with an ARD of 8/07/24, indicated the facility assessed the resident's cognition using a BIMS test. Resident #230 scored a 0 out of 15, which indicated the resident had severe cognitive impairment. In Section K (Swallowing/Nutritional Status), Resident #230 was coded as receiving nutrition through a TF while a resident. A PO with a start date of 9/04/2024 read, NPO [nothing by mouth] TF method with pump via PEG tube; Jevity 1.5 administer at 55 ml/hr until total volume of 1100 ml/day is delivered; start at 4 PM. A review of the September 2024 MAR revealed there was no documentation of when the TF was completed or the total volume of feeding the resident had received daily. A review of Resident #230's weight history did not present any significant weight loss in the last month. On 10/02/24 at 10:59 AM, S#3 interviewed LPN#2 about TF care and documentation. LPN#2 stated that TF was administered per the PO which would be found in the MAR. The MAR entry included the type of feeding to administer, the feeding rate, and for how long it was to run. LPN#2 confirmed the nurses would sign the MAR entry when the TF was started. The surveyor asked LPN#2 asked about the nurse documentation for when the resident received the total volume, and the feeding was completed. LPN#2 stated it could be written in the progress note (PN) that the feeding was completed. On 10/02/24 at 11:06 AM, S#3 interviewed Team Leader/Registered Nurse #2 (TL/RN#2) about TF administration and total volume documentation. TL/RN#2 stated the nurses were to review the MAR for the feeding order for the time and the total volume to be infused. S#3 asked TL/RN#2 about the documentation for the total volume received by the resident and when the administered feeding was removed. TL/RN#2 stated that the total volume was indicated with the TF order entry. On 10/02/24 at 11:13 AM, S#3 interviewed the Assistant Director of Nursing (ADON) about TF administration and total volume documentation. The ADON stated the nurses were to check the PO and administer the TF as ordered. S#3 asked the ADON about the documentation of the total volume of feeding infused and completion of the feeding. The ADON stated the nurses could document in their PN. On 10/02/24 at 11:32 AM, S#3 reviewed with the ADON the September 2024 MAR's TF entry for Resident #230. The ADON explained the nurses would sign the entry when the TF was administered and the box underneath the signed entry would document the total volume to be given to the resident. A review of the nurse PN revealed, one nurse had documented the time the feeding was completed for the resident on 9/04/24, 9/05/24, 9/07/24, 9/08/24, 9/09/24, 9/11/24, and 9/12/24. There was no additional documentation found. On 10/02/24 at 12:02 PM, S#3 interviewed Registered Dietician #2 (RD#2) about residents receiving TF. RD#2 stated the total volume the resident was to receive would be documented in the MAR and the pump was set by the nurses to deliver the specified amount and would shut off when it was completed. She stated she would be notified by the nurses if there were any significant changes with the resident. RD#2 could not speak further to the required documentation by the nurses. On 10/02/24 at 01:15 PM, S#3, in the presence of the survey team, notified the DON and the LNHA of the above concerns regarding the documentation of the total volume the resident received upon completion of their feeding. S#3 asked about nurse documentation with TF administration and if there should be documentation for the total volume of feeding the resident received. The DON did not provide a verbal response and that stated she would review to provide further information. On 10/03/24 at 9:30 AM, the DON provided the surveyor documentation from another resident receiving TF which revealed there were two separate entries for when the feeding was to be administered and another for when the feeding was completed. The DON further explained for the entry for when the feeding was completed the nurse would document the total volume the resident received. The ADON acknowledged that Resident #230's MAR should have also had a second entry to indicate the feeding was completed and documentation of the total feeding volume received. A review of the facility provided policy titled Enteral Feeding and Accidental Tube Displacement, with an effective date of 02/24. Under Procedure, I. Enteral Feedings: A. Preparation: 1. Verify PO. III. Additional Nursing Care/Responsibilities/Documentation it read: .2. Document amount of residual, type and amount of feeding administered, amount of water administered as a flush, and resident/patient tolerance of procedure . On 10/08/24 at 12:25 PM, the survey team met with LNHA, DON, Medical Director, and [NAME] President (VP) of Senior Services for an Exit Conference. The facility did not refute the findings. NJAC 8:39-25.2(c)2; 27.1 (a)
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0697 (Tag F0697)

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 ensure a resident's routine pain level assessment was being co...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, interview, record review, and review of pertinent facility documents, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure a resident's routine pain level assessment was being completed and documented according to the facility's policy and standards of practice. This deficient practice was identified for one (1) of one (1) resident reviewed for pain management (Resident #253), and was evidenced by the following: Reference: New Jersey Statutes Annotated, Title 45. Chapter 11. Nursing Board. The Nurse Practice Act for the State of New Jersey states: The practice of nursing as a registered professional nurse is defined as diagnosing and treating human responses to actual and potential physical and emotional health problems, through such services as case-finding, health teaching, health counseling, and provision of care supportive to or restorative of life and wellbeing, and executing medical regimens as prescribed by a licensed or otherwise legally authorized physician or dentist. On 9/30/24 at 10:18 AM, the surveyor observed Resident #253 lying in bed, alert and verbally responsive. The resident reported they had pain to a wound on their backside. The resident stated the wound was being treated and could not verbalize anything they would receive for pain. On 10/01/24 at 10:40 AM, the surveyor observed Resident #253 lying in bed, alert and verbally responsive. The resident stated that they had pain and reported to the nurse who had changed their wound dressing. The resident also explained that they repositioned while in bed for comfort. The resident was asked if they were offered anything else for their pain, such as pain medication (med). The resident stated Yes .but I don't want it. On 10/01/24 at 10:44 AM, the surveyor interviewed the Registered Nurse (RN) assigned to care for Resident #253. The RN stated the resident was alert with periods of forgetfulness and able to communicate their needs. The RN further stated the resident did occasionally have complaints of pain, usually to the backside area at a pain level from 2 to 3. The RN explained the resident had as needed (PRN) pain med orders, didn't like taking pain med, and won't take anything stronger than Tylenol if the did agree to take med. At that same time, the RN stated the resident also had a lidocaine patch order which previously was routine, but the resident refused at times. The surveyor asked about non-pharmacological interventions for the resident. The RN stated they would reposition the resident, encourage the resident to get out of the bed during the day, and had a pressure relieving device for the resident's chair. The RN further explained that a specialized air mattress was provided for the resident, the resident did not like it and refused the air mattress. On 10/01/24 at 11:46 AM, the surveyor interviewed the RN about pain assessment protocol. The RN stated when giving a PRN pain med, the pain level would need to be documented in the MAR at the time of administration and upon follow up for the pain med's effectiveness. She stated it could also be documented in a progress note (PN), and there was a weekly pain assessment documentation that could be completed. The surveyor reviewed the hybrid (paper and electronic) medical records of Resident #253. The Resident Face Sheet (a summary of important information about the resident) documented that the resident had diagnoses that included but were not limited to, dementia, spondylosis (degeneration of the bones and disks in the neck), dorsalgia (pain in the back), anxiety, and type 2 diabetes mellitus. A comprehensive Minimum Data Set (MDS), an assessment used to facilitate the management of care, dated 9/04/24, indicated the facility assessed the resident's cognition using a Brief Interview Mental Status (BIMS) test. Resident #253 scored a 09 out of 15, which indicated the resident had moderate cognitive impairment. Under Section J- Health Conditions, it documented the resident had not received any schedule or PRN pain med during the look back (review) period. A physician's order (PO) dated 9/03/2024 read, acetaminophen 325 mg (milligram) tablet, give 2 tablets (650 mg) by oral route every 6 hours PRN for mild pain. A PO dated 9/03/2024 read, tramadol 50 mg tablet, give 1 tablet (50 mg) by oral route once daily PRN for moderate to severe pain. A PO dated 9/25/24 read, lidocaine 5% topical patch, apply 1 patch by transdermal route once daily PRN lower back pain. There were no PO for pain assessment and monitoring. Under monitoring in the electronic medical record (EMR), a review of the pain level monitoring revealed two entries on 9/06/24 and 9/26/24 in which the resident had a pain level of 3 of 10 (0 representing no pain to 10 representing the worst possible pain). There were no other entries. A review of the September 2024 Medication Administration Record (MAR) revealed the resident received PRN Tylenol on 9/06/24 and 9/26/24 for a documented numeric pain level, 3 out of 10. Additional review of the MAR revealed the resident had not been administered PRN tramadol or the PRN lidocaine patch. The resident also previously had a routine order for a lidocaine patch once daily, from 9/03/24 to 9/25/24 in which the resident had refused the med for 12 of the 22 days. A review of the resident's care plans (CP) included a CP with the focus of skin integrity. The CP for skin integrity related to the resident's sacral wound which was dated 9/16/24. An intervention dated 9/16/24 read, Monitor for signs and symptoms of pain and medicate as needed and as ordered. On 10/01/24 at 11:57 AM, the surveyor requested from the Licensed Nursing Home Administrator (LNHA) a policy regarding pain and pain assessment. On 10/02/24 at 11:06 AM, the surveyor interviewed the Registered Nurse/Team Leader (RN/TL) about pain assessment protocol. The RN/TL stated it was expected for residents to be assessed for pain at least every shift and PRN. The surveyor asked about the nurse documentation of pain assessments. The RN/TL stated pain assessment would be documented upon giving a resident pain med and could be written PRN/per episode in a PN. On 10/02/24 at 01:15 PM, the surveyor, in the presence of the survey team, notified the Director of Nursing (DON) and the LNHA of the concern that there was no routine pain assessment documented for Resident #253. The surveyor asked the DON about the facility's protocol. The DON stated a weekly pain assessment should be completed especially if the resident had orders for pain meds. The DON further stated there was an active Quality Assurance Performance Initiative (QAPI) on pain assessment in progress. On 10/03/24 at 12:32 PM, the DON and the LNHA met with the survey team. The DON provided the QAPI for pain assessment. The DON acknowledged there was no weekly pain assessment found for Resident #253 and that there should have been a routine pain assessment for the resident. A review of the facility provided policy titled, Pain Management-Senior Care Division with an effective date of 7/24 read under Procedure: A. Pain is assessed by the nurse on all residents/patient's condition and self-reporting of pain .E. Each patient is reassessed for pain at regular intervals . NJAC 8:39-27.1 (a)
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0698 (Tag F0698)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on observation, interview, record review, and review of pertinent facility documentation, it was determined that the facility failed to provide care and services in accordance with professional ...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, interview, record review, and review of pertinent facility documentation, it was determined that the facility failed to provide care and services in accordance with professional standards clinical practice with regards to: a.) clarify and follow a physician's order (PO) for midodrine medication, and b) document the consumed fluid intake for a resident with a PO for fluid restrictions. This deficient practice was observed for one (1) of one (1) resident reviewed for dialysis care and services, Resident #188. This deficient practice was evidenced by the following: Reference: New Jersey Statutes Annotated, Title 45. Chapter 11. Nursing Board. The Nurse Practice Act for the State of New Jersey states: The practice of nursing as a registered professional nurse is defined as diagnosing and treating human responses to actual and potential physical and emotional health problems, through such services as case-finding, health teaching, health counseling, and provision of care supportive to or restorative of life and wellbeing, and executing medical regimens as prescribed by a licensed or otherwise legally authorized physician or dentist. Reference: New Jersey Statutes Annotated, Title 45, Chapter 11. Nursing Board. The Nurse Practice Act for the State of New Jersey states: The practice of nursing as a licensed practical nurse is defined as performing tasks and responsibilities within the framework of case finding; reinforcing the patient and family teaching program through health teaching, health counseling, and provision of supportive and restorative care, under the direction of a registered nurse or licensed or otherwise legally authorized physician or dentist. On 10/03/24 at 10:38 AM, the surveyor observed Resident #188 was not in their room. The resident was at hemodialysis (HD; process of filtering blood due to kidney was not functioning as should be) which was scheduled every Tuesday, Thursday, and Saturday. The surveyor reviewed the paper and electronic medical record (EMR) of Resident #188. The Resident Face Sheet (a summary of important information about the resident) documented the resident had diagnoses that included but were not limited to, End stage renal disease, and dependence on renal [kidney] dialysis. A comprehensive Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment, a tool to facilitate the management of care, dated 7/25/24, indicated the facility assessed the resident's cognition using a Brief Interview Mental Status (BIMS) test. Resident #188 scored a 15 out of 15, which indicated the resident was cognitively intact. A PO dated 8/27/24 read, Dialysis every Tuesday/Thursday/Saturday at [HD Center Name, phone number and address], chair time 10:30 AM. A PO dated 8/27/24 read, Fluid Restriction: 1000 ml (milliliters) per day; Nursing allotment: 280 ml (120 ml with each 7-3 and 3-11 for meds (medications); 40 ml on 11-7 for meds); Dietary allotment: 720 ml; Nursing to monitor and record all fluid taken at meals/snacks/medication pass per shift and enter ml into monitoring section of [EMR]. A PO dated 8/27/24 read FYI [For your information] please document if PRN [as needed] midodrine is utilized at HD .every day at 7:00 AM-3:00 PM; 3:00 PM -11:00 PM A PO with a start date of 9/19/24 read midodrine 5 mg (milligram) tablet (tab) . give 1 tablet (5 mg) by oral route 3 times per week PRN For B/P [blood pressure] below 90/50 and hold for SBP (systolic blood pressure) >130 PLEASE SEND IN A BOTTLE TO HD .every 3 weeks on Tuesday; Thursday; Saturday at 9:00 AM A review of September 2024 Medication Administration Record (MAR) revealed the following: The above midodrine (a medication to treat low B/P) 5 mg medication (med) order was scheduled for 9 AM in which the nurses signed on 9/24/24 and 9/26/24 that the resident was administered the med. A discontinued order entry in the MAR with a start date of 8/27/24 read, midodrine 5 mg tab . give 1 tab (5 mg) by oral route 3 times per week PRN For B/P below 90/50 and hold for SBP >130 PLEASE SEND IN A BOTTLE .and it was scheduled as PRN. The medication was documented as administered on 9/5/24 at 8:59 AM. The above fluid restriction PO was scheduled for every shift. On the following days there was no documented amount for the resident's fluid intake: 9/2/24 on 3-11 shift, 9/3/24 on 7-3 shift, 9/8/24 on 11-7 shift, 9/11/24 on 3-11 shift, and 9/21/24 on 7-3 shift. A care plan with a focus of HD, dated 7/26/24 included the following interventions: Fluid Restriction: 1000 ml per day; Nursing allotment: 280 ml (120 ml with each 7-3 and 3-11 for meds; 40 ml on 11-7 for meds); Dietary allotment: 720 ml; Nursing to monitor and record all fluid taken at meals/snacks/med pass per shift and enter ml into monitoring section of [EMR]. Document if PRN midodrine is utilized at HD. Administer med as ordered. On 10/04/24 at 12:40 PM, the surveyor interviewed the registered nurse (RN) assigned to care for Resident #188. The RN stated that it was expected for fluid intake of the resident to be documented every shift and a note written for any episodes of non-compliance by the resident. The RN acknowledged that entries on the MAR should not be left blank. The surveyor asked about the resident's midodrine med. The RN stated the midodrine med was sent with the resident to HD and the resident would receive midodrine in HD PRN. The RN further explained it was to be documented by the nurses if the resident received the med at HD. The surveyor asked if the resident was to receive midodrine in the facility or only at HD. The RN stated if the resident's B/P was low before HD, the resident may receive midodrine, the physician would be made aware, and it would be written on the HD communication form that was sent with the resident. The RN showed the surveyor a countdown sheet for the midodrine med in a prescription bottle for Resident #188. The countdown sheet was for the HD nurse to sign when the med was given to the resident at HD. The RN provided the surveyor with Resident #188's HD communication binder. On 10/04/24 at 12:51 PM, the surveyor reviewed the HD communication binder for Resident #188 which included HD communication forms. The HD communication forms included two sections to be completed. The first section was to be filled by the facility nurse before the resident left for HD. The nurse would have to write the date, pre-HD weight, B/P, temperature and pulse and any concerns to be communicated to the HD center. The second section was to be completed by the HD center nurse after the resident completed HD. The dialysis nurse was to write the post HD weight, B/P, temperature, and pulse and any recommendations/concerns from the HD center. A HD communication form dated 9/05/24 revealed the resident received midodrine 5 mg prior to HD by the facility nurse and the physician was made aware. A HD communication forms dated 9/10/24 indicated the resident received midodrine 5 mg at 9 AM prior to going to HD by the facility nurse. A HD communication forms dated 9/19/24 indicated the resident received midodrine 5 mg at 8:58 AM prior to going to HD by the facility nurse. On 10/04/24 at 01:10 PM, the surveyor interviewed the Assistant Director of Nursing (ADON) about fluid restriction documentation. The ADON stated it was expected for the nurses to document for residents on fluid restrictions every shift and MAR entries should not be left blank. The surveyor informed the ADON of the concern of the missing entries found for fluid restriction monitoring in the MAR. The ADON stated she would review and provide any additional information. At that same time, the surveyor notified the ADON about the concern for the midodrine med order for Resident #188. The DON stated that the resident was to receive the med at HD as needed for low B/P. The ADON could not speak to if the resident was to receive midodrine med at the facility prior to HD or only at the HD center. The ADON stated she would have to review the resident's PO and MAR to provide additional information. On 10/04/24 at 02:30 PM, the surveyor notified the Director of Nursing (DON) about the concern for the resident's midodrine order. The DON stated she was aware the midodrine was sent with the resident to HD, to treat low B/P. The DON could not speak further to the midodrine med order and would review Resident #188's medical record to provide additional information. On 10/07/24 at 01:10 PM, the surveyor, in the presence of the survey team, notified the Licensed Nursing Home Administrator (LNHA) and the DON of the above concern for the midodrine med order for Resident #188. The DON stated the midodrine order was clarified to reflect for the med to be sent with the resident to HD and for it to be documented that the med was given at HD. There was additional information provided by the facility. A review of the facility's policy titled Dialysis Policy, last revised 10/23, under Procedure it read: .2. Any concerns will be documented in communication book by [the facility] and the HD center for each facility to review .10. The nurse will follow the PO for vital signs, nutrition, weight and fluid needs .12. Fluid restriction will be monitored. As per our policy . 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

Deficiency F0725 (Tag F0725)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** 2. Surveyor #2 (S#2) reviewed Resident #513's closed EMR which revealed the following: The RFS documented that the resident had ...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** 2. Surveyor #2 (S#2) reviewed Resident #513's closed EMR which revealed the following: The RFS documented that the resident had diagnoses that included but were not limited to, displaced intertrochanteric fracture of right femur (a type of hip fracture), essential hypertension (high blood pressure), depression. On 10/03/24 at 9:30 AM, the LNHA provided the requested reports titles Alarm Average Response Time Report (Call Bell Report) for rooms 332-D and 349-W for the dates 12/19/24 to 01/01/24. S#2 reviewed the Call Bell Report which revealed the following: For room [ROOM NUMBER]-D, the section Report Detail reflected the following times and dates: 12/31/23 at 06:26 PM response time 33 mins and 22 secs 12/29/23 at 08:15 PM response time 27 mins and 42 secs 12/29/23 at 02:08 PM response time 19 mins and 03 secs 12/28/23 at 08:15 PM response time 24 mins and 41 secs 12/24/23 at 06:03 PM response time 54 mins and 03 secs For room [ROOM NUMBER]-W, the section Report Detail reflected the following times and dates: 01/01/24 at 11:00 PM response time 46 mins and 25 secs 01/01/24 at 05:41 PM response time 16 mins and 29 secs 01/01/24 at 02:08 PM response time 23 mins and 05 secs 01/02/24 at 09:36 AM response time 81 mins and 46 secs On 10/04/24 at 12:47 PM, S#2 interviewed the DON in the presence of the survey team. The DON stated that call bell issues were resolved in real time. Any outlier reports were addressed to determine the cause. The DON also stated that some long call times were caused by the call bell not being shut off when the resident was assisted. The DON did not provide any supportive documentation. The facility did not provide any further pertinent information. 3. A review of New Jersey Department of Health Long Term Care Assessment and Survey Program Nurse Staffing Report for the one-week period beginning 12/24/2023 and ending 12/30/2023 revealed the facility was not in compliance with the State of New Jersey minimum staffing requirements for residents on 6 of 7 day shifts as follows: -12/24/23 had 29 CNAs for 268 residents on the day shift, required at least 33 CNAs. -12/25/23 had 31 CNAs for 268 residents on the day shift, required at least 33 CNAs. -12/26/23 had 30 CNAs for 268 residents on the day shift, required at least 33 CNAs. -12/27/23 had 30 CNAs for 268 residents on the day shift, required at least 33 CNAs. -12/29/23 had 29 CNAs for 268 residents on the day shift, required at least 33 CNAs. -12/30/23 had 30 CNAs for 270 residents on the day shift, required at least 33 CNAs. On 10/08/24 at 01:00 PM, the survey team met with the LNHA and DON. Surveyor #3 (S#3) notified the facility management of the above concerns for staffing. There was no additional information provided by the facility. NJAC 8:39-25.2(a,b) COMPLAINT #: NJ170023 and NJ172045 Based on interview, record review, and review of pertinent facility documentation, it was determined the facility failed to ensure sufficient nursing staff and ensure call bells were answered timely without waiting a long period of time for two (2) of (2) two residents (Residents #463 and #513). This deficient practice was evidenced by the following: 1. Surveyor #1 (S#1) reviewed the Alarm Average Response Time Report for Heritage Manor [NAME] 327-336 bed, from 02/20/24-3/15/24 for Resident #463, who was admitted to room [ROOM NUMBER]W. For room [ROOM NUMBER]-W, the section under Report Detail reflected the following dates and response times (>15 minutes): 3/14/24 at 05:15 PM response time was 17 minutes (mins) and 32 seconds (secs) 3/12/24 at 10:17 PM response time was 18 mins and 19 secs 3/12/24 at 09:51 PM response time was 23 mins and 11 secs 3/11/24 at 11:19 PM response time was 16 mins and 21 secs 3/10/24 at 10:46 PM response time was 24 mins and 58 secs 3/10/24 at 06:55 PM response time was 22 mins and 22 secs 3/09/24 at 09:24 PM response time was 19 mins and 01 secs 3/08/24 at 03:10 PM response time was 15 mins and 51 secs 3/06/24 at 06:59 AM response time was 24 mins and 22 secs 3/05/24 at 07:26 PM response time was 24 mins and 58 secs 3/05/24 at 11:08 AM response time was 54 mins and 26 secs 3/03/24 at 04:23 PM response time was 24 mins and 20 secs 3/03/24 at 03:44 AM response time was 48 mins and 48 secs 2/27/24 at 04:36 PM response time was 16 mins and 50 secs 2/23/24 at 09:16 PM response time was 78 mins and 59 secs S#1 reviewed Resident #463's closed electronic medical records (EMR) which revealed the following: A review of Resident Face Sheet (RFS; an admission summary) reflected that Resident #463 was admitted to the facility with diagnoses which included but was not limited to: limitation of activities due to disability, pleural effusion (is a collection of fluid around lungs), non-Hodgkin lymphoma (a type of cancer that begins in lymphatic system, which is part of the body's germ-fighting immune system), and squamous cell carcinoma (a common type of skin cancer from squamous cells) of skin of scalp and neck. A review of the comprehensive Minimum Data Set (MDS), an assessment tool used to facilitate the management of care, with an assessment reference date (ARD) of 02/27/2024, reflected that Resident #463 had a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of 10, indicating that the resident had a moderate impaired cognition. On 10/03/24 at 12:31 PM, the survey team met with Director of Nursing (DON) and the Licensed Nursing Home Administrator (LNHA). S#1 notified the facility management of the above concerns and findings about call bell response time as mentioned above.
CONCERN (D)

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

Drug Regimen Review (Tag F0756)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

REPEAT DEFICIENCY Based on interviews, record review, and a review of pertinent facility documents, it was determined that the facility failed to identify the irregularity with regard to the physician...

Read full inspector narrative →
REPEAT DEFICIENCY Based on interviews, record review, and a review of pertinent facility documents, it was determined that the facility failed to identify the irregularity with regard to the physician's order for one (1) of 38 residents, Resident #12 reviewed for medication in accordance with facility's practice and policy. This deficient practice was evidenced by the following: On 9/30/24 at 11:46 AM, Surveyor #1 (S#1) observed Resident #12 inside their room near the door seated in a wheelchair. The surveyor reviewed the medical records of Resident #12 and revealed: According to the Resident Face Sheet (an admission summary), the resident was admitted to the facility with diagnoses that included but were not limited to Barrette's esophagus without dysplasia (a change in the cellular structure of your esophagus [a tubular, elongated organ of the digestive system which connects the pharynx to the stomach] lining), gastro-esophageal reflux disease without esophagitis (a type of GERD that does not involve inflammation of the esophagus), and heartburn (burning pain or discomfort in the upper chest and midchest, possibly involving the neck and throat, that may worsen when lying down). The most recent comprehensive Minimum Data Set (MDS), an assessment tool used to facilitate the management of care, with an assessment reference date (ARD) of 7/04/24 revealed a brief interview for mental status (BIMS) score of 14 out of 15 which indicated that resident was cognitively intact. A review of the September and October 2024 Physician's Order (PO) revealed: -order date 8/31/24 for Florastor (a probiotic, or friendly bacteria, to prevent the growth of harmful bacteria in the stomach and intestines) 250 mg (milligram) cap (capsule) give one (1) cap by oral route every 12 hours as needed (PRN) for loose stool. The above order for Florastor was transcribed to the September and October 2024 Medication Administration Record (MAR), plotted at 9:00 AM and 9:00 PM and signed by nurses as administered routinely. A review of the Pharmacy Progress Notes (PN) dated 8/05/24 and 9/03/24 showed that Consultant Pharmacist #1 (CP#1) did not identify the irregularity for the PO Florastor PRN and the nurses signed the MAR as administered routinely for 9:00 AM and 9:00 PM. A review of the August and September 2024 Electronic Pharmacist Information Consultant reports (white binder) showed that CP#1 did not identify the irregularity for the PRN order of Florastor. On 10/01/24 at 12:17 PM, S#1 interviewed the Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN). The surveyor asked the LPN about the PO for Florastor, and the LPN stated that the order should have been clarified because the medication (med) should be given routinely and not PRN. On 10/02/24 at 10:45 AM, Surveyor #2 (S#2) interviewed CP#2 in the presence of two other surveyors. CP#2 stated for the Florastor order, the CP would at minimum ask to clarify the order if it was PRN or standing. CP#2 further stated that the Florastor not usually PRN, should be one way or another or have MD (Medical Doctor) document rationale if used as PRN. On 10/02/24 at 01:13 PM, the survey team met with the Licensed Nursing Home Administrator (LNHA) and the Director of Nursing (DON). The surveyor notified the facility management of the above concerns and findings. On 10/03/24 at 12:32 PM, the survey team met with LNHA and DON. The DON stated that the order for PRN Florastor should be scheduled routinely for 9 AM and 9 PM. A review of the facility's Medication Management Policy with an effective date of 01/24 that was provided by the DON revealed: Purpose: To provide effective and safe Med Management processes related to the planning selection/procurement, storage, ordering, preparing/dispensing, administration, monitoring, and evaluation of med management systems. The med management system is based on the care, services, and treatment that is provided to our patients. Policy: It is the facility's policy to address the med management needs of patients safely and effectively. Procedure: A. Transcription and Processing of Physician Orders 1. Transcription and processing of PO is a critical element in assuring that clients receive correct medications, treatments, and tests. 3. Acceptable types of orders: a. PRN orders-orders acted upon based on the occurrence of a specific indication or symptom . On 10/08/24 at 12:25 PM, the survey team met with the LNHA, DON, Medical Director, and the VP (Vice President) of Senior Services for an Exit Conference. The facility management did not provide additional information and did not refute the findings. NJAC 8:39-29.3 (a)(1)
CONCERN (D)

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

Unnecessary Medications (Tag F0759)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on observation, interview, record review, and review of other pertinent documents, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure that all medications were administered with an error rate ...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, interview, record review, and review of other pertinent documents, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure that all medications were administered with an error rate of less than 5%. During the medication administration observation conducted on 10/02/24, the surveyor observed four (4) nurses administer meds to five (5) residents. There were twenty-eight (28) opportunities, and two (2) errors were observed which resulted in a medication error rate of 7.14%. This deficient practice was identified for one (1) of five (5) residents observed (unsampled resident), which was administered by one (1) of four (4) nurses. This deficient practice was evidenced by the following: According to the manufacturer's specifications for Carbidopa/Levodopa (Sinemet) (a medication used to treat Parkinson's disease), administration of Iron (a mineral supplement) or Iron containing products with Sinemet may reduce the amount of Levodopa available in the body. According to clinical documentation and accepted practice, Calcium (a mineral supplement) may reduce the absorption of Iron in the body. On 10/02/24 at 9:11 AM, the surveyor observed the Registered Nurse (RN) prepare medications (meds) for an unsampled Resident. The meds included an active physician's orders (PO) dated 9/13/24 for the following: Carbidopa 25 mg-Levodopa 100 mg (milligram) tablet (tab) give 2 tablets (tabs) by oral route 4 times per day for Parkinson disease. The order was plotted in the electronic Med Administration Record (eMAR) for 9:00 AM, 01:00 PM, 6:00 PM and 9:00 PM. Calcium 500 with D 500 mg-10 mcg (microgram) (400 unit) tab give one tab by oral route 2 times per day with meals for supplement. The order was plotted in the eMAR for 8:00 AM and 5:00 PM. Multivitamin with minerals tab give 1 tab by oral route once daily. The order was plotted in the eMAR for 9:00 AM. The surveyor observed the RN remove the Carbidopa/Levodopa, Calcium 500 with D and Multivitamin with minerals from the packaging and place in a medication (med) dose cup. The surveyor did not observe the RN check any of the med packaging for cautionary or informational warnings. The surveyor observed the RN administer all due meds to the resident. The surveyor asked the RN to see the bottle for multivitamin with minerals. The surveyor observed that the ingredients listed on the label included ferrous sulfate (Iron) 4.5 mg per tab. The surveyor showed the RN the label and asked if the med contained Iron. The RN agreed that the med contained Iron. The surveyor asked the RN if Iron should be given at the same time as Carbidopa/Levodopa and calcium. The RN stated she was not completely sure but would check. The surveyor completed the med pass observation. On 10/02/24 at 10:45 AM, the surveyor interviewed the facility's Consultant Pharmacist (CP) in the presence of two other surveyors. The surveyor asked the CP if Carbidopa/Levodopa and iron have and interaction and should be administered separately. The CP stated yes, there was an interaction, and they should be given separately. The surveyor asked the CP if there was and interaction between iron and calcium and should they be given separately. The CP stated that there was an interaction between calcium and iron, and they should be administered separately by at least two (2) hours. On that same date and time, the CP stated that the resident in question was a new admission, and she had not been in the building to review the chart yet. On 10/02/24 at 01:13 PM, the surveyor discussed the med pass results with the with Director of Nursing (DON) and the Licensed Nursing Home Administrator. The surveyor discussed the error rate, the med errors, and the interview with the CP. The surveyor asked the DON if there were any other systems in place other than the CP med review to catch drug interactions. The DON stated that they also rely on the Pharmacy provider to call the facility for any significant interactions. A review of the facility's Medication Management Policy dated 01/24 that was provided by the DON, the policy did not reflect any information regarding drug interactions or med errors. The facility did not provide any further pertinent documentation. N.J.A.C 8:39-29.2 (d)
CONCERN (D)

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

Infection Control (Tag F0880)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

2. On 10/01/24 at 11:28 AM, S#3 interviewed CNA#3 on the Heritage Manor East (HME) wing. The surveyor asked CNA#3 what the round orange sticker located on a resident's room number plate next to their ...

Read full inspector narrative →
2. On 10/01/24 at 11:28 AM, S#3 interviewed CNA#3 on the Heritage Manor East (HME) wing. The surveyor asked CNA#3 what the round orange sticker located on a resident's room number plate next to their name was for. CNA#3 stated that the sticker identified the resident as a fall risk. At 11:34 AM, S#3 interviewed CNA#4 on the HME wing. The surveyor asked CNA#4 what the round orange sticker located on a resident's room number plate next to their name was for. CNA#4 stated that it means the resident has a catheter or something, usually a catheter. The surveyor asked CNA#4 if you need to do anything specific or different when giving care to that resident. CNA#4 stated, no, it's just there to let you know that they have one. At 11:38 AM, S#3 interviewed CNA#5 on the HME wing. The surveyor asked CNA#5 what the round orange sticker located on a resident's room number plate next to their name was for. CNA#5 stated that the orange dot tells you that the resident had a wound or other open area that requires you to wear a gown, gloves, and mask if you are going to give care to the resident, so you do not spread infections. On 10/04/24 at 8:54 AM, S#1 in the presence of the survey team, interviewed the facility Director of Infection Control (DoIC). S#1 asked the DoIC if she was made aware of the survey team's concerns with two (2) out of three (3) CNAs interviewed by another surveyor were not aware of what the orange dots on the resident rooms indicated. The DoIC informed S#1 that EBP education was provided to all staff during the last week of March 2024. She further stated that it was an expectation that that staff wear a gown and gloves and, if required, additional PPE as needed such as a mask and eye protection, but basically always gloves and gown during direct contact care such as toileting, transferring, personal care, care near wounds, catheter care as protection for staff and residents against the transfer of infection. The DoIC also stated that she spoke to CNA#3 and CNA#4 regarding EBP, and that CNA#4 seemed to know and admitted that she attended the in-service, and CNA#3 needed a lot of reinforcement and education. On 10/04/24 at 10:34 AM, the DON provided a policy titled Isolation Precautions dated 9/24, in-service attendance sheets for nurses and CNAs that reflected topics including but not limited to EBP and PPE and a course curriculum list specific for CNA#3 that included but was not limited to the topic of EBP. The DON stated to S#3 that CNA#3 was new and was not yet certified when the in-service education was done in March 2024. A review of the facility provided policy Isolation Precautions with effective date 9/24 revealed under section Policy: It is the policy of the facility to prevent the spread of infection through the initiation of isolation precautions. Standard precautions are to be followed by all staff for patient/resident contact. Under section G: EBP are deemed necessary for residents with indwelling Medical Devices (e.g. central line, urinary catheter, feeding tube), wounds, colonization or infection with MDRO when performing high-contact resident care activities (in addition to all components of Standard Precautions): 1. Gloves and Gown, (masks/eye protection may be used) will be worn during high-contact care activities listed, and disposed in trash after use. 3. High-contact resident care activities are: Dressing; Bathing/showering . etc. Line 5, appropriate precaution signage will be placed by the patient/resident/client's door. No further pertinent information was provided by the facility. On 10/08/24 at 12:25 PM, the survey team met with LNHA, DON, Medical Director, [NAME] President (VP) of Senior Services and VP of Medical Affairs for an Exit Conference. The facility did not refute the findings. NJAC 8:39-19.4(a)(1-6) REPEAT DEFICIENCY Based on observation, interview, record review, and review of pertinent facility documentation, it was determined that the facility failed to a.) ensure that the staff donned (put on) the appropriate personal protective equipment (PPE) prior to providing care to a high contact care resident room that required an Enhanced Barrier Precautions (EBP) for one (1) of two (2) residents, Resident #58, reviewed for pressure ulcer and b.) follow appropriate infection control practices by having direct care staff knowledgeable about identifying residents who require direct care, and when staff to use PPE, this deficient practice was identified for two (2) of three (3) Certified Nursing Aides, according to facility's policy and practice. This deficient practice was evidenced by the following: 1. During on an initial tour on 9/30/24 at 11:26 AM, Surveyor #1(S#1) observed Resident #58 lying in their bed, with oxygen in use at 2 LPM (Liters per minute). On 10/03/24 at 11:57 AM, S#2 observed an orange-colored round sticker [dot] next to resident's name on the name plate, which was located outside the resident's room. The dot indicated, EBP (are interventions designed to reduce the spread of multidrug-resistant organisms (MDROs) in nursing homes. EBP involves the use of gloves and gowns during high-contact resident care activities, especially for those at increased risk of acquiring or spreading a MDRO (e.g., residents with wounds or indwelling medical devices). The surveyor did not see an original EBP sign from CDC (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention) at the door and PPE bin with gloves and gown was not noted at Resident's door. On that same date and time, S#2 observed the resident's door was closed. Certified Nursing Assistant #1 (CNA #1) informed the surveyor that the resident was receiving a bed bath by CNA #2. At 12:02 PM, CNA #1 knocked on the resident's door and accompanied S#2 in Resident's room. S#2 observed CNA#2, who had finished providing care to the resident. CNA #2 did not have a gown during observation. The surveyor interviewed CNA#2 who acknowledged that she did not have a gown on when she provided care to the resident. CNA#2 further stated that she did not know that she had to wear a gown while providing care to Resident #58. During an interview with S#2 on 10/03/24 at 01:59 PM, the Team Leader/Registered Nurse (TL/RN) stated that the residents who had any indwelling catheters, pressure ulcers/ wounds, and peg tube (feeding tube) were placed on EBP, that was why they had EBP sign outside the room and was also entered in electronic medical record (EMR). The TL/RN further stated that staff was required to wear PPE when providing care to high-contact residents. She also stated that PPE was important for infection control and to protect the residents from what we have on our clothes. The TL/RN acknowledged that Resident #58 had a pressure ulcer that was why the resident was placed on EBP, and CNA#2 was expected to wear PPE when she provided care to Resident #58. She further stated that CNAs were able to see the EBP written order under general for the CNAs in the EMR. S#2 reviewed the medical record for Resident #58 and revealed: The Resident Face Sheet (an admission summary) reflected that Resident #58 was admitted to the facility with diagnoses which included but was not limited to type 2 diabetes (improper levels of sugar in the blood) with diabetic polyneuropathy (is nerve damage caused by chronically high blood sugar and diabetes. It leads to numbness, loss of sensation, and sometimes pain in your feet, legs, or hands), diarrhea, and pressure ulcer of sacral region (base of the spine, just above the buttocks). The Quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS), an assessment tool used to facilitate the management of care, with an assessment reference date (ARD) of 8/31/2024, the resident had a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of 03 out of 15 which indicated that the resident had a severely impaired cognition. The Physician Orders reflected an order dated 9/24/24 for EBP. A review of Care Plan with Focus area: Skin integrity - Current: stage III pressure injury sacrum, Interventions concluded: EBP with active effective date 9/18/2024. A review of Resident Nursing instructions (a sheet where the CNAs can see the tasks or special instructions that were assigned to them) that was provided by the Director of Nursing (DON), reflected notes for EBP. On 10/03/24 at 12:31 PM, the survey team met with Licensed Nursing Home Administrator (LNHA) and DON. S#2 notified the facility management of the above findings. The DON who acknowledged that CNA#2 should have been wearing PPE for high-contact care resident during care for infection control. A review of the facility provided Transcript reflected that NATCEP (Nurse Aide Training and Competency Evaluation Program) course was completed by CNA#2 on 7/19/24. The DON stated the course included lectures regarding EBP & MDRO and PPE required by CNAs during care.
CONCERN (E)

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

Deficiency F0565 (Tag F0565)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interviews and a review of facility provided documents, it was determined that the facility failed to consistently resp...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interviews and a review of facility provided documents, it was determined that the facility failed to consistently respond to issues and concerns presented during resident council meetings and resident questionnaires obtained from residents in lieu of a formalized resident council meeting for two (2) of three (3) resident council minutes reviewed. This deficient practice was evidenced by the following: According to the Heritage Manor East (HME) Resident Council Meeting Minutes that was provided by the Director of Nursing (DON) revealed: 1. July 18, 2024 at 02:30 PM -Staff in attendance: Director of Activities (DoA), Director of Food and Nutrition Services (DFNS), Assistant Director of Nursing (ADON), Social Worker (SW), Activities Assistant #1 (AA#1), and Activities Director (AD). -Residents in attendance: 18 -Dietary Committee Meeting: residents would like to know could the supper be served at 5:45 PM instead of arriving at 6:00 PM? Residents would prefer it earlier, if possible. The DFNS will discuss with his team. 2. August 15, 2024 at 02:30 PM -Staff in attendance: DoA, DFNS, Chief of Clinical Dietician (CoCD), Executive Director-Administrator ([NAME]), ADON, AA#2 and AA#3, and Director of Environmental Services (DES). -Residents in attendance: 27 -Dietary Committee Meeting: [did not address the concern on 7/18/24 about supper to be delivered earlier] 3. September 19, 2024 at 02:30 PM -Staff in attendance: DoA, Director of Dining & Nutrition Services (DoDNS, also known as the DFNS), Registered Dietician (RD), ADON, Volunteer Ombudsman (VO), SW, Resident Relations Associate (RLA), and Activities Specialist (AS). -Residents in attendance: 25 -Dietary Committee Meeting: The unsampled resident mentioned that the supper truck was arriving around 6:00-6:15 PM. The DoDNS will look into the time of arrival. During the resident council meeting conducted by the surveyor on 10/02/24 at 10:29 AM four (4) out of seven (7) residents stated that there was only one staff from the Activity Department assisted during supper time at the HME dining area. Four of seven residents also stated that supper was served late at HME. Furthermore, the four residents stated that the late delivery of meals for supper and one staff assisting during that time affected 15 to 20 residents who were in the dining room. On that same date and time, Resident #167 informed the surveyor that the above concerns with late delivery of meals for supper had been discussed as concerns to the facility management during Resident Council Meetings and there was no resolution. Resident #167 further stated that there was no consistency with meal deliveries. The resident also stated that the residents requested supper to be served before 6:00 PM. On 10/02/24 at 12:12 PM, the surveyor interviewed the Activity Person (AP) who was present on 10/01/24 dinner time at HME. The AP informed the surveyor that she worked the 9-5 shift yesterday and had to work overtime until 7 PM last night. The AP stated that most of the time she was by herself serving the HME dining room for residents of 15 to 20. She further stated that at times a Certified Nursing Aide (CNA) will help her. The AP acknowledged that it took time to serve the 15-20 residents and would be helpful to have extra hands. On 10/02/24 at 12:21 PM, the surveyor interviewed the Clinical Nutrition Manager (CNM) and DFNS in the presence of another surveyor. The surveyor asked both CNM and DFNS if they remembered that facility management or residents reported concerns that residents requested an earlier food truck delivery for dinner before 6:00 PM. Facility management responded that they did not recall that was discussed with them. The DFNS further stated that if it was discussed in the resident council meeting, the activity person should have documented that, and he would addressed it. At that same time, the DFNS provided a copy of the Dining Room Schedule and he indicated from the paper, the supper at HME Great Room/Media Room delivery time was at 5:45 PM-6:45 PM. The surveyor asked the DFNS if that was considered late for the 6:45 PM dinner delivery and there was no response from the DFNS. On 10/02/24 at 01:13 PM, the survey team met with the [NAME] (also known as the Licensed Nursing Home Administrator [LNHA]) and DON. The surveyor notified the facility management of the above concerns. On 10/03/24 at 12:32 PM, the survey team met with LNHA and DON. The DON stated that the concerns regarding the Resident Council Meeting, we will move it to 5:30 PM and we spoke to the staff, it was an oversight. At that same time, the surveyor asked the reason why it was not acted upon the July and September 2024 resident council meeting the residents' concerns with late meal delivery for supper and requested an earlier time to be delivered. The surveyor also asked what was the timeline that the facility should act upon on those requests and concerns and should the DFNS and Dietitian received those concerns. The LNHA stated that it was an expectation, same as grievances, concerns, and requests in the Resident Council Meeting of the residents should have a resolution. The LNHA further stated that we have a summary from resident council meetings that come out and distributed to those who attended, and he (DFNS) should receive a copy. A review of the facility's Diet Ordering Policy with an effective date of 01/24 that was provided by the DON revealed: Procedure: J. If a client is in need of an altered schedule for meals or snacks, staff nurses and RD will make arrangements for accommodating the schedule for optimal intake. A review of the facility's Resident Council Meeting Policy with an effective date of 10/24 that was provided by the DON showed: Policy: It is the policy of the facility to provide its' residents with the opportunity to meet in a group atmosphere, on a regular basis, to take an active role in discussing various community related topics/issues in a non-threatening environment and to present those topics to the appropriate administrative persons. Residents have the right to express concerns, have them heard & reviewed and when possible, resolved . Procedure: B. If a resident in attendance brings up an issues/concern to be addressed by another Department, the appropriate department will receive a copy of the meeting minutes, indicating that a response is requested of them to address the issue. A review of the Grievance (complaint) Resolution Policy with an effective date of 10/24 that was provided by the DON showed: Policy: The facility strives to provide quality care and satisfaction in the delivery of its services. We understand that there may be times when our customers may not be completely satisfied with the services provided. Under those circumstances, we encourage dissatisfied customers to notify our staff of their concerns and/or to contact appropriate public agent(s) in order to provide the opportunity to rectify the issue. Procedure: Responsibilities of: 1. Residents and/or their representatives can express their concerns in writing, by telephone, or in-person to members of the facility . 4. Appropriate department heads will follow through to seek resolution . 8. It is the responsibility of the department head where the concern occurred in collaboration with concierge to discuss final outcomes will all interested parties inclusive of the resident representative. On 10/08/24 at 12:25 PM, the survey team met with the LNHA, DON, Medical Director, and the VP (Vice President) of Senior Services for an Exit Conference. The facility management did not provide additional information and did not refute the findings. NJAC 8:39-4.1(a)(29)
CONCERN (E)

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

Deficiency F0576 (Tag F0576)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

Based on interviews and a review of facility provided documents, it was determined that the facility failed to provide Saturday mail and package delivery services to residents. This deficient practice...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on interviews and a review of facility provided documents, it was determined that the facility failed to provide Saturday mail and package delivery services to residents. This deficient practice was identified for seven (7) of seven (7) residents interviewed during the resident council group meeting (Residents #10, #48, #167, #173, #212, #218, and 232) and was evidenced by the following: During the resident council meeting conducted by the surveyor on 10/02/24 at 10:29 AM with Residents #10, #48, #167, #173, #212, #218, and #232, the surveyor asked the residents if they received mail on Saturdays. All residents stated that there was no mail or packages on Saturdays because the mail room was closed. On that same date and time, Resident #212 informed the surveyor that a couple of weeks ago the resident had a delivery from an outside vendor [name of company] that was returned which the resident had known because the resident's representative told them. Resident #212 stated that they notified the Social Worker about it and the reason it was returned was because the packages were too many. The resident further stated that there was no mail and packages delivered to the residents on weekends because they (mail room) were closed. At that same time, Resident #167 informed the surveyor that they do not accept packages on a weekend, which was written on some paper, and I have a problem getting things. The resident further stated since then the resident knew that there were no mail/packages delivered to the resident on weekends. The resident further stated that in order for the resident to get packages, they were sent to the resident's representative (RR) to make sure delivery was received and will be given to the resident once the RR visited the resident. On 10/03/24 at 10:50 AM, the surveyor interviewed the Unit Clerk (UC) from Heritage Manor East (HME) unit regarding the facility's process and practice for receiving residents' mail and packages. The UC informed the surveyor that the mails and packages come from the Mail Room (MR) and usually the assigned person from the MR delivers them to the unit and the UC will deliver them to the residents. The UC stated that she signed the log when she received the mail and packages from the MR. The UC stated that the MR was open Monday through Friday and closed on weekends. At that same time, the UC stated that sometimes delivery personnel from the community left packages in the loading dock. She further stated that like two weeks ago Resident # 228 had a package that was left in the loading dock, and she had to pick it up and give it directly to the resident. On 10/03/24 at 11:14 AM, the surveyor interviewed the Shipping, Receiving & Inventory Manager (SRIM) who informed the surveyor that there was an assigned person also in the department that delivered mail and packages to the unit. The SRIM stated that the assigned person will hand over the mail and packages to the UC and the UC will sign the log that the mail and packages were received, and the UC will distribute them to the respective residents. He further stated that the MR and his department were open Monday through Friday and closed on weekends. The SRIM confirmed that was the facility's practice that the MR opened on weekdays and closed on weekends. On 10/03/24 at 12:32 PM, the survey team met with the Licensed Nursing Home Administrator (LNHA) and the Director of Nursing (DON). The surveyor notified the facility management of the above concerns. A review of the facility's POLICY: Requisition Ordering Process for Stock, Non-Stock Items, and Inventory Control Procedure with an effective date of 5/24 which the DON stated was the facility's policy for mail/packages and mail room, revealed: Procedure: The purpose of this policy is to identify the procedures used to properly acquire necessary supplies and place them into use in a timely manner . 4. For non-stock items, this includes receiving non-stock requests, placing orders, receiving order items, verifying they are what was ordered and are in proper condition, and either delivering them to their intended recipient/department or returning them to the supplier if unsatisfactory . Definitions: d. Non-stock=items/goods or services that are non-inventory items for departments, patients/residents . D. Non-stock purchase requisition process: 10. Materials management personnel will deliver the items to the intended recipient/department by the end of the day during normal business hours . On 10/08/24 at 12:25 PM, the survey team met with the LNHA, DON, Medical Director, and the VP (Vice President) of Senior Services for an Exit Conference. The facility management did not provide additional information and did not refute the findings. N.J.A.C. 8:39-4.1 (a)(19)
CONCERN (E)

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

Respiratory Care (Tag F0695)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** 2. On 9/30/24 at 10:52 AM, Surveyor #2 (S#2) observed Resident #38 sitting in a wheelchair, awake and willing to converse. Resid...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** 2. On 9/30/24 at 10:52 AM, Surveyor #2 (S#2) observed Resident #38 sitting in a wheelchair, awake and willing to converse. Resident #38 was receiving O2 therapy at 2 LPM continuously via n/c from an O2 concentrator. The surveyor observed that the O2 tubing was not dated to indicate when the tubing was last changed and the humidifier bottle (a bottle of sterile water to add moisture to the O2) attached to the concentrator had a date written on the label of 9/25. A review of Resident FS reflected that the resident was admitted to the facility with diagnoses which included but were not limited to acute and chronic respiratory failure (a condition where the lungs cannot properly supply O2 to the blood), and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD; a condition where damage to the lungs limits inflow and outflow of air). A review of Resident #38's most recent Quarterly MDS (QMDS) dated [DATE], reflected that the resident's cognitive skills for daily decision making were intact. A review of the EMR reflected a physician's order (PO) for O2, via n/c, continuous. The EMR also reflected an order to clean O2 concentrator filter, change tubing and humidifier weekly and PRN. On 10/01/24 at 10:41 AM, S#2 observed Resident #38 sitting in a wheelchair (w/c) receiving O2 therapy at 2 LPM from an O2 concentrator. The resident stated to S#2, my tank is empty, it needs to be replaced. The surveyor observed that the gauge on the O2 tank hanging on the back of the resident's wheelchair reflected the needle in the red zone, indicating empty. S#2 observed that the tubing was not dated, and the humidifier bottle had the same date of 9/25 as previously observed. On 10/01/24 at 11:05 AM, S#2 interviewed the Assistant Director of Nursing (ADON) assigned to the Heritage Manor East (HME). S#2 asked the ADON who was responsible for changing residents' O2 tubing, moving the tubing from a concentrator to an O2 tank and what was the procedure. The ADON stated that the nurse on duty, for that room, should change the humidifier bottle and tubing at least once a week if the concentrator or tank is in use and the tubing and bottle should be dated. Tubing should be stored in a bag. The ADON also stated that a nurse must do any switch between a concentrator and a tank. On 10/02/24 at 12:57 PM, S#2 observed Resident #38 sitting in a w/c in their room. The surveyor interviewed the resident who stated they got a new O2 tank this morning. S#2 observed the tank and tubing, and the tank was full. S#2 did not observe a date on the tubing. On 10/03/24 at 10:16 AM, S#2 observed Resident #38 in a w/c, with an O2 with a n/c attached to an O2 tank. The surveyor did not observe a date on the tubing and observed a date of 9/25 on the humidifier bottle attached to the concentrator. This was the same date as observed 9/30/24 by this surveyor. On 10/03/24 at 12:39 PM, S#2 notified the DON and LNHA in the presence of the survey team of the concern regarding the dating of Resident #38's tubing and humidifier bottle. S#2 asked the DON who was responsible for changing and dating the tubing and humidifier bottles. The DON stated it was responsibility of nursing or respiratory therapist to date those items when they were changed or cleaned. A review of the facility provided policy titled, O2 Therapy dated 4/24, included the following: 14. Change all disposable equipment weekly or per institution's infection control guidelines. The facility did not provide any further pertinent documentation. 4. During the initial tour on 9/30/24 at 11:48 AM, S#3 observed Resident #157 in bed with an O2 concentrator with humidifier at their bedside, which was on and set to 2 LPM. The humidifier was dated 9/27 with black marker. S#4 reviewed the medical record for Resident #157. The Resident FS reflected that Resident #157 was admitted to the facility with diagnoses which included but was not limited to: Acute respiratory failure (a condition where there's not enough O2) with hypercapnia (too much carbon dioxide in your body), history of pneumonia (an infection of the air sacs of one or both lungs), anemia (deficiency of red blood cells), gastrostomy (a surgical procedure to make a hole into the stomach through the abdomen to insert a feeding tube into the stomach), and dysphagia (difficulty in swallowing). A review of the QMDS dated [DATE], the resident had a BIMS score of 10, indicating that Resident #157 had a moderate impaired cognition. A review of Resident #157's PO reflected the following orders: Monitoring: Check for use of O2 concentrator weekly- clean, filter, change tubing and humidifier dated 5/28/24. Monitoring: Obtain SPO2 q shift and PRN for s/s SOB *see PRN O2 order for SPO2 less than 93% schedule dated 5/28/24 Respiratory Therapy- O2: [X]n/c; [X] PRN for SOB - 2 LPM to maintain SPO2 > 92% dated 5/28/4. On 10/02/24 at 11:48 AM, Surveyor #4 (S#4) observed Resident #157 sitting in chair and was not using O2 at the time. S#4 observed the O2 tubing was connected to the concentrator and the other end was hanging on the tube feeding pole which was behind the resident's chair. The tubing was not placed in a plastic bag or stored properly. During an interview with S#4 on 10/02/24 at 12:09 PM, the LPN stated that when O2 was not in use, the O2 tubing would be placed in a plastic bag and the bag would be placed in nightstand drawer. The LPN further stated it was important to do that so that the tubing does not get contaminated if it was touched by staff and you can give micro-organisms to the resident and complicate their health. It was important to prevent the infection to the residents. At 12:25 PM, S#4 and the LPN visited Resident #157's room and both observed the resident's O2 tubing hanging on the feeding pump pole. LPN #1 stated that she would have to dispose off the O2 tubing and get a new one because she could not tell how long the O2 tubing had been there for. The LPN acknowledged that it was not acceptable practice to place the O2 tubing on the tube feeding pole. During an interview with S#4 on 10/02/24 at 12:29 PM, TL/RN#2 stated that when O2 was not in use, the O2 tubing would be placed in a special plastic bag with white strings. To store the O2 tubing in the plastic bag was important for infection control. S#4 notified TL/RN#2 of what was observed in Resident #157's room and TL/RN#2 acknowledged that it was not acceptable practice for infection control. On 10/02/24 at 01:13 PM, the survey team met with the LNHA and DON. S#4 notified the facility management of the above findings. The DON who acknowledged the O2 tubing should not be hanging on the tube feeding pole and further stated that the tubing should be bagged for infection control. A review of the facility's policy, Respiratory Therapy with effective date 4/24 did not address the protocol for the nurses regarding how to store O2 equipment properly when not in use. On 10/08/24 at 12:25 PM, the survey team met with LNHA, DON, [NAME] President (VP) of Senior Services and VP of Medical Affairs for an Exit Conference. The facility did not refute the findings. NJAC 8:39-11.2(a)(b); 19.4(a); 27.1(a) REPEAT DEFICIENCY Based on observation, interview, record review, and review of pertinent facility documents, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure: a.) the resident's oxygen (O2) tubing was dated for two (2) of five (5) residents, Residents #9 and #38, b.) a physician's order for O2 and SPO2 (saturation of peripheral oxygen) monitoring was administered as ordered for two (2) of five (5) residents, Resident #9 and #124, and c.) proper storage of O2 cannula and tubing for one (1) of five (5) residents, Resident #157, reviewed for respiratory care, according to standards of clinical practice and facility policy and procedure. This deficient practice was evidenced by the following: Reference: New Jersey Statutes Annotated, Title 45. Chapter 11. Nursing Board. The Nurse Practice Act for the State of New Jersey states: The practice of nursing as a registered professional nurse is defined as diagnosing and treating human responses to actual and potential physical and emotional health problems, through such services as case-finding, health teaching, health counseling, and provision of care supportive to or restorative of life and wellbeing, and executing medical regimens as prescribed by a licensed or otherwise legally authorized physician or dentist. Reference: New Jersey Statutes Annotated, Title 45, Chapter 11. Nursing Board. The Nurse Practice Act for the State of New Jersey states: The practice of nursing as a licensed practical nurse is defined as performing tasks and responsibilities within the framework of case finding; reinforcing the patient and family teaching program through health teaching, health counseling, and provision of supportive and restorative care, under the direction of a registered nurse or licensed or otherwise legally authorized physician or dentist. 1. On 9/30/24 at 11:09 AM, Surveyor #1 (S#1) observed Resident#9 lying in bed with their eyes closed. Resident #9 was receiving O2 therapy at 2 LPM (liters per minute) via nasal cannula (n/c; a device that delivers extra O2 through a tube and into the nose) from an O2 concentrator (a medical device that provides supplemental oxygen). The surveyor observed that the O2 tubing was not dated to indicate when the tubing was last changed. On 10/01/24 at 10:36 AM, S#1 observed Resident#9 lying in bed with their eyes closed. Resident#9 was receiving O2 therapy at 2 LPM via n/c from an O2 concentrator. The surveyors observed that the O2 tubing was not dated. A review of Resident#9's Resident Face Sheet (FS; an admission summary) reflected that the resident was admitted to the facility with diagnoses which included but were not limited to atherosclerotic heart disease (a condition where plaque builds up in the arteries of the heart, narrowing them and reducing blood flow), hypertension (high blood pressure) and tachycardia (a heart condition where the heart rate is faster than 100 beats per minute (bpm) while at rest). Resident #9's most recent annual Minimum Data Set (MDS), an assessment tool used to facilitate the management of care, reflected that the resident's cognitive skills for daily decision making were severely impaired. Further review of the MDS indicated that the resident had not received O2 therapy. On 10/01/24 at 10:41 AM, S#1 interviewed the Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) regarding O2 therapy. The LPN stated that the O2 tubing was changed every 3 days and that it was dated with a piece of tape. She added that it was not documented when changed. As needed (PRN) use based pulse ox (oximeter), not documented when changed. On 10/01/24 at 11:02 AM, S#1 interviewed Team Leader/Registered Nurse #1 (TL/RN#1) from Heritage Manor [NAME] (HMW) regarding O2 therapy. TL/RN#1 stated that the O2 tubing was changed weekly and was dated. She added that there was an order in the Medication Administration Record (MAR) to change the tubing. The surveyor then asked TL/RN#1 to view Resident #9's O2 tubing. TL/RN#1 confirmed that the O2 tubing was not dated and that it should have been. On 10/01/24 at 11:32 AM, S#1 reviewed Resident #9's September 2024 electronic MAR/TAR (Treatment Administration Record) which included the following order: O2 n/c PRN 2 LPM for sob (shortness of breath) or to maintain SPO2 (a measurement of the amount of O2 in the blood) above 92%; check SPO2 q (every) shift with a start date of 10/03/2023. Further review of the MAR/TAR reflected that the order was not signed by the nurse as administered on 9/30/24 when the surveyor observed that Resident #9 was receiving O2. There was no indication that the O2 had been administered for the month of September. Further review of the order reflected that the residents SPO2 should be check q shift. Review of Resident #9's medical record reflected that the SPO2 was documented as being checked on 9/20/24 and 9/27/24. There was no documented evidence in the resident's medical chart that the SPO2 was being checked q shift. On 10/01/24 at 11:57 AM, S#1 interviewed the LPN regarding O2 order. She stated that if there was an order for PRN O2 then it would be documented in the TAR and the SPO2 would also be documented. The surveyor asked the LPN about Resident #9. The LPN stated that the resident was on hospice and the staff would check the SPO2 if it came up in the TAR. She added that it was not coming up in the TAR but that it was listed in the order section. On 10/01/24 at 12:10 PM, S#1 interviewed TL/RN#1 regarding O2 order. TL/RN#1 stated that if it was a PRN it would be in the TAR. She added that if the O2 was administered to the resident then it should be documented in the TAR. She then stated that if it was needed for a lower SPO2 then the SPO2 would be documented also. S#1 then asked TL/RN#1 about Resident #9's O2 order. She stated that she would have to look at the order and then get back to the surveyor. On 10/02/24 at 12:26 PM, S#1 interviewed the Director of Nursing (DON) regarding O2. The DON stated that O2 tubing was changed weekly and dated with tape. She added that it was a collaboration with the respiratory therapist and that nurses were also responsible. The surveyor then asked the DON about Resident #9's O2 order. The DON stated that she knew an issue was identified by the surveyor and that she gave the staff an inservice. She added that they had to click monitoring for the SPO2 part of the order. The DON stated that the order should have been followed, the nurse should have signed that the PRN order for O2 was administered and there should be an additional order for SPO2. On 10/02/24 at 01:29 PM, in the presence of the survey team, S#1 notified the Licensed Nursing Home Administrator (LNHA) and DON, the concerns that Resident #9 O2 tubing was not dated and that there was no documented evidence that the O2 had been administered and the SPO2 was being monitored q shift. On 10/03/24 at 12:35 PM, in the presence of the survey team and the LNHA, the DON stated that education was provided to staff on O2 and transcribing the order. She added that the SPO2 was ordered but that monitoring was not clicked. A review of the undated facility provided policy titled, Oxygen Therapy included the following: 14. Change all disposable equipment weekly or per institution's infection control guidelines. The facility did not provide any additional information. 3. On 9/30/24 at 11:34 AM, Surveyor #3 (S#3) observed Resident #124 lying on the air mattress. The resident had an O2 via n/c attached to a concentrator at 2 LPM. The O2 humidified water bottle was dated 9/26. The resident stated that they always use O2. On 10/02/24 at 8:30 AM, S#3 observed the resident lying on the bed with an O2 via n/c at 2 LPM. The surveyor reviewed the medical records of Resident #124 and revealed: According to the Resident FS, the resident was admitted to the facility with a diagnosis that included but was not limited to hypertensive heart and chronic kidney disease with heart failure and stage 1 through stage 4 chronic kidney disease, anemia (low blood count), anxiety disorder, and dependence on supplemental O2. The resident's most recent QMDS, with an assessment reference date (ARD) of 8/13/24 revealed in Section C Cognitive Status Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of 14 out of 15 which reflected that resident was cognitively intact. The personalized care plan (CP) with a focus on respiratory dysfunction, at risk for breakthrough SOB with the goals of SPO2 with an effective date of 6/04/24. The active CP interventions included but were not limited to monitor for s/s (signs and symptoms) SOB-obtain SPO2 q shift and PRN for s/s SOB-see PRN O2 with an effective date of 6/04/24. A review of the September and October 2024 PO revealed: -order date 6/04/24 O2 n/c PRN for SOB 2 LPM to maintain SPO2 greater than 90% monitoring: O2 SPO2. -order date 6/04/24 Obtain SPO2 q shift and PRN for s/s of SOB The above orders for PRN O2 at 2 LPM and obtain SPO2 q shift and PRN were transcribed to the MAR for September and October 2024 and showed: -September 2024 Obtain SPO2 q shift and PRN: On 9/02/24 at 7 AM-3 PM shift the SPO2 was recorded at 90%. On 9/04/24 at 11 PM-7 AM shift the SPO2 was blank (no SPO2 obtained). On 9/05/24 at 11 PM-7 AM shift the SPO2 was blank. -September 2024 PRN O2: there was no signature of the nurse that the PRN O2 was administered on and 9/02/24 at 7 AM-3 PM shift and 9/30/24. Further review of the above PO and MAR revealed that there was no documented evidence that the resident received the PRN O2 on 9/02/24 at 7 AM-3 PM shift when the SPO2 was below 91%. There was no documented evidence that the nurse signed the MAR on 9/30/24 when the surveyor observed the resident with O2 at 11:34 AM of 9/30/24. In addition, the nurses did not follow the PO to obtain the SPO2 q shift on 9/04/24 and 9/05/24 of the 11 PM-7 AM shift. On 10/03/24 at 10:59 AM, S#3 interviewed TL/RN#2 who was at the medication (med) cart for Beach St (street) in HME. TL/RN#2 informed S#3 that the SPO2 should be documented in the MAR and signed when PRN O2 was administered according to the PO. S#3 then notified TL/RN#2 of the above concerns and findings. On 10/03/24 at 12:32 PM, the survey team met with the LNHA and DON. S#3 notified the facility management of the above concern and findings. On 10/07/24 at 01:09 PM, the survey team met with the LNHA and DON. The DON stated that I could only move forward with concerns with Resident#124. The facility did not provide additional information. On 10/08/24 at 12:04 PM, the survey team met with the LNHA and DON. The DON stated that we talked about the omission to the MAR which we continually educate staff and auditing acuities.
CONCERN (F)

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

Deficiency F0838 (Tag F0838)

Could have caused harm · This affected most or all residents

Based on the interview and review of facility documentation, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure that facility wide assessment included the resources required to establish policies an...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on the interview and review of facility documentation, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure that facility wide assessment included the resources required to establish policies and procedures a.) to ensure water management was included and b.) for the management of emergency food and water supply in order to meet the requirements and needs of all residents in the facility. This failure had the potential to affect all 277 residents who currently live in the facility. This deficient practice was evidenced by the following: During the entrance conference on 9/30/24 at 10:16 AM, the surveyor requested from the Licensed Nursing Home Administrator (LNHA) and the Director of Nursing (DON) a copy of the facility's assessment. Both the LNHA and DON stated that the facility's census (the number of residents currently under the care of a specific facility) was 277. A review of the facility's Facility Wide Assessment (FWA) with a date of July 2024 that was provided by the DON on 9/30/24 at 01:31 PM did not include information about the facility's emergency food and water supply for the residents and employees. In addition, there was no documented evidence that the FWA included about the facility's water management, or measures to prevent the growth of Legionella and other opportunistic waterborne pathogens in the building. On 10/07/24 at 8:19 AM, the surveyor met with the LNHA and the DON. The LNHA stated that the FWA process was that all IDT (Interdisciplinary Team) were involved in the input. The LNHA informed the surveyor that the IDT meets once a year and as needed for modifications, completes a thorough assessment, and presents to QAPI (Quality Assurance Performance Improvement) meeting. She further stated that the FWA was all about the residents' care. The LNHA also stated that they received the CMS (Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services) Memo about the changes in the regulation for facility assessment and they were aware of it. On that same date and time, the surveyor notified the facility management of the above findings and concerns. The surveyor also asked where in the facility's FWA discussed emergency food and water supply and water management. Both the LNHA and DON stated that they would get back to the surveyor. On 10/07/24 at 10:27 AM, the DON presented an updated FWA in the presence of another surveyor. The DON informed the surveyor that the date was updated because it was confusing. The DON stated that the date of assessment was May 2024 and reviewed at the 2nd Quarter QAPI meeting in June 2024, and then the assessment was again reviewed and updated in July 2024. The DON further stated that page 17 was updated to reflect the water management and three (3) days of emergency food and water supply that should be included in the FWA. The DON acknowledged that the emergency water and food supply and water management should have been included in the FWA. On 10/07/24 at 01:09 PM, the survey team met with the LNHA and DON. The surveyor notified the facility management of the concerns with the FWA that it did not include water management and emergency food and water supply. On 10/08/24 at 9:03 AM, the DON provided a copy of the facility's QAPI Policy with a review date of 01/22. The DON informed the surveyor in the presence of another surveyor that the QAPI policy included information about the Facility Assessment and there was no separate policy for Facility Assessment. The DON acknowledged that the concern of the surveyor that the water management and emergency food and water supply were not included in the Facility Assessment was an oversight. A review of the QAPI Policy provided by the DON revealed: Purpose: The facility will also identify in conjunction with the Facility Assessment high-risk, problem-prone, and high-volume areas to evaluate for improvement by identifying, collecting, and using data relevant to the unique characteristics and needs of those we serve. Procedure: 6. Issues identified as part of the QAPI Program, such as new equipment, service, or facility resources, are addressed in the Annual Facility Assessment . On 10/08/24 at 12:25 PM, the survey team met with the LNHA, DON, Medical Director, and the VP (Vice President) of Senior Services for an Exit Conference. The facility management did not provide additional information and did not refute the findings. NJAC 8:39-5.1(a)
Jun 2023 9 deficiencies 1 IJ
CRITICAL (J) 📢 Someone Reported This

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

Immediate Jeopardy (IJ) - the most serious Medicare violation

Accident Prevention (Tag F0689)

Someone could have died · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Complaint #NJ00163279 Based on observation, interviews, record review, and review of other pertinent facility documentation, it ...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Complaint #NJ00163279 Based on observation, interviews, record review, and review of other pertinent facility documentation, it was determined that the facility failed to provide adequate supervision for a resident who was an elopement risk for 1 of 3 residents reviewed for elopement on a secured behavioral unit (Resident #229). The facility failed to provide adequate supervision and identify that a resident with a history of elopement and cognitive impairment was missing upon the activation of an exit door alarm on a secured unit. This posed a serious and immediate risk to the health, safety, and well-being of Resident #229. The Immediate Jeopardy (IJ) situation was determined to have existed on 4/7/2023 when Resident #229 exited the building without staff knowledge and was found by law enforcement 1.2 miles away from the facility, which is adjacent to a wide, double-lane roadway. The facility developed and implemented a corrective action plan, and the past-noncompliance IJ was determined to have been removed on 4/7/2023. The facility's noncompliance was corrected on 4/7/2023. The Licensed Nursing Home Administrator (LNHA) and other facility administration were notified of the Immediate Jeopardy on 6/12/23 at 3:13 PM. The LNHA stated it was human error by a Certified Nursing Aide in their lack of response to the sounding door alarm. The LNHA further stated the facility followed protocol after discovering that the resident could not be located by the staff on the unit and the facility implemented systemic corrective actions. On 6/12/2023 at 2:09 PM, the Administrator, Director of Nursing (DON), and Director of Quality (DQ) also acting as Assistant DON were informed of the past noncompliance IJ situation. This deficient practice was evidenced by the following: The surveyor reviewed the electronic medical record (eMAR) for Resident #229 which revealed the following: The facility's Resident Face Sheet (a one-page summary of important information about the patient) listed diagnoses that included, but were not limited to, Alzheimer's Disease (a progressive disease that destroys memory and other important mental functions) and Dementia (a group of conditions characterized by impairment of at least two brain functions, such as memory loss and judgement). The admission Minimum Data Set (MDS), an assessment tool used to facilitate the management of care, dated 3/30/23, revealed the facility assessed the resident's cognitive status using a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score. The resident scored a 3 out of 15, which indicated that the resident had a severe cognitive impairment. The MDS assessment further revealed that the resident used a wander/elopement alarm daily and had diagnoses that included but were not limited to, Alzheimer's Disease, Anxiety Disorder, and Schizophrenia (a disorder that affects a person's ability to think, feel, and behave clearly). A review of the Physician's Order tab located in the eMAR documenting all current physician's orders for Resident #229, dated 3/23/23, read: ROAM TAG ALERT [a wander alarm] TO RIGHT ANKLE-ENSURE PLACEMENT Q [every] SHIFT FOR: ELOPEMENT PRECAUTION. Continued review of the physician's order tab with an entry for Resident #229, dated 3/23/23, read: ROAM TAG ALERT TO RIGHT ANKLE- ENSURE FUNCTION Q 11-7 SHIFT FOR: ELOPEMENT PRECAUTION. Review of an individualized care plan (CP) dated 4/3/2023 with a focus of elopement for Resident #229, listed interventions that included: ensuring placement and function of the roam tag alert on the resident's right ankle; redirecting and engaging the resident in another activity when the resident expressed the desire to go home or when seeking exits; and to notify the supervisor, ADON (Assistant Director of Nursing) immediately of any elopement attempts. A nursing progress note (PN) dated 3/23/23 revealed that the resident was exit seeking, pushing at unit exit doors. The PN further documented that the resident was redirected by staff. The PN indicated that the resident had a history of elopement prior to admission to the facility. Additional review of Resident #229 PNs revealed that on 3/25/23, 3/26/23, 4/2/23, and 4/4/23 the resident was exit seeking, pushing at exit doors on the unit, and had to be re-directed by the staff. The PNs on 4/2/23 and 4/4/23 further revealed that the resident was pushing at exit doors on the unit and setting off the alarms prior to re-direction by the staff. A review of an investigation report completed by the facility indicated that Resident #229 had an actual elopement on 4/7/23, and the investigation revealed the following: Resident #229 received care and medications by the night shift nurse on 4/7/23 at 5:55 AM. A review of security camera footage after the resident's elopement by the facility, revealed that the resident was last seen at 7:05 AM, in which the resident exited through a fire exit door on the unit, that led to the outside of the facility. At 9:09 AM, the Certified Nursing Aide/Certified Behavioral Technician (CNA/CBT) #2 assigned to the resident informed the Registered Nurse (RN) Team Leader that she could not locate Resident #229 and a search for the resident was initiated. At 9:11 AM, the ADON of the unit was notified, responded to the unit, and notified security to review the camera footage. At 9:15 AM -9:25 AM, the DON was notified, and an elopement code was activated. At 9:30 AM, the Administrator called 911. At 9:55 AM, the resident's family was notified. At 10:05 AM, Resident #229 was found by law enforcement at a park, 1.2 miles away from the facility and was returned to the unit. The resident was evaluated by the medical team and a body assessment was completed upon the resident's return to the facility. The resident had no physical injuries. On 6/8/23 at 11:26 AM, the surveyor interviewed the ADON with the Registered Nurse (RN) Team Leader of the secured behavioral unit about the elopement of Resident #229. The ADON stated that when the resident was found to be missing, the search began, and security looked at camera footage to identify where the resident went. The DON stated that she reviewed the security camera footage and the footage revealed that Resident #229 exited the behavior unit through doors located on the C-wing hall. The ADON who also reviewed the footage added that the resident exited through fire-egress doors- which could be opened when leaning on the doors for a certain amount of time as designed for emergency situations. The ADON informed the surveyor that after the resident was found, a medical workup was completed, staff were re-educated on elopement protocols and alarm systems, and the resident's CP was updated with a new intervention. The CP new intervention indicated that the resident was an early riser and should be directed to a supervised area to have breakfast and an early activity. On 6/8/23 at 11:45 AM, the surveyor observed Resident #229 by an activity day room on the unit. The resident was walking independently, alert, pleasant, able to verbalize their name and stated, My day is going ok when asked how they were doing. The resident was observed with a roam tag alert to their right ankle and supervised by staff. A review of post-elopement facility documents revealed that the facility provided formal remediation for staff directly involved. This included CNA/CBT #1, who shut the sounding alarm without notifying staff on the unit and CNA/CBT #2 who was the direct care for Resident #229, both received re-education and disciplinary action. All staff were re-educated on elopement protocols, the facility alert systems, door alarms and rounding on residents. At the time of the survey, security camera footage was no longer available for the time of the incident on 4/7/23. On 6/9/23 at 11:25 AM, the surveyor interviewed the Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) #1 who was assigned to Resident #229 at the time of the resident's elopement on 4/7/23. LPN #1 stated the resident eloped during shift change and at the time she was assisting another resident who was having bloodwork drawn. LPN #1 acknowledged she did not conduct rounds or see the resident that morning prior to becoming aware that the resident was missing. LPN #1 stated that she had assumed the CNA/CBT's conducted rounds on the residents. LPN#1 stated that she became aware the resident was missing when CNA/CBT#2, who was assigned to the resident, reported that she was unable to locate the resident. They began searching for the resident and elopement protocols were initiated. LPN #1 stated that after the elopement incident, she ensures that she conducts rounds on the residents. On 6/9/23 at 12:19 PM, the surveyor interviewed the ADON about elopement protocols and about the elopement of Resident #229. The ADON stated it was human error, CNA/CBT #1 checked surrounding area by the exit door when she heard the door alarm sound off. After checking the area, CNA/CBT #1 turned off the alarm and continued her assignment. The ADON explained that if an exit door alarm is triggered that a head count of residents should always be done by staff as there is the possibility of a door alarm being triggered by a resident. On 6/9/23 at 1:33 PM, the ADON provided the surveyor with a report for the alert system from the day of the elopement. The provided document was an activity log for Resident #229 for 4/7/23 from the roam tag alert system on the unit. The activity log indicated a log time of Friday 04/07/23, at 07:05:13 AM with a status that read Active Alarm Received. The last entry on the log was Friday 04/07/23 at 07:05:43 AM with a status that read Alarm Complete. On 6/9/23 at 1:45 PM, the surveyor along with the DON reviewed the report for the alert system from the day of the elopement. The DON stated that the alert system picked up Resident #229's roam tag alert when the resident opened the C-wing exit door and the last entry was indicated completed as the resident walked away from the exit door and the roam tag alert was no longer in range to be detected. On 6/12/23 at 11:35 AM, the surveyor interviewed CNA/CBT #2 who was assigned to care for Resident #229 on the day of the elopement. The surveyor asked CNA/CBT #2 if she saw Resident #229 or conducted rounds that morning. CNA/CBT #2 replied she arrived a few minutes late that day and stated, I don't know what happened that day, that she usually did rounds. The CNA/CBT #2 stated that she looked for the resident during breakfast time, around 9 AM, could not locate the resident, and notified the nurse. On 6/12/23 at 11:44 AM, the surveyor interviewed CNA/CBT #1 who worked on unit the day of Resident #229's elopement and responded to exit door alarm that was activated. CNA/CBT #1 stated at the start of the 7-3 day shift she went to the breakroom first then to the nurses' station, in which she heard an alarm from an exit door on the unit. CNA/CBT #1 stated that she looked for the exit door with the alarm and found it was the C-wing exit door. CNA/CBT #1 stated that she went through the exit doors, looked around the nearby area by the doors, and did not see anything. CNA/CBT #1 stated that she returned to the unit through the doors and cleared the door alarm. CNA/CBT #1 stated coworkers were aware she went to respond to the door alarm but could not recall what transpired then. CNA/CBT #1 informed the surveyor that she could not recall if she informed the nurse or supervisors about the door alarm she responded to. CNA/CBT #1 became visibly emotional during the interview with the surveyor, and stated the incident was all jumbled up in her mind. CNA/CBT #1 verified that she received formal re-education and disciplinary action after the elopement incident. The surveyor reviewed the facility's policy with an effective date of 8/22, titled Elopement Alert, which was provided by the Director of Quality. The policy included, under purpose, To provide a safe, organized, and effective response to a patient elopement. The policy did not address the procedure for response to the roam tag alert system and door alarm activation when a resident is found missing and an elopement code is activated. On 6/12/23 at 2:57 PM, the surveyor asked the DON for any other policies regarding the roam tag alert, staff response and protocols for activated door alarms and alert systems. The DON stated that once a door alarm was activated, it should be automatically assumed by the staff that a resident may have eloped and a head count should be initiated immediately to check that all residents are present on the unit. The DON revealed that there were no further related policies to be provided. On 6/12/23 at 3:13 PM, the survey team met with the Administrator, DON, and DQ about the elopement of Resident #229 and informed them of the IJ past non-compliance. The Administrator stated it was human error by CNA/CBT #1 in response to the door alarm, which she received formal remediation that included re-education and disciplinary action. The Administrator further stated the facility followed protocol after discovering that the resident could not be located by the staff on the unit. The Administrator could not comment on the expectation of the facility nursing staff for rounding on residents on the unit, but that all staff were re-educated, all processes and systems in place were checked. The survey team informed the facility that the failure to provide supervision to Resident #229 who had a history of elopement and exit-seeking behaviors leading up to the actual elopement on 4/7/23 when a CNA/CBT #1 did not appropriately respond to the alarming door to prevent elopement. This resulted in an IJ situation. On 6/13/2023 at 9:00 AM, the facility provided a copy of their corrective action plan that was developed and implemented beginning on 4/7/23 after Resident #229 eloped from the facility. Review of the plan revealed the following actions taken on 4/7/23: Mandatory re-education in-service on elopement precautions and policies was provided to all [NAME] [secured behavioral unit] staff. Roam alert technical re-training was provided to the staff Formal remediation for the one (1) staff person directly involved Security personnel was placed at the door for additional surveillance post-event evaluation [NAME] [alert] system was re-inspected and confirmed to be working properly The plan of care for the resident was updated Process review was initiated The plan further indicated ongoing education to staff regarding elopement precautions and policies, roam alert, and resident safety protocols; quarterly inspection and testing of the alert system; Monitoring resident behaviors for exit-seeking and implementing appropriate interventions for residents; The DON, Administrator, and/or designee will review any incidents and ensure necessary interventions are implemented; The facility will continue to self-report all incidents as required by NJ DOH regulations. After conducting observations, interviews, record review and review of pertinent documents, the survey team verified the facility implemented all components of the action plan and the deficient practice was corrected on 4/7/23 prior to the annual survey entrance. On 6/13/23 at 11:43 AM, the surveyor interviewed the DON, about rounds conducted by nursing staff and about the nursing staff not being aware the resident was missing until approximately 2 hours later. The DON acknowledged it was expected for nursing staff to conduct rounds during the shift, including at the start of the shift. The DON further stated CNA/CBT #1, responded to the door alarm, searched the immediate area, cleared the door alarm but did not notify the nurse or supervisor about it. NJAC 8:39-33.1(d)
CONCERN (D)

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

MDS Data Transmission (Tag F0640)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on interview and record review, it was determined that the facility failed to accurately complete and timely transmit the Minimum Data Set (MDS) for 6 of 36 residents reviewed, Residents #171, #...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on interview and record review, it was determined that the facility failed to accurately complete and timely transmit the Minimum Data Set (MDS) for 6 of 36 residents reviewed, Residents #171, #71, #39, #45, #54, #223, and was evidenced by the following: On 6/13/23 at 10:45 AM, the surveyor reviewed the facility assessment task that included the Resident's MDS Assessments. The MDS is a comprehensive tool that is a federal mandated process for clinical assessment of all residents that must be completed and transmitted to the Quality Measure System. The facility must electronically transmit the MDS up to 14 days of the assessment being completed. After transmitting the MDS, a quality measure to enable a facility to monitor resident's decline and progress is generated. The following residents were identified for MDS timely transition issues: 1. Resident #171 was identified to have a Quarterly MDS (Q/MDS) with Assessment Reference Date (ARD) of 3/24/23 and was due to be transmitted no later than 4/21/23. The MDS was not transmitted until 6/13/23. 2. Resident #71 was identified to have a Q/MDS with ARD of 3/22/123 and was due to be transmitted no later than 4/19/23. The MDS was not transmitted until 6/13/23. 3. Resident #39 was identified to have a Q/MDS with ARD of 3/22/23 and was due to be transmitted no later than 4/19/23. The MDS was not transmitted until 6/13/23. 4. Resident #45 was identified to have a Q/MDS with ARD of 3/22/23 and was due to be transmitted no later than 4/19/23. The MDS was not transmitted until 6/13/23. 5. Resident #54 was identified to have a Q/MDS with ARD of 3/22/23 and was due to be transmitted no later than 4/19/23. The MDS was not transmitted until 6/13/23. 6. Resident #223 was identified to have a Q/MDS with ARD of 3/34/23 and was due to be transmitted no later than 4/21/23. The MDS was not transmitted until 6/13/23. On 6/13/23 at 11:14 AM, two surveyors interviewed the RN (Registered Nurse)/MDS Coordinator who stated that as the facility's MDS Coordinator, she would generate a report from the Quality Measure System titled, MDS 3.0 Missing OBRA (Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1987, a nursing home reform act that was enacted by Congress to protect people from abuse in nursing homes) Assessment Report monthly. This report should indicate the resident's name with any missing MDS assessments. At 1:12 PM, the RN/MDS Coordinator provided the surveyor a copy of the form titled, MDS 3.0 Missing OBRA Assessment Report which revealed the above residents names and confirmed the missing MDS assessments. On 6/14/23 at 10:02 AM, the RN/MDS Coordinator did not provide any further information. On 6/14/23 at 1:00 PM, the Administrator and the Director of Nursing were informed regarding the above concern. They did not provide any further information. NJAC 8:39 - 11.1
CONCERN (D)

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

Comprehensive Care Plan (Tag F0656)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on observation, interview, and record review it was determined that the facility failed to carry out a comprehensive care plan (CP) for 1 of 42 residents reviewed for the fulfillment of a care p...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, interview, and record review it was determined that the facility failed to carry out a comprehensive care plan (CP) for 1 of 42 residents reviewed for the fulfillment of a care plan, Resident #30. This deficient practice was evidenced by the following: On 6/6/23 at 10:10 AM, the surveyor observed Resident #30 in bed with a floor mat on the left side of the bed, between the resident and their roommate. The resident's bed was in a position equal to their roommate. On 6/7/23 at 11:25 AM, the surveyor observed Resident #30 in bed with a floor mat on the left side of the bed, between the resident and their roommate. The resident's bed was in a position equal to their roommate. The surveyor reviewed the resident's hybrid medical chart which included a review of a paper as well as computerized medical chart. Review of the Face Sheet (FS), a one-page summary of important information about a patient that documented the resident's diagnosis as well as the diagnosis tab, which included but was not limited to Alzheimer's Disease, Dementia, Unspecified Fracture of lower end of right femur, Periprosthetic fracture around internal prosthetic right hip joint, History of falling, Syncope and collapse, Muscle weakness, Unspecified abnormalities of gait and mobility, and Rheumatoid Arthritis. Review of the Quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS), an assessment tool dated 3/10/23, the resident had a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of 99, indicating that Resident #30 had severely impaired cognition. Review of Resident #30's CP with an effective date of 4/4/19 and 4/8/21 presented a goal that Resident #30 will be free from falls. Documented intervention added to Resident #30's CP on 4/4/19 was, Bed in low position. Another documented intervention added to Resident #30's CP on 4/8/21 was, Floor mat to bedsides. On 6/7/23 at 12:00 PM, the surveyor along with the Registered Nurse Team Leader Unit Manager (RNTL) reviewed the CP for Resident #30. The RNTL explained that the CP indicates that there should be floor mats on both sides of the bed as well as the bed set in the low position. The RNTL assessed the resident's room and agreed that there should be a floor mat on both sides of the bed. The RNTL inspected the resident's room and could not find another floor mat for the other side of the bed. The RNTL proceeded to test the bed and noted that a low position described by the CP would be equivalent to the lowest position of the bed setting. The RNTL agreed that the position of the bed that Resident #30 was in, was not the lowest position. The RNTL explained, low position should be the lowest position of the bed for optimum safety for the resident in case of falls. Review of the facility history for Resident #30 demonstrated that there were no recent documented falls. There was no harm that occurred due to the lack of implementation of the resident's CP for floor mats on both sides of the bed and low bed level. On 6/7/23 at 2:03 PM, the surveyor informed the Director of Nursing (DON), in the presence of Director of Quality/ADON and Administrator of the issues concerning Resident #30. On 6/9/23 at 9:38 AM, the DON in the presence of Director of Quality/ADON explained, low bed position is equivalent to the lowest bed setting for the safety of the resident. There was no further information provided. N.J.A.C. 8:39-11.2 1,2
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 observation, interview, and record review it was determined the facility failed to a.) follow a physician's order (PO) for administering medications, b.) document the daily weights in accorda...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, interview, and record review it was determined the facility failed to a.) follow a physician's order (PO) for administering medications, b.) document the daily weights in accordance with the PO and c.) document the consumed fluid intake for a resident with a PO for fluid restrictions. This deficient practice was observed for 1 of 39 residents reviewed for physician order accuracy, Resident #503. This deficient practice was evidence by the following: Reference: New Jersey Statutes Annotated, Title 45. Chapter 11. Nursing Board. The Nurse Practice Act for the State of New Jersey states: The practice of nursing as a registered professional nurse is defined as diagnosing and treating human responses to actual and potential physical and emotional health problems, through such services as case finding, health teaching, health counseling, and provision of care supportive to or restorative of life and wellbeing, and executing medical regimens as prescribed by a licensed or otherwise legally authorized physician or dentist. On 6/1/23 at 10:52 AM, Resident #503 was observed sitting in their room on a wheelchair. Resident #503 appropriately responded to the surveyor. The resident was observed receiving oxygen (O2) via a nasal cannula controlled by a concentrator set at 2 liters per minute (LPM). Resident #503 informed the surveyor that they are transported to dialysis on Mondays, Wednesdays, and Fridays. The surveyor reviewed Resident's Hybrid (computerized and paper) medical record. A review of Resident #503's Face Sheet (a one-page summary of important information about the patient) that documented the resident's diagnosis which included but was not limited to End Stage Renal Disease, Dependence on dialysis, Chronic Respiratory Failure, Hypertensive Heart Disease with Heart Failure. A Review of the Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) dated 5/24/23 with a score of 15, indicating that Resident #503 had an intact cognition. On 6/5/23 at 12:45 PM, the surveyor reviewed the June 2023 Order Summary Report for Resident #503 which revealed a Physician's Orders (PO) with a start date of 5/27/2023 for, Ranolazine ER 500 mg tablet extended release, give 1 tablet by oral route every 12 hours for angina. A review of the June 2023 electronic Medication Administration Record (eMAR) revealed that the medication was scheduled to be administered at 9:00 AM and 6:00 PM. On 6/7/23 at 2:14 PM, the surveyor discussed the discrepancy of the directions of the PO for every 12 hours and administration of Ranolazine ER 500 mg tablet extended release at 9:00 AM and 6:00 PM with the Director of Nursing (DON) and the Assistant Director of Nursing/Director of Quality (ADON/DQ). The surveyor informed the DON and ADON/DQ that the time of administration did not reflect the PO, which ordered the medication to be administered every 12 hours. 1. On 6/5/23 at 12:45 PM, the surveyor reviewed the June 2023 Order Summary Report for Resident #503 which revealed a PO start date of 5/24/23 that indicated, take daily weights in AM, before breakfast. Review of the May 2023 eMAR revealed that 2 out of 8 days of the month reviewed, 5/25/23 and 5/28/23, Resident #503's weights were not documented. On 6/7/23 at 2:14 PM, the surveyor met with the DON and the ADON/DQ to discuss the above concern regarding the missing weights for 5/25/23 and 5/28/23. On 6/8/23 at 10:15 AM, the DON and ADON/DQ met with the survey team and acknowledged that Resident #503's weights were not obtained on the dates 5/25/23 and 5/28/23 according to the PO. 2. On 6/5/23 at 12:45 PM, the surveyor reviewed the June 2023 Order Summary Report which revealed that Resident #503 had a PO order with a start date of 5/24/2023 for Fluid restriction of 1000 ml per day. Continued review of the May 2023 and June 2023 eMAR for Resident #503 revealed that on 5/26/23 during the 3-11 shift and on 6/3/23 during the 7-3 shift, there were no amounts entered for fluids consumed by the resident. An additional review of the form titled, Monitoring Record revealed no documentation of fluids consumed on 5/26/23 during the 3-11 shift and on 6/3/23 during the 7-3 shift. A review of the Dialysis Care Plan for Resident #503, revealed in the intervention section, 1.) daily weights in AM before breakfast and 2.) Monitor and document fluids restrictions of 1000 milliliters (ml) per day, Nursing allotment of 280 ml (120 ml for medication on 7-3 and 3-11, 40 ml on 11-7) Dietary allotment of 720 ml with Nursing to monitor and record all fluid taken at meals/snacks/medication pass-per shift and enter ml's into monitoring section of sigma care (Facility computer electronic chart system). A review of the facility's Dialysis Policy documented, Nurse will follow the physician orders for vital signs, nutrition, weight, and fluids needs. On 6/7/23 at 2:14 PM, the surveyor met with the DON and the ADON/DQ to discuss the above concern of the missing fluid consumption documentation for Resident #503. Both the DON and ADON/DQ acknowledged that there was a lack of fluid consumption documentation for Resident #503 on the dates of 5/26/23 during the 3-11 shift and on 6/3/23 during the 7-3 shift. No further documentation was provided. NJAC 8:39-11.2 (b); 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

2. On 5/31/23 at 12:49 PM, the surveyor observed Resident #236 sitting in a wheelchair eating lunch. The resident was receiving oxygen via a nasal cannula that was attached to an oxygen concentrator. ...

Read full inspector narrative →
2. On 5/31/23 at 12:49 PM, the surveyor observed Resident #236 sitting in a wheelchair eating lunch. The resident was receiving oxygen via a nasal cannula that was attached to an oxygen concentrator. The resident stated that they always used oxygen. On 6/6/23 at 10:16 AM, the surveyor observed Resident #236 sitting in a wheelchair in their room. The resident was receiving oxygen via a nasal cannula that was attached to an oxygen concentrator. The oxygen concentrator was set at 2 LPM. The resident stated that they always used oxygen. The surveyor reviewed the medical record of Resident #236 which revealed the following: The resident's face sheet revealed that Resident #236 was admitted with diagnoses that included but was not limited to Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) and Acute and chronic respiratory failure with hypercapnia (excessive carbon dioxide in the bloodstream, typically caused by inadequate respiration). The admission MDS assessment, dated 5/19/23, revealed the facility assessed the resident's cognitive status using a BIMS. The resident scored an 11 out of 15, which indicated that the resident had moderately impaired cognition. A review of the resident's physician orders revealed an active physician's order dated 5/15/23, for Oxygen 2 LPM PRN [as needed] for shortness of breath. The May 2023 Treatment Administration Record (TAR) was initialed by nurses on 5/15/23 and 5/28/23 to indicate PRN oxygen at 2 LPM was administered as ordered by the physician. The June 2023 TAR revealed the PRN order for oxygen at 2 LPM order entry was not signed was not signed by the nurse for 6/1/23 to 6/6/23. A review of the resident's CP included an entry dated 5/15/23 with a focus that read Respiratory dysfunction. The CP did not address oxygen therapy use. On 6/6/23 at 10:22 AM, the surveyor interviewed the LPN assigned to care for Resident #236. The LPN explained that the resident used continuous oxygen at 2 LPM via nasal cannula and used a bipap (a device that helps with breathing) at night. The LPN along with the surveyor reviewed the physician orders and TAR for Resident #236, which revealed that the resident only had an order for PRN oxygen at 2 LPM. The LPN was unaware that the resident only had the order for PRN and stated that the resident used oxygen continuously. On 6/6/23 at 10:47 AM, the surveyor interviewed the team leader on the unit about the above concerns for Resident #236. The team leader reviewed the physician orders and TAR for Resident #236. The team leader stated the resident's order was PRN as the resident could remove oxygen when eating and going to the bathroom. The surveyor asked the team leader if it would be expected for nurses to sign the TAR for the PRN order for oxygen if oxygen was administered to the resident. The team leader stated Yes the nurses would be expected to sign the TAR when the oxygen was administered to the resident. On 6/7/23 at 2:08 PM, the surveyor informed the Administrator, DON, and DQ/ADON of the above concerns and interviews. The DQ/ADON stated it would be expected for the nurses to sign the order for oxygen if PRN oxygen was as ordered to the resident. The DQ/ADON further stated that the facility was working with the RT to evaluate resident oxygen orders. On 6/8/23 at 10:10 AM, the DON and DQ/ADON provided the CP policy. The DQ/ADON stated that Resident #236 was receiving continuous oxygen and the order should have been evaluated and clarified by the physician to reflect that. The DQ/ADON acknowledged that the resident's CP did not include oxygen therapy and the resident's CP should have included oxygen therapy. The DQ/ADON stated the Team Leader and ADON were responsible for reviewing and updating residents' CP. No further information was provided. NJAC 8:39-27.1 (a) Based on observation, interview, and review of pertinent medical records, it was determined that the facility failed to follow physician orders related to the use of continuous oxygen (O2) for 2 of 4 residents, Resident #40, and #236 who both had compromised breathing status conditions. This deficient practice was evidenced by: 1. On 6/6/23 at 10:05 AM, the surveyor interviewed Resident #40 who was seated in a wheelchair, in the dining area eating breakfast. Resident #40 was noted receiving O2 delivered through a nasal cannula (NC-plastic prongs attached to a tube, inserted into the nostrils that oxygen flows through) utilizing a concentrator (an oxygen delivery system) at 4 Liters per minute (LPM). The surveyor reviewed the resident's hybrid medical chart which included a review of a paper as well as computerized medical chart. Review of the Face Sheet (FS) (a one-page summary of important information about the patient) that documented the resident's diagnosis which included but was not limited to Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease with exacerbation, Pulmonary Fibrosis, and Arteriosclerotic Heart Disease. Review of the readmission Minimum Data Set (MDS), an assessment tool dated 5/4/23, the resident had a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of 9, indicating that Resident #40 had a mildly impaired cognition. Section O of the MDS, indicating Special Treatments, Procedures, and Programs received by Resident #40 in the last 14 days documented, Oxygen Therapy. Review of the Physician's Orders (PO) and electronic treatment administration record (eTAR) documented a physician's order for, Oxygen via mask continuous at 6 LPM with a start date of 5/25/23 at 11:55 AM. This order was signed by nursing as administered on 6/6/23 during the 7:00 AM-3:00 PM shift. On 6/7/23 at 10:00 AM, the surveyor reviewed the eTAR and found that the PO remained as Oxygen via mask continuous at 6 LPM with a start date of 5/25/23 at 11:55 AM. No other physician's orders were noted for O2 therapy. Review of Resident #40's Care Plan (CP) with an effective date of 5/4/23 presented, Maintain Oxygen therapy, via nasal cannula, continuous @ 4 LPM, for SOB (shortness of breath) @ 4 LPM to maintain SPO2 greater than 92% (check PSO2 (Pulsox) q shift). Another part of the CP indicated, PRN (as needed) Oxygen via nasal cannula @ 6 LPM for SPO2 less than 92%. On 6/7/23 at 11:20 AM, the surveyor observed Resident #40 seated in a wheelchair at the back lounge of the unit with O2 delivered utilizing a concentrator through a nasal cannula at 4 LPM On 6/7/23 at 11:31 AM, the surveyor interviewed the Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) caring for Resident #40. The LPN stated that she identified that the resident's O2 order was not correct and needed to be changed. The LPN stated that she just changed the O2 order to reflect 5 LPM and was on her way to change the setting of the O2 concentrator for Resident #40 to 5 LPM. The LPN explained that the order of 6 LPM previously ordered by the physician documented on the eTAR was via mask but since the resident was receiving O2 via nasal cannula, I reduced the setting to 5 LPM. The surveyor informed the LPN that Resident #40 was observed on 2 occasions on 2 separate days 6/6/23 and 6/7/23 with O2 settings on the concentrator of 4 LPM delivered via a nasal cannula. The LPN could not explain why the settings differed from the PO. On 6/7/23 at 11:45 AM, the surveyor interviewed the Respiratory Therapist (RT) who stated that the resident should be receiving 4 LPM of O2 via nasal cannula. The RT explained that she monitors Resident #40 in the morning via Pulsox Oximetry (a device that measure the oxygen level (oxygen saturation) of the blood) and sets the O2 according to the results Oximetry level. The RT stated that she was trying to lower the need for high levels of O2 that the resident needed previously, settings of 6 LPM. The RT explained that she visits with Resident #40 in the morning to perform a physician ordered breathing treatment. The RT identified that she has been setting the O2 concentrator to 4 LPM delivered via nasal cannula for the last 2 weeks for Resident #40. Review of the RT Progress Notes recorded that on 6/6/23 at 7:39 AM the RT documented that Resident #40 had an Oxygen Saturation (SPO2) of 96 % and the O2 via Nasal Cannula (NC) was set at 4 LPM. The RT Progress Notes reviewed from 6/7/23 at 11:07 AM recorded that the SPO2 was 95% and the O2 via Nasal Cannula (NC) was set at 4 LPM. Review of the Oxygen Therapy policy presented to the surveyor by the Director of Nursing on 6/9/23, under Purpose indicates, This policy is to instruct on how to treat hypoxemia, decrease work of breathing and decrease myocardial work in patients requiring supplemental O2 therapy due to respiratory or cardiac insufficiency. Continued review of the Oxygen Therapy policy under Procedure indicates, 2. Verify Medical Doctor order (should include liter flow, type of O2, delivery device). 7. Turn on the O2 source and adjust the low meter to the prescribed flow. 8. Verify the flow of O2 at the patient end of the delivery device. Review of the Application portion of the Oxygen Therapy policy explains, 1. a. Obtain a O2 Saturation to establish the potential O2 deficit. 2. Place patient on O2 up to 4 LPM. If the patient's saturation does not improve or if the patient is still having trouble breathing place the patient on a simple mask 6-8 LPM. On 6/7/23 at 2:03 PM, the Director of Nursing (DON), Director of Quality/Assistant DON (DQ/ADON) and Administrator were informed of the O2 issues. There was no further information provided
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0698 (Tag F0698)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on observation, interview, review of the medical record and review of other facility documentation, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure a resident's medication times were adjust...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, interview, review of the medical record and review of other facility documentation, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure a resident's medication times were adjusted to accommodate their dialysis schedule for 1 of 2 residents (Resident #503) reviewed for dialysis. This deficient practice was evidenced by the following: On 6/1/23 at 10:52 AM, Resident #503 was observed sitting in their room in a wheelchair. Resident #503 appropriately responded to the surveyor. The resident was observed receiving oxygen (O2) via a nasal cannula controlled by a concentrator set at 2 liters per minute (LPM). Resident #503 informed the surveyor that they were scheduled for dialysis on Mondays, Wednesdays, and Fridays. Review of Resident #503's hybrid (computerized and paper) clinical medical records revealed: A review of the Resident #503's Face Sheet (a one-page summary of important information about the patient) that documented the resident's diagnosis which included but was not limited to End Stage Renal Disease, Dependence on dialysis, Chronic Respiratory Failure, Hypertensive Heart Disease with Heart Failure and Stage 5 Chronic Kidney Disease. A Review of the Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) dated 5/24/23 with a score of 15 out of 15, indicating that Resident #503 had an intact cognition. A review of the Clinical Physicians Orders revealed a PO with a start date on 5/23/23, for Hemodialysis, on Monday, Wednesday, and Friday at 10:15 AM. Further review of the PO revealed the following orders, Isosorbide Dinitrate (medication used to prevent angina) 20 mg (milligram) 1 tablet by oral route (po) TID (three times a day) hold for SBP (Systolic Blood Pressure) less than 100, Hydralazine (medication for hypertension) 25 mg 1 tablet po TID which both having start dates of 5/27/23, and Coreg (medication for hypertension) 25 mg 1 tablet po TID hold for apical pulse (a pulse point on your chest that gives the most accurate reading of your heart rate) less than 60 with a start date of 5/23/23, Renvela (medication for hyperphosphatasemia) 800 mg 1 tablet po TID with a start date of 5/23/23, which was changed on 5/29/2023 to Renvela 800 mg oral powder packet 1 packet 800 mg mixed with 30 milliliters of water po TID. A review of the May 2023 electronic medication administration record (eMAR) for Resident #503 demonstrated that the physician orders for Isosorbide Dinitrate 20 mg give 1 tablet by oral TID for angina (plotted for administration at 6 AM-2 PM 10 PM), Hydralazine 25 mg 1 tablet TID for hypertension (plotted for administration at 9 AM- 1 PM- 6 PM), Coreg 25 mg 1 tablet po TID for hypertension (plotted for administration at 6 AM- 2 PM- 10 PM), Renvela 800 mg 1 tablet oral TID (plotted for administration at 8 AM- 12 PM- 5 PM), and Renvela 0.8 gram packet mixed with 30 ml of water give oral TID (plotted for administration at 8 AM- 12:30 PM- 5 PM), had nurses' initials and an asterisk mark on the eMAR indicating that the medications were not given during the assigned administration designated times of 12:00 PM to 2:00 PM. The documentation on the May 2023 eMAR on the following dates: 5/24/2023, 5/26/2023, 5/29/2023, and 5/31/2023. The documentation explained Office visit or Out of room/off unit for the days that all the medications were not administered, and Resident #503 was not in the facility receiving dialysis treatment. A review of the Nurses Progress Notes dated 5/23/2023-5/31/2023 indicated that Resident #503 was out of the facility and receiving dialysis treatment on 5/24/2023, 5/26/2023, 5/29/2023, and 5/31/2023 during the scheduled medication times. A review of facility's Dialysis Policy indicates, The nurse will collaborate with the patient/resident to adjust medications to fit dialysis schedule. An order will be obtained by the physician order to adjust the time medications to for the patient/resident's schedule. During a surveyor interview with the Assistant Director of Nursing (ADON) on 6/2/2023 at 11:56 AM, the ADON stated that medications are being held per doctor's order when the resident is receiving dialysis. The ADON informed the surveyor that facility's Medical Director (MD) is aware that when the resident is receiving dialysis their scheduled medications are being held. The surveyor reviewed physician orders with the ADON. The ADON could not locate any order or documentation that the MD was aware or ordered scheduled medication to be held for Resident #503 during dialysis. During a meeting with the ADON and the Director of Nursing with the surveyor team on 6/2/2023 at 1:17 PM, the facility ADON stated that Resident #503's medications should have been adjusted on admission based on the doctor's order to accommodate the resident's dialysis schedule, when the resident is not present in the facility. No further information was provided. NJAC 8:39 - 27.1 (a)
CONCERN (D)

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

Drug Regimen Review (Tag F0756)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

2. On 6/1/23 at 10:52 AM, Resident #503 was observed sitting in their room in a wheelchair. Resident #503 appropriately responded to the surveyor. The resident was observed receiving oxygen (O2) via a...

Read full inspector narrative →
2. On 6/1/23 at 10:52 AM, Resident #503 was observed sitting in their room in a wheelchair. Resident #503 appropriately responded to the surveyor. The resident was observed receiving oxygen (O2) via a nasal cannula controlled by a concentrator set at 2 liters per minute (LPM). Resident #503 informed the surveyor that they were scheduled for dialysis on Mondays, Wednesdays, and Fridays. Review of Resident #503's hybrid (computerized and paper) clinical medical records revealed: A review of the Resident #503's Face Sheet (a one-page summary of important information about the patient) that documented the resident's diagnosis which included but was not limited to End Stage Renal Disease, Dependence on dialysis, Chronic Respiratory Failure, Hypertensive Heart Disease with Heart Failure and Stage 5 Chronic Kidney Disease. A Review of the Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) dated 5/24/23 with a score of 15 out of 15, indicating that Resident #503 had an intact cognition. A review of the Clinical Physicians Orders (PO) dated 5/23/23, revealed a PO for Hemodialysis, on Monday, Wednesday, and Friday at 10:15 AM. Further review of the PO revealed the following orders all with a documented start date of 5/23/23, Coreg (medication for hypertension) 25 mg 1 tablet po TID hold for apical pulse (a pulse point on your chest that gives the most accurate reading of your heart rate) less than 60, Renvela (medication for hyperphosphatasemia) 800 mg 1 tablet po TID. A review of the May 2023 electronic medication administration record (eMAR) for Resident #503 demonstrated that the physician orders for Coreg 25 mg 1 tablet po TID (scheduled for 6AM-2PM-10PM) for hypertension, Renvela 800 mg 1 tablet oral TID (scheduled for 8AM-12PM-5PM) indicating and documented that the medications were not given during the designated time of 12:00 PM to 2:00 PM when the resident was away from the facility at dialysis on 5/24/2023, 5/26/2023, 5/29/2023, and 5/31/2023. The documentation on the eMAR explained Office visit or Out of room/off unit for the days that the medications were not administered, and Resident #503 was receiving dialysis treatment. A review of the Nurses Progress Notes dated 5/23/2023-5/31/2023 indicated that Resident #503 was out of the facility and receiving dialysis treatment on 5/24/2023, 5/26/2023, 5/29/2023, and 5/31/2023 during the scheduled medication times. On 6/9/23 at 9:59 AM, the surveyor interviewed the Director of Quality from the Pharmacy Consulting Company who verified that no mention was made to the facility to schedule medications according to the resident's dialysis schedule. Since the resident did not remain in the facility, 5/24/23 was the only medication review evaluated by the Consultant Pharmacist. On 6/9/23 at 1:30 PM, the surveyor reviewed the initial evaluation of medication report dated 5/24/2023 and created by the consultant pharmacist (CRPH) during their medication review for the resident's admission dated 5/24/2023. There was no mention related to the scheduling of Resident #503's medications in regard to the resident's dialysis schedule. There was no mention of Resident #503 being a dialysis resident. Review of the Pharmaceutical Care Consultant Service Agreement originally signed on 3/1/23 and resigned on 3/1/23 which represents, Interim Medication Regimen Review (IMRR) completed 24 hours on business days and 48 hours on weekends and holidays, for all new admissions, readmissions change of status and antibiotic stewardship. In addition under, 1. All Services are provided in compliance with Federal, State, Regulatory and Voluntary agency standards. c. The Clinical contracted service provider monitors the results of the chart audit and notifies DON or designee immediately, in writing, in the event of a potentially critical finding related to Medication Management. In addition under, 2. The provider safely performs services. a. The clinical contracted service provider performs services and reports results to the facility staff within 24 business hours of findings. b. Critical findings which require immediate clinical interventions are reported to DON or designee immediately, in writing. On 6/9/23 at 9:38 AM, the surveyors discussed the issue with the Director of Nursing and the Director of Quality/ADON. No further information was provided. NJAC 8:39- 11.2 (d) Based on observation, interview, and record review, it was determined that the Consultant Pharmacist (CP) failed to identify and notify the facility of possible medication irregularities. These irregularities were identified for 2 of 42 residents reviewed for CP medication evaluation, Resident #30, and Resident #503. The deficient practice was evidenced by the following: 1. On 6/6/23 at 10:18 AM, the surveyor observed Resident #30 in bed receiving care from a Certified Nursing Assistant in their room. The surveyor reviewed the resident's hybrid chart which included a review of a paper as well as computerized medical chart. Review of the Face Sheet (FS), a one-page summary of important information about a patient that documented the resident's diagnosis as well as the diagnosis tab, which included but was not limited to Dysphagia (difficulty or discomfort in swallowing) and Rheumatoid arthritis. Review of Resident #30's Physician's orders (PO) presented an active order, Medications may be crushed as permitted by manufacturer and administered together to decrease resident discomfort, dated 6/17/21. Continued review of the PO presented an order for, Methotrexate Sodium 2.5 mg give 2 tablets (5 mg) by oral route every week Every Tuesday at 9 am including a Protocol: This is a HIGH RISK/High ALERT MEDICATION .PROCEED WITH CAUTION. Review of the electronic medical administration record (eMAR) signed and documented that Methotrexate Sodium 2.5 mg was administered at 9:00 AM on 6/6/23 by the medication administration nurse on duty. On 6/6/23 at 10:25 AM, the surveyor interviewed the Consultant Pharmacist (CP) in the presence of the facility Assistant Director of Nursing who stated, Methotrexate is not on the do not crush list. The CP added that it is crushed in a plastic container using a crushing device. Review of the Consultant Pharmacist Review from 1/1/22 to 6/9/23 did not reveal any documentation alerting the facility that Methotrexate should not be crushed. On 6/6/23 at 10:32 AM, the surveyor interviewed the medication Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) who had administered the 9:00 AM medications to Resident #30. The LPN stated that she crushed all of the Resident's medications in a plastic bag, which included the 2 tablets of Methotrexate and then emptied the crushed medication into a cup of apple sauce for administration to Resident #30. The Surveyor and LPN inspected the Methotrexate bingo card (supplied by the Provider Pharmacy) that was found with an affixed label, HD Caution: HAZARDOUS DRUG Observe Special Handling, Administration and Disposal Requirements. The LPN explained that she does not wear gloves when handling this resident's medication. The LPN acknowledged that she utilizes the crushing device/plastic bag but then sprinkles the medication onto the apple sauce, which might release particles into the air. On 6/9/23 at 11:40 AM, the surveyor interviewed the representative Pharmacist from the Provider Pharmacy who stated that there is a Cautionary on Bingo card because, Methotrexate is a chemotherapy medication and should be handled with precaution, using latex gloves when handling the medication. The cautionary is to prevent issues with childbearing as well as other side effects from the medication when inhaled. The Pharmacist established that the medication should not be crushed, only under a hood as powder can be expelled to the environment. The Pharmacist continued to explain that the manufacturer of the medication documents, Do not administer to patients who cannot swallow this medication. Review of the CDC National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) includes Methotrexate as an Antineoplastic Agent (medications used to treat cancer). NIOSH documents, Unopened, intact tablets and capsules may not pose the same degree of occupational exposure risk as injectable drugs, which usually require extensive preparation. Cutting, crushing, or otherwise manipulating tablets and capsules will increase the risk of exposure to workers.
CONCERN (D)

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

Food Safety (Tag F0812)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview and review of facility polices it was determined that the facility failed to maintain proper kit...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview and review of facility polices it was determined that the facility failed to maintain proper kitchen sanitation practices, maintain the kitchen equipment in a clean and sanitary manner, and properly label and date potentially hazardous foods in a safe and sanitary environment to prevent the development of food borne illness. This deficient practice was evidenced by the following: On 5/31/23 from 9:49 AM through 10:45 AM, the surveyors completed the initial tour with the Senior Food Service Director (SFSD) and the Executive Chef (EC) and observed the following: 1. The dietary aide (DA) used a Hydrion (Brand of strip to test chemicals in the water) testing strip to test the sanitizing solution of the 3-compartment sink. The testing strip was compared to the color-coded concentration guide, which showed a reading higher than 400 parts per million (ppm). The DA stated the sanitizing solution should be between 200-400 ppm. A reading over 400 PPM indicates that there is too much sanitizing solution in the 3-compartment sink. Too much sanitizer solution in the 3 compartment sink can dry on kitchenware, dishes, and utensils. The dried solution can be absorbed into the food and, when eaten, and cause illness. 2. In the dry storage area, all canned goods were not labeled with received dated. The SFSD stated that they use the expiration dates on the cans as a label. Surveyor observed multiple canned goods with [NAME] codes and manufacturer codes instead of clear expiration dates. The SFSD and EC were not able to indicate the expiration dates on those canned goods. The importance of putting received dates allows the use of 1st delivered 1st used to be evaluated by the kitchen staff when shelf stocking. Code expiration dates on canned goods makes it hard for the kitchen staff to evaluate which canned products should be used 1st and which canned products need to be discarded due to their expiration dates. 3. On the bread storage rack, the surveyor observed multiple opened bags of assorted breads: one loaf of Rye bread, one package of hot dog buns, one loaf of raisin bread and two loaves of wheat bread. All bread were opened without an open or use by dates. The SFSD stated, all bread is discarded 7 days after opening and the kitchen should be labeling the bread with a use by date. The surveyor did not observe use by dates on the bread, making it difficult for dietary staff to evaluate which breads were opened for over 7 days. 4. On the chef prep table, the surveyor observed the Robot Coupe food blender not in use. The prep chef (PC) stated the blender was just returned from the dish room where it was washed. The Surveyor observed the inside of the blender with small pools of water and the lid had a yellowish caked on debris that the surveyor was able to scrape off. The SFSD stated the blender container should not have any pooled water and the lid should have been scrubbed by hand to remove any debris. 5. The surveyor observed a standing refrigerator at the end to the chef prep area which contained 7 full trays of individually sliced pieces if blueberry pie, all observed without dates on the containers. The SFSD stated, We do not label these because they are for today's meals. Anything that is for same day use, we do not label. The SFSD stated that anything left over from the days desserts would be discarded. On 6/2/23 at 1:04 PM, the survey team met with Licensed Nursing Home Administrator (LNHA), Director of Nursing (DON), and Director of Quality Regulatory Standards (DQRS) to discuss the above-mentioned observations. The DON stated that their Eco Lab consultant had been contacted and corrected the sanitizing solution dispenser to ensure the correct amount of sanitizing solution is dispensed into the 3-compartment sink. The DON further stated all items in the kitchen should have clear received, open and use by dates on all products as well as all kitchen equipment should be free of debris and dry before leaving the dishwashing area. On 6/12/23 at 9:05 AM, the DQRS provided the surveyor with multiple facility policies for the previously mentioned concerns. The Sanitizing Agents used in FANS (Food and Nutrition Services) policy, dated 1/2023, revealed: The sanitizing solution will be automatically dispensed to achieve a titration between 200-400 ppm, the titration will be checked by the QAC (Brand of strip to test chemicals in the water) test strip. Food Storage Standards in FANS, dated 1/2021 revealed: All items with expiration dates will be examined upon delivery to facility and re-examined for date compliance before distribution to units and Foods stored in refrigerators and freezers are to be covered, labeled and dated. Review of the facility policy named Warewashing in Division of Nutritional Services (DNS), dated 1/2023 revealed: All cookware and service ware will be washed and sanitized in either dish machine or 3 compartment sink and air dried. and All service ware will be stored clean and dry. No further discussions related to food service issues were noted. No further information was provided throughout the survey related to food service issues. NJAC 8:39-17.2(g)
CONCERN (D)

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

Infection Control (Tag F0880)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on observation, interview, and record review, it was determined that the facility failed to follow appropriate measures to prevent and control the spread of infection by not wearing the proper p...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, interview, and record review, it was determined that the facility failed to follow appropriate measures to prevent and control the spread of infection by not wearing the proper personal protective equipment (PPE) while taking care of a resident with an active COVID 19 infection. The deficient practice was evidenced by the following: On 6/1/23 at 10:32 AM, prior to the initial tour, the facility's Director of Quality/Acting Assistant Director of Nursing (DQ/AADON) provided a copy of the resident's list of names who had active diagnosis of COVID 19 and were placed on a droplet precautions which included Resident #222. On 6/1/23 at 11:32 AM, during the initial tour of the nursing units, the surveyor observed a sign indicating Droplet precaution on Resident #222's door of their room. There was also another sign titled, Cohort One Sequence for Donning PPE that included directions for, 3. Put on N-95 and 4. Put on eye protection On 6/1/23 at 11:35 AM, the surveyor observed a Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA) who was inside Resident #222's room, open the door and noted that she was only wearing a disposable gown, surgical mask, and disposable gloves. On 6/1/23 at 11:38 AM, the surveyor interviewed the CNA who stated that she was taking care of Resident #222 in their room, and was aware that the resident was on droplet precaution due to an active COVID 19 infection. The CNA indicated that she was supposed to wear a N-95 mask (a respiratory protective device designed to achieve a very close facial fit and very efficient filtration of airborne particles) and a face shield or goggles before entering Resident #222's room. The CNA revealed that she was not wearing the required PPE because she was sweating inside the resident's room. The surveyor reviewed Resident's Hybrid (computerized and paper) medical record. Review of the Resident #222's Face Sheet (FS), a one-page summary of important information about a patient that documented the resident's diagnosis which included but was not limited to COVID 19 infection, Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus and Depression. Review of the Quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS), an assessment tool dated 4/21/23, the resident had a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of 7 out of 15, indicating that Resident #222 had impaired cognition. Review of Resident #222's Care Plan (CP) with an effective date of 5/25/2023 documented a Titled CP, Focus: COVID19 infection with interventions that included, Maintain on contact/droplet precautions. A review of the facility's policy for COVID 19 Precautions - Titled, COVID19 Precautions indicated under the Procedure section, 1. Perform hand hygiene 2. Put on gown 3. Put on N-95 4. Put on eye protection 5. Put on gloves. On 6/2/23 at 1:00 PM, the survey team met with the Licensed Nursing Home Administrator, Director of Nursing and DQ/AADON who agreed that the CNA was not wearing the proper PPE while taking care of Resident #222 who had an active COVID 19 infection. No further information was provided. N.J.A.C. 8:39-19.4 (a)
Oct 2021 18 deficiencies 3 IJ (1 facility-wide)
CRITICAL (K)

Immediate Jeopardy (IJ) - the most serious Medicare violation

Free from Abuse/Neglect (Tag F0600)

Someone could have died · This affected multiple residents

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observations, record reviews, interviews, and facility policy review, it was determined the facility failed to provide ...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observations, record reviews, interviews, and facility policy review, it was determined the facility failed to provide a safe environment to prevent resident-to-resident abuse for three (Residents #197, #198, and #234) of three residents reviewed for resident-to-resident abuse. All residents on the [NAME] Unit were at risk of abuse from Resident #105. Resident #105 had diagnoses of paranoid schizophrenia, dementia with behavior disturbances, and anxiety and was known to be aggressive. Resident #105 punched Resident #197 on 06/02/2021, resulting in an emergency room visit and stitches to Resident #197's upper lip. Resident #105 had inappropriate sexual contact with Resident #198 on 08/13/2021. Resident #105 pulled Resident #234's hair on 10/07/2021. Staff reported that Resident #105 got agitated and aggressive unprovoked. The facility staff stated that Resident #105 grabbed residents inappropriately and hit residents and staff. Staff stated that residents and staff were fearful of Resident #105. The Assistant Director of Nursing stated that Resident #105's behaviors created a stressful environment for other residents and staff. Following each of these identified incidences, the facility failed to implement any measures which prevented and ensured there were no repeated situations that put other residents at risk of physical or sexual assault from Resident #105. It was determined the facility's non-compliance with one or more requirements of participation caused, or was likely to cause, serious injury, harm, impairment, or death to residents. The immediate jeopardy (IJ) was related to State Operations Manual, Appendix PP, 483.12 (Freedom from Abuse, Neglect and Exploitation) at a scope and severity of K. The IJ began on 08/02/2021 when Resident #105 returned to the facility after the resident was sent to a psychiatric long-term care following a physical assault on Resident #197. Although the record indicated Resident #105 continued to exhibit aggressive behaviors which included grabbing, hitting, and using vulgar language on staff and residents upon the resident's return from the psychiatric setting, the facility failed to put measures in place to ensure residents were free from abuse perpetrated by Resident #105. The resident assaulted two additional residents respectively on 08/13/2021 and on 10/07/2021. On 10/09/2021 at 6:18 PM, an immediate jeopardy (IJ) was identified. At 9:55 PM, the facility administrator was provided with the completed IJ template and notified of the existence of an IJ for abuse. The Administrator signed the template and returned the original to the survey team. A Removal Plan was requested. On 10/10/2021, the survey team conducted an onsite verification to verify the Removal Plan had been implemented. Resident #105 had been removed from the facility on 10/10/2021. The facility continued to train staff on recognizing and preventing, reporting, and investigating abuse. The IJ continued until 10/10/2021 at 6:17 PM, when the survey team verified the elements of the Removal Plan had been implemented. The noncompliance remained on 10/10/2021 for no actual harm with the potential for more than minimal harm that is not immediate jeopardy based on the facility continuing in-servicing with facility staff. Findings included: The October 2021 computerized physician order (CPO) indicated the facility admitted Resident #105 with diagnoses which included paranoid schizophrenia, unspecified dementia with behavioral disturbance, wandering, restlessness and agitation, and severe psychotic features. The admission Minimum Data Set (MDS), dated [DATE], indicated the resident's cognition was moderately impaired with a SAMS (Staff Assessment for Mental Status). The resident required physical assistance of two persons to dressing and toileting. The resident required physical assistance of one person for personal hygiene. The resident required assistance with setup for bed mobility and eating. The resident exhibited behavioral symptoms such as kicking, hitting, pushing, scratching, grabbing and sexual abuse directed towards others. The resident's identified symptoms put others at significant risk for physical injury. The resident significantly intruded on the privacy or activity of others. The resident exhibited the behaviors four to six times daily. The resident currently resided in a locked behavior unit. A review of Resident #105's medical record indicated a behavior care plan, dated 02/24/2020, indicated under the focus portion of the plan that Resident #105 resisted care and was combative (hitting/punching/slapping) with staff and at times requires additional certified behavioral technician (CBT) for provision of care. The focus portion also indicated Resident #105 wanders and the resident becomes very intrusive with peers, yells, curses, and threatens peers. Resident #105 takes food from peers' trays at times, becomes verbally and physically aggressive. The intervention portion of the care plan, last revised 02/27/2020, included the following: allow behaviors to continue in a safe manner if it assists with keeping Resident #105 calm, staff to monitor the effectiveness of techniques and report any changes to nurse, doctor, or interdisciplinary committee (IDC) team, offer appropriate seating areas to reduce agitation and over-stimulation, and offer distraction and remove from area when becoming agitated. The record revealed the facility did not re-evaluate the effectiveness of the care plan and ensured to integrate measures other than those already in place after Resident #105 physically assaulted Resident #197 on 06/02/2021, after Resident #105 physically assaulted and sexually assaulted Resident #198 on 08/13/2021, and after Resident #105 physically assaulted Resident #234 on 10/07/2021. Resident #105's care plan had not been updated past 02/27/2021. Observations conducted during the survey from 10/06/2021 through 10/09/2021 revealed Resident #105 was not monitored and was by themself. The resident was always observed in the personal spaces of other residents with closed fist, threatening to punch them. Resident #105 continuously said derogative language, such as using the F-word and B-word towards staff and residents. The resident grabbed staff when they walked by the resident. The observations revealed staff sat at the nurses' station and at the lounges across the unit and were not able to protect other residents should Resident #105 decide to assault a resident. On 10/06/2021 at 3:29 PM, Resident #105 was heard saying the F word which was directed at staff and residents on the [NAME] Unit. Resident #105 approached the surveyor with a closed fist, threatening to punch the surveyor during this time. On 10/07/2021 at 11:05 AM, Resident #105 aggressively grabbed the Rehab Assistant (RA) by his left arm when the RA walked by the resident. The following three resident-to-resident abuse incidents occurred involving Resident #105: 1. Review of a facility incident report, dated on 06/02/2021, indicated it was reported by an unidentified eyewitness that Resident #197 was propelling themself in their wheelchair on the [NAME] Unit hallway trying to get past Resident #105. The incident report indicated Resident #197 told Resident #105 to excuse them, and Resident #105 responded by punching Resident #197 with a closed fist, which caused a laceration to Resident #197's upper lip. The incident report indicated Resident #197 required an emergency room visit to get their upper lip sutured. The incident report indicated that the facility sent Resident #105 to a psychiatric long-term care, where Resident #105 was admitted from 06/02/2021 through 08/02/2021. Although the 08/02/2021 hospital discharge record indicated that Resident #105 returned to the facility with an order of an antipsychotic (haloperidol 5 milligram [mg] tablet, give one tablet [5mg] by oral route three times per day) added to the resident's medication regimen, the nursing progress notes indicated that Resident #105 continued to exhibit aggressive behaviors. Upon Resident #105's return to the facility and the documented continued aggressive behaviors of the resident, the facility failed to address the unprovoked physical assault Resident #105 directed towards Resident #197 by failing to put a measure in place to prevent future physical assault directed by Resident #105 to other residents at the facility. There was no evidence in the record that the facility followed up with Resident #197 to know how the interaction with Resident #105 made the resident feel. Resident #105's care plan was not updated to reflect any new intervention. The October 2021 computerized physician order (CPO) indicated Resident #197 had diagnoses which included dementia with behavioral disturbance. The quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS), dated [DATE], indicated the resident was moderately cognitively impaired with a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of 10 out of 15. The resident required extensive assistance of two persons for transfer. During an interview on 10/09/2021 at 1:50 PM, Resident #197 stated they frequently had a nightmare about the situation (referring to the assault incident perpetrated by Resident #105 against them). The resident stated they stayed in their room when Resident #105 was in the common area. Resident #197 stated that Resident #105 was a monster who tormented women. The resident stated that facility staff did not interview Resident #197 about the incident after Resident #197 returned from the hospital. 2. Review of a facility incident report, dated 08/13/2021, indicated it was reported by an unidentified eyewitness that Resident #105 was sexually inappropriate with Resident #198. Per the report, Resident #105 was observed to have touched Resident #198 on their buttocks while Resident #198 was walking in an unidentified hallway. It was noted in the report that when Resident #198 questioned why Resident #105 touched them inappropriately, Resident #105 pushed Resident #198 to the floor. A review of Resident #198's medical record indicated the facility assessed Resident #198 in this case to rule out any injury. There was documentation of a follow-up communication with Resident #198 to know how the resident felt following the interaction with Resident #105. Review of Resident #105's medical record indicated a monthly psychology follow-up was done on 09/14/2021 at 10:45 AM, after the incident. The medical record did not indicate the facility made the psychiatrist aware of the inappropriate sexual behavior Resident #105 exhibited towards Resident #198. Resident #105 continued to be reported, per nursing progress notes, to exhibit aggressive behaviors. However, the facility did not devise an intervention to ensure other residents at the facility continued to be free of abuse from Resident #105. The record indicated Resident #105 continued to abuse vulnerable residents and staff and posed a safety risk verbally and physically. Resident #105's care plan was not updated to reflect any new intervention. The October 2021 computerized physician order (CPO) indicated Resident #198 had diagnoses which included dementia with behavioral disturbance and anxiety disorder. The resident was independent with activities of daily living. 3. A review of Resident #105's medical record indicated a nursing note written by Registered Nurse (RN) #11 on 10/07/2021 at 1:58 PM. Per the note, Resident #105 was reported to be pacing the unit, charging at staff and residents. The note indicated that Resident #105 pulled on Resident #234's hair while Resident #234 sat at the table in the lounge area of the unit. There was no documentation of a nursing assessment completed with Resident #234 to determine the resident's state of mind or whether the resident was in pain after the encounter. Resident #105's care plan was not updated to reflect any new intervention. On 10/10/2021 at 3:39 PM, the Activity Aide (AA) stated that he witnessed the encounter between Resident #105 and Resident #234 firsthand. Per the AA, he was sitting with a group of residents on A lounge (an enclosed common area on the [NAME] Unit) during a group activity when he saw Resident #105 come into the lounge, made eye contact with Resident #234, and yanked a bulk of Resident #234's hair such that Resident #234's head tilted abruptly towards the side of the pull. The AA stated that Resident #234 yelled out, ''Ouch, Ouch, in a manner that was consistent with discomfort/pain. The AA stated that the incident happened quickly, and he was unable to intervene before Resident #105 laid their hand on Resident #234's hair. Per the AA, Resident #105 punched the AA in the chest and arm a couple of times when the AA stood up to intervene. The AA stated that when he thought he had successfully redirected Resident #105 out of the lounge and was headed to the nurses station to report the situation to the nurse, Resident #105 made their way back into the lounge through another door which accessed the lounge from another side of the unit and physically assaulted Resident #234 again in the same manner as described above. The AA stated that nursing staff came to intervene and successfully removed Resident #105 into the resident's room. The AA stated he reported the incident to RN #11 exactly how it unfolded. He verified that RN #11 did not come into the lounge to assess Resident #234 following the incident. The October 2021 computerized physician order (CPO) indicated Resident #234 admitted with diagnoses which included unspecified osteoarthritis, muscle weakness, and dementia with behavioral disturbance. On 10/07/2021 at 11:39 AM, the RA stated that Resident #105 had been aggressive towards staff and residents since the resident's admission. On 10/07/2021 at 2:25 PM, Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) #7 stated that Resident #105 was aggressive, combative, and not easily redirectable. LPN #7 stated that Resident #7 liked to say racial slurs and derogatory speech. She stated that Resident #105 got into other residents' personal space. LPN #7 stated that the resident had grabbed, hit, and punched staff and residents. LPN #7 stated, You need to know how to speak, in order to not get the resident agitated. LPN #7 reviewed Resident #105's care plan and acknowledged Resident #105's care plan related to the resident's behavior had not been updated after it was formulated on 02/24/2020 through 02/27/2020. LPN #7 stated that she had no remarks about the intervention portion of Resident #105's care plan which read, Allow behaviors to continue in a safe manner if it assists with keeping Resident #105 calm. On 10/07/2021 at 3:15 PM, Certified Behavioral Therapist (CBT) #1 stated that Resident #105 was aggressive towards residents and staff. He stated that Resident #105 insulted staff and residents with profanity. CBT #1 stated that the resident had hit staff and residents and was a safety concern to self and other residents. On 10/09/2021 at 9:00 AM, Assistant Director of Nursing (ADON) #2 stated that Resident #105 had been very challenging with the resident's care. ADON #2 stated that Resident #105's behaviors created a stressful environment for other residents. ADON #2 stated that the only way the facility had limited the encounters with the resident was their proactiveness. Per ADON #2, Resident #105 had had more than ten incidents with staff and residents during which the resident physically assaulted staff and residents. ADON #2 stated that Resident #105 attacked residents and staff unprovoked. ADON #2 stated the facility had attempted to transfer the resident to another facility deemed more appropriate for the resident's care but were met with resistance. He gave an instance of when the facility sent the resident to [facility name omitted] which operated a psychiatric long-term care program, and Resident #105 was sent back within seven days with four-point restraints. He stated that no facility wanted to take responsibility for Resident #105. Addressing Resident #105's assault on Resident #197, ADON #2 stated that, following the incident on 06/02/2021, Resident #105 was sent to [facility name omitted], psychiatric hospital, where the resident was admitted and managed until the resident returned on 08/02/2021. ADON #2 stated that Resident #105 had their medication regimen adjusted at the psychiatric hospital prior to the resident's return to the facility. ADON #2 acknowledged that per the facility's record on Resident #105, the resident's aggressive behaviors continued upon the resident's return from the hospital. ADON #2 verified there was no adjustments in Resident #105's care plan which reflected the facility intervened in ensuring Resident #105 did not continue to abuse residents at the facility. Addressing the incident when Resident #105 was noted to have inappropriately touched Resident #198 on 08/13/2021, ADON #2 stated that the interaction was considered behavioral. Per the ADON, it was not uncommon for residents on the behavior unit to touch each other inappropriately. ADON #2 added Resident #105 was referred to the psychiatrist following the incident. The ADON, however, recanted his statement after reviewing the pertinent record and acknowledged there was nothing in the record that showed that the psychiatrist was made aware of Resident #105's inappropriate sexual behavior exhibited towards Resident #198. Addressing the incident on 10/07/2021 when Resident #105 was noted to have pulled Resident #234's hair, ADON #2 verified there was no documented assessment of Resident #234 by a nurse. Per the ADON, it was important to evaluate Resident #234 after the resident was physically assaulted, so that the resident was adequately monitored, and necessary treatment was given to address the aftermath of the encounter on the resident. ADON #2 stated that he interviewed the AA (the individual who witnessed the incident firsthand) on 10/08/2021 at approximately 6:30 PM. ADON #2 reiterated the AA's description of the incident as reported above. Per the ADON, when an abuse situation happened, the facility did two incident reports (one for the aggressor and the other for the victim) and two progress notes (assessments), and the family members of the two residents were contacted. The ADON stated that the facility investigated the abuse, did a reportable, and liaised with the medical director and the psychiatrist. He acknowledged the facility did not investigate the abuse instances perpetrated by Resident #105 to Residents #197, #198, and #234. ADON #2 stated that without an investigation, the facility was unable to identify the root cause of the perpetrated abuse instances. Therefore, they were unable to put a plan in place to ensure the residents at the facility were free from abuse. ADON #2 stated that the facility's interdisciplinary committee (IDC) had not met to address the situation with Resident #105. During an interview on 10/09/2021 at approximately 9:15 AM, Assistant Director of Nursing (ADON) #2 confirmed that no interventions were implemented after Resident #105 returned on 08/02/2021 from the psychiatric stay. ADON #2 verified that the facility failed to implement measures specified by the Abuse, Neglect, or Exploitation Policy after Resident #105's initial occurrence on 06/02/2021, which failed to protect residents from being abused. On 10/10/2021 at 10:06 AM, the Nursing Home Administrator stated that it was important for the residents at the facility to be free of abuse, as it was their right. The nursing home administrator (NHA) stated that a different set of eyes sees the same situation differently. The NHA stated that he was not on the [NAME] Unit every day. Per the NHA, he had relied on ADON #2 to take care of the situations on the unit. The NHA stated that he had heard of incidents on abuse perpetrated by Resident #105 towards staff and residents. The NHA stated he had not seen Resident #105 being aggressive during his rounds. The NHA stated that he was majorly concerned about residents on the unit not eloping. The NHA stated that when an abuse incident was reported to be repeatedly perpetrated by the same resident, he relied on nursing staff to tell him what they (referring to nursing staff) had done and their input on what they thought the facility should do differently. The NHA stated that he expected an investigation into all abuse allegations. Per the NHA, investigation was key to identifying the trigger for the aggressor and it helped direct the proper intervention, which helped to ensure residents at the facility continued to be free from abuse. The NHA stated that he was not of the impression that the facility did not respond to the situation with Resident #105 accordingly. The surveyor informed the NHA that the contact phone numbers of the two psychiatrists who cared for Resident #105 were not on file. The NHA promised to facilitate an interview with the psychiatrists but failed to do so after repetitive reminders. The facility's policy titled, Abuse, Neglect or Exploitation, with an effective date of 10/2020, indicated, The protection of patient rights is a key fundamental patient right. We will monitor and take action to protect and ensure that those rights are maintained. When abuse, neglect or exploitation is suspected or discovered, immediate corrective action will be taken . Physical abuse-actual injury: hitting, slapping, pinching, pushing, kicking . Sexual abuse: sexual coercion, non-consensual sexual contact, or sexual harassment. Based on the plan that was provided to the surveyors, removal of IJ occurred on 10/09/2021 at 10:39 PM. Onsite verification was conducted on 10/10/2021 to verify that the facility had implemented the Removal Plan. The onsite verification revealed the facility had transferred Resident #105 to the hospital for psychiatric evaluation. The facility started retraining all staff who worked on the [NAME] Unit on abuse which included identifying, reporting, and role of each employee in investigating abuse. New Jersey Administrative Code 8:39- 4.1(a)(5)
CRITICAL (K)

Immediate Jeopardy (IJ) - the most serious Medicare violation

Abuse Prevention Policies (Tag F0607)

Someone could have died · This affected multiple residents

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observations, record reviews, interviews, and facility policy review, it was determined the facility failed to implemen...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observations, record reviews, interviews, and facility policy review, it was determined the facility failed to implement their abuse policy to prohibit and prevent abuse by failing to put interventions in place to prevent further abuse perpetrated by Resident #105 towards three (Residents #197, #198, and #234) of three residents reviewed for resident-to-resident abuse. Resident #105 had diagnoses of paranoid schizophrenia, dementia with behavior disturbances, and anxiety and was known to be aggressive. Resident #105 punched Resident #197 on 06/02/2021, resulting in an emergency room visit and stitches to Resident #197's upper lip. Resident #105 had inappropriate sexual contact with Resident #198 on 08/13/2021. Resident #105 pulled Resident #234's hair on 10/07/2021. Staff reported that Resident #105 got agitated and aggressive unprovoked. The facility staff stated that Resident #105 grabbed residents inappropriately and hit residents and staff. Staff stated that residents and staff were fearful of Resident #105. The Assistant Director of Nursing stated that Resident #105's behaviors created a stressful environment for other residents and staff. Following each of these identified incidences, the facility failed to implement any measures which prevented and ensured there were no repeated situations that put other residents at risk of physical or sexual assault from Resident #105. It was determined the facility's non-compliance with one or more requirements of participation caused, or was likely to cause, serious injury, harm, impairment, or death to residents. The immediate jeopardy (IJ) was related to State Operations Manual, Appendix PP, §483.12(b)(1) (The facility must develop and implement written policies and procedures that prohibit and prevent abuse, neglect, and exploitation of residents and misappropriation of resident property) at a scope and severity of K. The IJ began on 08/02/2021 when Resident #105 returned to the facility after the resident was sent to a psychiatric long-term care following a physical assault on Resident #197. Although the record indicated Resident #105 continued to exhibit aggressive behaviors which included grabbing, hitting, and using vulgar languages on staff and residents upon the resident's return from the psychiatric setting, the facility failed to put measures in place to prohibit and prevent abuse perpetrated by Resident #105. The resident assaulted two additional residents respectively on 08/13/2021 and on 10/07/2021. On 10/09/2021 at 6:18 PM, an immediate jeopardy (IJ) was identified. At 9:55 PM, the facility administrator was provided with the completed IJ template and notified of the existence of an IJ for abuse. The Administrator signed the template and returned the original to the survey team. A Removal Plan was requested. On 10/10/2021, the survey team conducted an onsite verification to verify the Removal Plan had been implemented. Resident #105 had been removed from the facility on 10/10/2021. The facility continued to train staff on recognizing and preventing, reporting, and investigating abuse. The IJ continued until 10/10/2021 at 6:17 PM, when the survey team verified the elements of the Removal Plan had been implemented. The noncompliance remained on 10/10/2021 for no actual harm with the potential for more than minimal harm that is not immediate jeopardy based on the facility continuing in-servicing with facility staff. Findings included: The October 2021 computerized physician order (CPO) indicated the facility admitted Resident #105 with diagnoses which included paranoid schizophrenia, unspecified dementia with behavioral disturbance, wandering, restlessness and agitation, and severe psychotic features. The admission Minimum Data Set (MDS), dated [DATE], indicated the resident's cognition was moderately impaired with a SAMS (Staff Assessment for Mental Status). The resident required physical assistance of two persons to dressing and toileting. The resident required physical assistance of one person for personal hygiene. The resident required assistance with setup for bed mobility and eating. The resident exhibited behavioral symptoms such as kicking, hitting, pushing, scratching, grabbing and sexual abuse directed towards others. The resident's identified symptoms put others at significant risk for physical injury. The resident significantly intruded on the privacy or activity of others. The resident exhibited the behaviors four to six times daily. The resident currently resided in a locked behavior unit. A review of Resident #105's medical record indicated a behavior care plan, dated 02/24/2020, indicated under the focus portion of the plan that Resident #105 resisted care and was combative (hitting/punching/slapping) with staff and at times requires additional certified behavioral technician (CBT) for provision of care. The focus portion also indicated Resident #105 wanders and the resident becomes very intrusive with peers, yells, curses, and threatens peers. Resident #105 takes food from peers' trays at times, becomes verbally and physically aggressive. The intervention portion of the care plan, last revised 02/27/2020, included the following: allow behaviors to continue in a safe manner if it assists with keeping Resident #105 calm, staff to monitor the effectiveness of techniques and report any changes to nurse, doctor, or interdisciplinary committee (IDC) team, offer appropriate seating areas to reduce agitation and over-stimulation, and offer distraction and remove from area when becoming agitated. The record revealed the facility did not re-evaluate the effectiveness of the care plan and ensured to integrate measures other than those already in place after Resident #105 physically assaulted Resident #197 on 06/02/2021, after Resident #105 physically assaulted and sexually assaulted Resident #198 on 08/13/2021, and after Resident #105 physically assaulted Resident #234 on 10/07/2021. Resident #105's care plan had not been updated past 02/27/2021. Observations conducted during the survey from 10/06/2021 through 10/09/2021 revealed Resident #105 was not monitored and was by themself. The resident was always observed in the personal spaces of other residents with closed fist, threatening to punch them. Resident #105 continuously said derogative language, such as using the F-word and B-word towards staff and residents. The resident grabbed staff when they walked by the resident. The observations revealed staff sat at the nurses' station and at the lounges across the unit and were not able to protect other residents should Resident #105 decide to assault a resident. On 10/06/2021 at 3:29 PM, Resident #105 was heard saying the F word which was directed at staff and residents on the [NAME] Unit. Resident #105 approached the surveyor with a closed fist, threatening to punch the surveyor during this time. On 10/07/2021 at 11:05 AM, Resident #105 aggressively grabbed the Rehab Assistant (RA) by his left arm when the RA walked by the resident. The following three resident-to-resident abuse incidents occurred involving Resident #105: 1. Review of a facility incident report, dated on 06/02/2021, indicated it was reported by an unidentified eyewitness that Resident #197 was propelling themself in their wheelchair on the [NAME] Unit hallway trying to get past Resident #105. The incident report indicated Resident #197 told Resident #105 to excuse them, and Resident #105 responded by punching Resident #197 with a closed fist, which caused a laceration to Resident #197's upper lip. The incident report indicated Resident #197 required an emergency room visit to get their upper lip sutured. The incident report indicated that the facility sent Resident #105 to a psychiatric long-term care, where Resident #105 was admitted from 06/02/2021 through 08/02/2021. Although the 08/02/2021 hospital discharge record indicated that Resident #105 returned to the facility with an order of an antipsychotic (haloperidol 5 milligram [mg] tablet, give one tablet [5mg] by oral route three times per day) added to the resident's medication regimen, the nursing progress notes indicated that Resident #105 continued to exhibit aggressive behaviors. Upon Resident #105's return to the facility and the documented continued aggressive behaviors of the resident, the facility failed to address the unprovoked physical assault Resident #105 directed towards Resident #197 by failing to put a measure in place to prevent future physical assault directed by Resident #105 to other residents at the facility. There was no evidence in the record that the facility followed up with Resident #197 to know how the interaction with Resident #105 made the resident feel. Resident #105's care plan was not updated to reflect any new intervention. The October 2021 computerized physician order (CPO) indicated Resident #197 had diagnoses which included dementia with behavioral disturbance. The quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS), dated [DATE], indicated the resident was moderately cognitively impaired with a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of 10 out of 15. The resident required extensive assistance of two persons for transfer. During an interview on 10/09/2021 at 1:50 PM, Resident #197 stated they frequently had a nightmare about the situation (referring to the assault incident perpetrated by Resident #105 against them). The resident stated they stayed in their room when Resident #105 was in the common area. Resident #197 stated that Resident #105 was a monster who tormented women. The resident stated that facility staff did not interview Resident #197 about the incident after Resident #197 returned from the hospital. 2. Review of a facility incident report, dated 08/13/2021, indicated it was reported by an unidentified eyewitness that Resident #105 was sexually inappropriate with Resident #198. Per the report, Resident #105 was observed to have touched Resident #198 on their buttocks while Resident #198 was walking in an unidentified hallway. It was noted in the report that when Resident #198 questioned why Resident #105 touched them inappropriately, Resident #105 pushed Resident #198 to the floor. A review of Resident #198's medical record indicated the facility assessed Resident #198 in this case to rule out any injury. There was documentation of a follow-up communication with Resident #198 to know how the resident felt following the interaction with Resident #105. Review of Resident #105's medical record indicated a monthly psychology follow-up was done on 09/14/2021 at 10:45 AM, after the incident. The medical record did not indicate the facility made the psychiatrist aware of the inappropriate sexual behavior Resident #105 exhibited towards Resident #198. Resident #105 continued to be reported, per nursing progress notes, to exhibit aggressive behaviors. However, the facility did not devise an intervention to ensure other residents at the facility continued to be free of abuse from Resident #105. The record indicated Resident #105 continued to abuse vulnerable residents and staff and posed a safety risk verbally and physically. Resident #105's care plan was not updated to reflect any new intervention. The October 2021 computerized physician order (CPO) indicated Resident #198 had diagnoses which included dementia with behavioral disturbance and anxiety disorder. The resident was independent with activities of daily living. 3. A review of Resident #105's medical record indicated a nursing note written by Registered Nurse (RN) #11 on 10/07/2021 at 1:58 PM. Per the note, Resident #105 was reported to be pacing the unit, charging at staff and residents. The note indicated that Resident #105 pulled on Resident #234's hair while Resident #234 sat at the table in the lounge area of the unit. There was no documentation of a nursing assessment completed with Resident #234 to determine the resident's state of mind or whether the resident was in pain after the encounter. Resident #105's care plan was not updated to reflect any new intervention. On 10/10/2021 at 3:39 PM, the Activity Aide (AA) stated that he witnessed the encounter between Resident #105 and Resident #234 firsthand. Per the AA, he was sitting with a group of residents on A lounge (an enclosed common area on the [NAME] Unit) during a group activity when he saw Resident #105 come into the lounge, made eye contact with Resident #234, and yanked a bulk of Resident #234's hair such that Resident #234's head tilted abruptly towards the side of the pull. The AA stated that Resident #234 yelled out, ''Ouch, Ouch, in a manner that was consistent with discomfort/pain. The AA stated that the incident happened quickly, and he was unable to intervene before Resident #105 laid their hand on Resident #234's hair. Per the AA, Resident #105 punched the AA in the chest and arm a couple of times when the AA stood up to intervene. The AA stated that when he thought he had successfully redirected Resident #105 out of the lounge and was headed to the nurses station to report the situation to the nurse, Resident #105 made their way back into the lounge through another door which accessed the lounge from another side of the unit and physically assaulted Resident #234 again in the same manner as described above. The AA stated that nursing staff came to intervene and successfully removed Resident #105 into the resident's room. The AA stated he reported the incident to RN #11 exactly how it unfolded. He verified that RN #11 did not come into the lounge to assess Resident #234 following the incident. The October 2021 computerized physician order (CPO) indicated Resident #234 admitted with diagnoses which included unspecified osteoarthritis, muscle weakness, and dementia with behavioral disturbance. On 10/07/2021 at 11:39 AM, the RA stated that Resident #105 had been aggressive towards staff and residents since the resident's admission. On 10/07/2021 at 2:25 PM, Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) #7 stated that Resident #105 was aggressive, combative, and not easily redirectable. LPN #7 stated that Resident #7 liked to say racial slurs and derogatory speech. She stated that Resident #105 got into other residents' personal space. LPN #7 stated that the resident had grabbed, hit, and punched staff and residents. LPN #7 stated, You need to know how to speak, in order to not get the resident agitated. LPN #7 reviewed Resident #105's care plan and acknowledged Resident #105's care plan related to the resident's behavior had not been updated after it was formulated on 02/24/2020 through 02/27/2020. LPN #7 stated that she had no remarks about the intervention portion of Resident #105's care plan which read, Allow behaviors to continue in a safe manner if it assists with keeping Resident #105 calm. On 10/07/2021 at 3:15 PM, Certified Behavioral Therapist (CBT) #1 stated that Resident #105 was aggressive towards residents and staff. He stated that Resident #105 insulted staff and residents with profanity. CBT #1 stated that the resident had hit staff and residents and was a safety concern to self and other residents. On 10/09/2021 at 9:00 AM, Assistant Director of Nursing (ADON) #2 stated that Resident #105 had been very challenging with the resident's care. ADON #2 stated that Resident #105's behaviors created a stressful environment for other residents. ADON #2 stated that the only way the facility had limited the encounters with the resident was their proactiveness. Per ADON #2, Resident #105 had had more than ten incidents with staff and residents during which the resident physically assaulted staff and residents. ADON #2 stated that Resident #105 attacked residents and staff unprovoked. ADON #2 stated the facility had attempted to transfer the resident to another facility deemed more appropriate for the resident's care but were met with resistance. He gave an instance of when the facility sent the resident to [facility name omitted] which operated a psychiatric long-term care program, and Resident #105 was sent back within seven days with four-point restraints. He stated that no facility wanted to take responsibility for Resident #105. Addressing Resident #105's assault on Resident #197, ADON #2 stated that, following the incident on 06/02/2021, Resident #105 was sent to [facility name omitted], psychiatric hospital, where the resident was admitted and managed until the resident returned on 08/02/2021. ADON #2 stated that Resident #105 had their medication regimen adjusted at the psychiatric hospital prior to the resident's return to the facility. ADON #2 acknowledged that per the facility's record on Resident #105, the resident's aggressive behaviors continued upon the resident's return from the hospital. ADON #2 verified there was no adjustments in Resident #105's care plan which reflected the facility intervened in ensuring Resident #105 did not continue to abuse residents at the facility. Addressing the incident when Resident #105 was noted to have inappropriately touched Resident #198 on 08/13/2021, ADON #2 stated that the interaction was considered behavioral. Per the ADON, it was not uncommon for residents on the behavior unit to touch each other inappropriately. ADON #2 added Resident #105 was referred to the psychiatrist following the incident. The ADON, however, recanted his statement after reviewing the pertinent record and acknowledged there was nothing in the record that showed that the psychiatrist was made aware of Resident #105's inappropriate sexual behavior exhibited towards Resident #198. Addressing the incident on 10/07/2021 when Resident #105 was noted to have pulled Resident #234's hair, ADON #2 verified there was no documented assessment of Resident #234 by a nurse. Per the ADON, it was important to evaluate Resident #234 after the resident was physically assaulted, so that the resident was adequately monitored, and necessary treatment was given to address the aftermath of the encounter on the resident. ADON #2 stated that he interviewed the AA (the individual who witnessed the incident firsthand) on 10/08/2021 at approximately 6:30 PM. ADON #2 reiterated the AA's description of the incident as reported above. Per the ADON, when an abuse situation happened, the facility did two incident reports (one for the aggressor and the other for the victim) and two progress notes (assessments), and the family members of the two residents were contacted. The ADON stated that the facility investigated the abuse, did a reportable, and liaised with the medical director and the psychiatrist. He acknowledged the facility did not investigate the abuse instances perpetrated by Resident #105 to Residents #197, #198, and #234. ADON #2 stated that without an investigation, the facility was unable to identify the root cause of the perpetrated abuse instances. Therefore, they were unable to put a plan in place to ensure the residents at the facility were free from abuse. ADON #2 stated that the facility's interdisciplinary committee (IDC) had not met to address the situation with Resident #105. During an interview on 10/09/2021 at approximately 9:15 AM, Assistant Director of Nursing (ADON) #2 confirmed that no interventions were implemented after Resident #105 returned on 08/02/2021 from the psychiatric stay. ADON #2 verified that the facility failed to implement measures specified by the Abuse, Neglect, or Exploitation Policy after Resident #105's initial occurrence on 06/02/2021, which failed to protect residents from being abused. On 10/10/2021 at 10:06 AM, the Nursing Home Administrator stated that it was important for the residents at the facility to be free of abuse, as it was their right. The nursing home administrator (NHA) stated that a different set of eyes sees the same situation differently. The NHA stated that he was not on the [NAME] Unit every day. Per the NHA, he had relied on ADON #2 to take care of the situations on the unit. The NHA stated that he had heard of incidents on abuse perpetrated by Resident #105 towards staff and residents. The NHA stated he had not seen Resident #105 being aggressive during his rounds. The NHA stated that he was majorly concerned about residents on the unit not eloping. The NHA stated that when an abuse incident was reported to be repeatedly perpetrated by the same resident, he relied on nursing staff to tell him what they (referring to nursing staff) had done and their input on what they thought the facility should do differently. The NHA stated that he expected an investigation into all abuse allegations. Per the NHA, investigation was key to identifying the trigger for the aggressor and it helped direct the proper intervention, which helped to ensure residents at the facility continued to be free from abuse. The NHA stated that he was not of the impression that the facility did not respond to the situation with Resident #105 accordingly. The surveyor informed the NHA that the contact phone numbers of the two psychiatrists who cared for Resident #105 were not on file. The NHA promised to facilitate an interview with the psychiatrists but failed to do so after repetitive reminders. The facility's policy titled, Abuse, Neglect or Exploitation, with an effective date of 10/2020, indicated, PROCEDURE: I. IDENTIFICATION AND REPORTING. A. Responsibilities of Employees: 1. Immediately notify your Supervisor or Nurse Manager if you identify an incident of: a. Actual or suspected abuse, neglect, exploitation or misappropriation of property .4. Complete an occurrence report .B. Responsibilities of Supervisory Staff. 1. Review the allegations with your Department Director or Administrator .II. PROTECTION. A. Protection of an abused or neglected resident is a key responsibility of all employees. Action must be taken immediately in the event of any actual or suspected abuse or neglect .III. INVESTIGATION AND FOLLOW-UP. A. Responsibilities of Employees. 1. Provide accurate information .C. Responsibilities of [NAME] President, Administrator, and Risk Management .6. Analyze occurrences to determine whether changes are needed to prevent reoccurrence. 7. Institute corrective measures as needed. 8. Conduct follow up performance improvement activities, if appropriate. TRAINING. A. Responsibilities of the Clinical Education and Organizational Development & Service Excellence Departments: 1. Conduct orientation and annual training on the following topics to all employees and contracted agents. C. Individual responsibility with respect to: i. Protecting the rights of patients .iii. Intervening in situations that could lead to abuse. Iv. Reporting suspected and/or actual incidents of abuse .VI. PREVENTION. A. Responsibilities of All Individuals - (employees and contracted agents). 2. Intervene in situations that could lead to abuse .C. Responsibilities of Supervisors. 1. Monitor: a. Patients with history of aggressive/inappropriate behaviors and participate in care planning through the IDC / Treatment Team Based on the plan that was provided to the surveyors, removal of IJ occurred on 10/09/2021 at 10:39 PM. Onsite verification was conducted on 10/10/2021 to verify that the facility had implemented the Removal Plan. The onsite verification revealed the facility had transferred Resident #105 to the hospital for psychiatric evaluation. The facility started retraining all staff who worked on the [NAME] Unit on abuse which included identifying, reporting, and role of each employee in investigating abuse. New Jersey Administrative Code 8:39-4.1(a)(5)
CRITICAL (L)

Immediate Jeopardy (IJ) - the most serious Medicare violation

Administration (Tag F0835)

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 observations, interviews, and record review, it was determined that the administration failed to ensure staff implement...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observations, interviews, and record review, it was determined that the administration failed to ensure staff implemented the facility's abuse policy for three instances of abuse that occurred. Resident #105 assaulted Resident #197, Resident #198, and Resident #234. The assault against Resident #197 resulted in a laceration that required sutures. This had the potential to affect all residents. It was determined the facility's non-compliance with one or more requirements of participation caused, or was likely to cause, serious injury, harm, impairment, or death to residents. The immediate jeopardy (IJ) was related to State Operations Manual, Appendix PP, §483.70 (Administration) at a scope and severity of L. The IJ began on 08/02/2021 when Resident #105 returned to the facility after the resident was sent to a psychiatric long-term care following a physical assault on Resident #197. Although the record indicated Resident #105 continued to exhibit aggressive behaviors which included grabbing, hitting, and using vulgar language on staff and residents upon the resident's return from the psychiatric setting, the facility failed to put measures in place to ensure residents were free from abuse perpetrated by Resident #105. The resident assaulted two additional residents respectively on 08/13/2021 and on 10/07/2021. On 10/09/2021 at 6:18 PM, an immediate jeopardy (IJ) was identified. At 9:55 PM, the facility administrator was provided with the completed IJ template and notified of the existence of an IJ for abuse. The Administrator signed the template and returned the original to the survey team. A Removal Plan was requested. On 10/10/2021, the survey team conducted an onsite verification to verify the Removal Plan had been implemented. Resident #105 had been removed from the facility on 10/10/2021. The facility continued to train staff on recognizing and preventing, reporting, and investigating abuse. The IJ continued until 10/10/2021 at 6:17 PM, when the survey team verified the elements of the Removal Plan had been implemented. The noncompliance remained on 10/10/2021 for no actual harm with the potential for more than minimal harm that is not immediate jeopardy based on the facility continuing in-servicing with facility staff. Findings included: The October 2021 computerized physician orders (CPO) indicated the facility admitted Resident #105 with diagnoses which included paranoid schizophrenia, unspecified dementia with behavioral disturbance, wandering, restlessness and agitation, and severe psychotic features. The admission Minimum Data Set (MDS), dated [DATE], indicated the resident's cognition was moderately impaired with a SAMS (Staff Assessment for Mental Status). The resident required physical assistance of two persons to dressing and toileting. The resident required physical assistance of one person for personal hygiene. The resident required assistance with setup for bed mobility and eating. The resident exhibited behavioral symptoms such as kicking, hitting, pushing, scratching, grabbing and sexual abuse directed towards others. The resident's identified symptoms put others at significant risk for physical injury. The resident significantly intrudes on the privacy or activity of others. The resident exhibited the behaviors four to six times daily. The resident currently resided in a locked behavior unit. Observations conducted during the survey from 10/06/2021 through 10/09/2021 revealed Resident #105 was not monitored and was by themself. The resident was always observed in the personal spaces of other residents with closed fist, threatening to punch them. Resident #105 continuously said derogative language, such as using the F-word and B-word towards staff and residents. The resident grabbed staff when they walked by the resident. The observations revealed staff sat at the nurses' station and at the lounges across the unit and were not able to protect other residents should Resident #105 decide to assault a resident. On 10/06/2021 at 3:29 PM, Resident #105 was heard saying the F word which was directed at staff and residents on the [NAME] Unit. Resident #105 approached the surveyor with a closed fist, threatening to punch the surveyor during this time. On 10/07/2021 at 11:05 AM, Resident #105 aggressively grabbed the Rehab Assistant (RA) by his left arm when the RA walked by the resident. Resident #105 had multiple incidents of abuse, and the facility failed to implement their abuse policies to prohibit abuse, protect the residents, and prevent further abuse. 1. Review of a facility incident report, dated on 06/02/2021, indicated it was reported by an unidentified eyewitness that Resident #197 was propelling themself in their wheelchair on the [NAME] Unit hallway trying to get past Resident #105. The incident report indicated Resident #197 told Resident #105 to excuse them, and Resident #105 responded by punching Resident #197 with a closed fist, which caused a laceration to Resident #197's upper lip. The incident report indicated Resident #197 required an emergency room visit to get their upper lip sutured. The incident report indicated that the facility sent Resident #105 to a psychiatric long-term care, where Resident #105 was admitted from 06/02/2021 through 08/02/2021. Although the 08/02/2021 hospital discharge record indicated that Resident #105 returned to the facility with an order of an antipsychotic (haloperidol 5 milligram [mg] tablet, give one tablet [5mg] by oral route three times per day) added to the resident's medication regimen, the nursing progress notes indicated that Resident #105 continued to exhibit aggressive behaviors. Upon Resident #105's return to the facility and the documented continued aggressive behaviors of the resident, the facility failed to address the unprovoked physical assault Resident #105 directed towards Resident #197 by failing to put a measure in place to prevent future physical assault directed by Resident #105 to other residents at the facility. There was no evidence in the record that the facility followed up with Resident #197 to know how the interaction with Resident #105 made the resident feel. Resident #105's care plan was not updated to reflect any new intervention. The October 2021 computerized physician order (CPO) indicated Resident #197 had diagnoses which included dementia with behavioral disturbance. The quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS), dated [DATE], indicated the resident was moderately cognitively impaired with a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of 10 out of 15. The resident required extensive assistance of two persons for transfer. During an interview on 10/09/2021 at 1:50 PM, Resident #197 stated they frequently had a nightmare about the situation (referring to the assault incident perpetrated by Resident #105 against them). The resident stated they stayed in their room when Resident #105 was in the common area. Resident #197 stated that Resident #105 was a monster who tormented women. The resident stated that facility staff did not interview Resident #197 about the incident after Resident #197 returned from the hospital. 2. Review of a facility incident report, dated 08/13/2021, indicated it was reported by an unidentified eyewitness that Resident #105 was sexually inappropriate with Resident #198. Per the report, Resident #105 was observed to have touched Resident #198 on their buttocks while Resident #198 was walking in an unidentified hallway. It was noted in the report that when Resident #198 questioned why Resident #105 touched them inappropriately, Resident #105 pushed Resident #198 to the floor. A review of Resident #198's medical record indicated the facility assessed Resident #198 in this case to rule out any injury. There was no documentation of a follow-up communication with Resident #198 to know how the resident felt following the interaction with Resident #105. Review of Resident #105's medical record indicated a monthly psychology follow-up was done on 09/14/2021 at 10:45 AM, after the incident. The medical record did not indicate the facility made the psychiatrist aware of the inappropriate sexual behavior Resident #105 exhibited towards Resident #198. Resident #105 continued to be reported, per nursing progress notes, to exhibit aggressive behaviors. However, the facility did not devise an intervention to ensure other residents at the facility continued to be free of abuse from Resident #105. The record indicated Resident #105 continued to abuse vulnerable residents and staff and posed a safety risk verbally and physically. Resident #105's care plan was not updated to reflect any new intervention. The October 2021 computerized physician order (CPO) indicated Resident #198 had diagnoses which included dementia with behavioral disturbance and anxiety disorder. The resident was independent with activities of daily living 3. Review of a progress note, dated 10/07/2021, indicated Resident #105 pulled on Resident #234's hair. Registered Nurse (RN) #11, who documented the information in the medical record that Resident #105 pulled Resident #234's hair, failed to report the incident to the facility's abuse coordinator. The facility did not report the incident to the state until the survey team brought it to their attention. During an interview with the Activity Assistant (AA) on 10/10/2021 at 3:39 PM, the AA stated that he witnessed the encounter firsthand. Per the AA, Resident #105 pulled Resident #234's hair such that it caused Resident #234's head to tilt abruptly towards the side of the pull and the resident yelled out in pain. Per the AA, Resident #105 had a repeat encounter with Resident #234 within a space of few minutes. The AA stated that he reported his observation to the nurse on the shift. On 10/07/2021 at 2:25 PM, Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) #7 stated that Resident #105 was aggressive, combative, and not easily redirectable. LPN #7 stated that Resident #7 liked to say racial slurs and derogatory speech. She stated that Resident #105 got into other residents' personal space. LPN #7 stated that the resident had grabbed, hit, and punched staff and residents. LPN #7 stated, You need to know how to speak, in order to not get the resident agitated. LPN #7 reviewed Resident #105's care plan and acknowledged Resident #105's care plan related to the resident's behavior had not been updated after it was formulated on 02/24/2020 through 02/27/2020. LPN #7 stated that she had no remarks about the intervention portion of Resident #105's care plan which read, Allow behaviors to continue in a safe manner if it assists with keeping Resident #105 calm. On 10/07/2021 at 3:15 PM, Certified Behavioral Therapist (CBT) #1 stated that Resident #105 was aggressive towards residents and staff. He stated that Resident #105 insulted staff and residents with profanity. CBT #1 stated that the resident had hit staff and residents and was a safety concern to self and other residents. On 10/07/2021 at 11:39 AM, the RA stated that Resident #105 had been aggressive towards staff and residents since the resident's admission. On 10/09/2021 at 9:00 AM, Assistant Director of Nursing (ADON) #2 stated that Resident #105 had been very challenging with the resident's care. ADON #2 stated that Resident #105's behaviors created a stressful environment for other residents. ADON #2 stated that the only way the facility had limited the encounters with the resident was their proactiveness. Per ADON #2, Resident #105 had had more than ten incidents with staff and residents during which the resident physically assaulted staff and residents. ADON #2 stated that Resident #105 attacked residents and staff unprovoked. ADON #2 stated the facility had attempted to transfer the resident to another facility deemed more appropriate for the resident's care but were met with resistance. He gave an instance of when the facility sent the resident to [facility name omitted] which operated a psychiatric long-term care program, and Resident #105 was sent back within seven days with four-point restraints. He stated that no facility wanted to take responsibility for Resident #105. Addressing Resident #105's assault on Resident #197, ADON #2 stated that, following the incident on 06/02/2021, Resident #105 was sent to [Facility name omitted], psychiatric hospital, where the resident was admitted and managed until the resident returned on 08/02/2021. ADON #2 stated that Resident #105 had their medication regimen adjusted at the psychiatric hospital prior to the resident's return to the facility. ADON #2 acknowledged that per the facility's record on Resident #105, the resident's aggressive behaviors continued upon the resident's return from the hospital. ADON #2 verified there was no adjustments in Resident #105's care plan which reflected the facility intervened in ensuring Resident #105 did not continue to abuse residents at the facility. Addressing the incident when Resident #105 was noted to have inappropriately touched Resident #198 on 08/13/2021, ADON #2 stated that the interaction was considered behavioral. Per the ADON, it was not uncommon for residents on the behavior unit to touch each other inappropriately. ADON #2 added Resident #105 was referred to the psychiatrist following the incident. The ADON, however, recanted his statement after reviewing the pertinent record and acknowledged there was nothing in the record that showed that the psychiatrist was made aware of Resident #105's inappropriate sexual behavior exhibited towards Resident #198. During an interview on 10/09/2021 at approximately 9:15 AM, Assistant Director of Nursing (ADON) #2 confirmed that no interventions were implemented after Resident #105 returned on 08/02/2021 from the psychiatric stay. ADON #2 verified that the facility failed to implement measures specified by the Abuse, Neglect, or Exploitation Policy after Resident #105's initial occurrence on 06/02/2021, which failed to protect residents from being abused. During an interview on 10/10/2021 at 10:06 AM, the Nursing Home Administrator (NHA) stated that it was important for the residents at the facility to be free of abuse, as it was their right. The NHA stated that a different set of eyes see the same situation differently. The NHA stated that he was not on the [NAME] Unit every day. Per the NHA, he had relied on ADON #2 to take care of the situations on the unit. The NHA stated that he had heard of incidences on abuse perpetrated by Resident #105 towards staff and residents. The NHA stated he had not seen Resident #105 being aggressive during his rounds. The NHA stated that he was majorly concerned about residents on the unit not eloping. The NHA stated that when an abuse incident was reported to be repeatedly perpetrated by the same resident, he relied on nursing staff to tell him what they (referring to nursing staff) had done and their input on what they thought the facility should do differently. The NHA stated that he expected an investigation into all abuse allegations. Per the NHA, investigation was key to identifying the trigger for the aggressor, and it helped direct the proper intervention which helped to ensure residents at the facility continued to be free from abuse. The NHA stated that he was not of the impression that the facility did not respond to the situation with Resident #105 accordingly. The facility's policy titled, Abuse, Neglect or Exploitation, with effective date of 10/2020, indicated, III. INVESTIGATION AND FOLLOW-UP .C. Responsibilities of [NAME] President, Administrator, and Risk Management .6. Analyze occurrences to determine whether changes are needed to prevent reoccurrence. 7. Institute corrective measures as needed. 8. Conduct follow up performance improvement activities, if appropriate Based on the plan that was provided to the surveyors, removal of IJ occurred on 10/09/2021 at 10:39 PM. Onsite Verification: Onsite verification was conducted on 10/10/2021 to verify that the facility had implemented the Removal Plan. The onsite verification revealed the facility had transferred Resident #105 to the hospital for psychiatric evaluation. The facility started retraining all staff who worked on the [NAME] Unit on abuse which included identifying, reporting, and role of each employee in investigating abuse. New Jersey Administrative Code § 8:39-5.1(a)
SERIOUS (G)

Actual Harm - a resident was hurt due to facility failures

Deficiency F0657 (Tag F0657)

A resident was harmed · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** 2. The facility admitted Resident #152 with diagnoses of Alzheimer's disease and brain cancer. The annual Minimum Data Set (MDS)...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** 2. The facility admitted Resident #152 with diagnoses of Alzheimer's disease and brain cancer. The annual Minimum Data Set (MDS), dated [DATE], revealed the resident's Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score was a 5 out of 15, which indicated the resident was severely cognitively impaired. Since the previous assessment, the resident had one fall with no injury and two falls with injury. A review of the resident's care plan, last updated on 09/21/2021, indicated Resident #152 was at risk for falls related to poor safety awareness secondary to cognitive loss regarding Alzheimer's disease. The care plan also indicated the following: assistance need with activities of daily living; resident attempts to transfer to toilet; old compression fractures; use of antidepressants, pain, and cardiac medications; a fall on 09/12/2021 resulting in left humerus, left radial, and left femoral neck fractures. Interventions for the falls included the following: - Physical and occupational therapy referrals for changes in functional mobility, with an effective date of 09/26/2018. - Reminding Resident #152 to call for assistance with activities of daily living, especially transfers, with an effective date of 09/26/2018. - Observation for unsafe behavior, with an effective date of 09/26/2018. - Non-slip footwear, with an effective date of 10/04/2018. - Encouragement for use of hip guards, with an effective date of 04/25/2019. - Blood pressure and pulse monitoring weekly, with an effective date of 09/13/2019. - Pad sensor alarm to bed and chair, with an effective date of 05/12/2020. - Floor mats at bedside, with an effective date of 07/06/2021. There were no interventions listed on the resident's care plan regarding any falls that occurred in 2021, except for floor mats at bedside. A review of an injury and accident report indicated that on 06/09/2021 at 8:00 AM, the resident had an unwitnessed fall. Resident #152 stated the resident fell in their bedroom. A certified nursing assistant noticed a small abrasion on the back of the resident's head, behind the left ear, while showering the resident the same morning after the fall. The resolution listed on the report was that Resident #152 was educated on calling for help. Resident #152 stated, I just want to use the bathroom. The report indicated staff would continue to monitor and encourage the resident to use the call light. Following the fall on 06/09/2021, the care plan was not updated to reflect any new interventions. A review of a nursing progress note, dated 06/09/2021 at 2:45 PM, described the note as the initial fall-focused note and detailed the same information provided in the injury and accident report. At the end of the note, the writer had the option to list, New safety interventions added after this fall, and this section was left blank. A review of a nursing progress note, dated 06/09/2021 at 11:10 PM, described the note as the first follow-up fall-focused note. The additional interventions initiated and response to new interventions were left blank and did not identify any new interventions. A review of a progress note, dated 06/15/2021 at 3:36 PM, indicated the interdisciplinary team met regarding the fall on 06/09/2021. The new intervention initiated was alarm to chair. According to the care plan, the intervention of alarm to chair was already listed on the care plan with an initiated date of 05/12/2020. A review of an injury and accident report indicated that on 06/29/2021 at 2:00 PM, the resident had an unwitnessed fall. Resident #152 was found lying on the left side of their body on the floor between the door and the bed. Resident #152 was transferring themselves from the bed to the wheelchair. The wheelchair brakes were not locked. The resolution listed on the report indicated the resident stated, I forgot to lock my brakes. Resident #152 was educated on calling for assistance, and staff would continue to monitor. Following the fall on 06/29/2021, the care plan was not updated to reflect any new interventions. A review of a progress note, dated 06/29/2021 at 4:23 PM, detailed the same information provided in the injury and accident report. No new interventions were added, and additional comments were made stating that safety education was provided to the resident on locking the wheelchair brakes and using the call bell for assistance. A review of a nursing progress note, dated 06/29/2021 at 10:37 PM, described the note as the first follow-up fall-focused note. The additional interventions initiated and response to new interventions were left blank and did not identify any new interventions. A review of a nursing progress note, dated 06/30/2021 at 11:31 AM, described the note as the second follow-up fall-focused note. New orders were received for an x-ray for cervical, thoracic and lumbar spine, and bilateral hips due to the resident complaining of pain. The additional interventions initiated and response to new interventions were left blank. A review of a physician's progress note, dated 07/01/2021 at 2:59 PM, indicated the resident had a vertebral compression fracture of the L1/T12 site with an indeterminate age. New orders were given for pain medication and an orthopedic consult. A review of a progress note, dated 07/06/2021 at 12:13 PM, indicated the interdisciplinary team met regarding the fall on 06/29/2021. The new intervention initiated was floor mats. A review of an injury and accident report indicated that on 07/15/2021 at 11:50 AM the resident had an unwitnessed fall. Resident #152 spilled milk in their lap, self-ambulated to the bathroom without calling for help, and the resident's tab alarm alerted staff. Resident #152 was found on the floor, sitting with their back against the wall and their legs out in front of them. Resident #152 reported they just went down while trying to get to the toilet. There was no resolution given. Following the fall on 07/15/2021, the care plan was not updated to reflect any new interventions. A review of a progress note, dated 07/15/2021 at 2:40 PM, detailed the same information provided in the injury and accident report. The new interventions added were to educate the resident on the use of the call bell and calling for help. A review of a nursing progress note, dated 07/15/2021 at 11:50 PM, described the note as the first follow-up fall-focused note. The additional interventions initiated and response to new interventions were left blank and did not identify any new interventions. A review of a nursing progress note, dated 07/16/2021 at 6:54 AM, described the note as the second follow-up fall-focused note. The additional interventions initiated and response to new interventions were left blank. A review of a progress note, dated 07/20/2021 at 10:01 AM, indicated the interdisciplinary team met regarding the fall on 07/15/2021. The new intervention initiated was to remind the resident to call for assistance. A review of a social service progress note, dated 08/19/2021 at 4:23 PM, indicated the resident had cognitive impairment shown by memory loss, impaired decision-making skills, and episodes of confusion. A review of an injury and accident report indicated that on 09/12/2021 at 2:00 PM, the resident had an unwitnessed fall. Staff heard a loud bang, and Resident #152 screamed out. Staff noted the resident lying on the floor in the doorway of their bedroom, lying on the left side of their body with their left arm behind them. Resident #152 then turned themselves over onto their stomach. Resident #152 was transferred to the emergency room at 2:45 PM the same day. The resolution listed on the report was that the resident was transferred to the emergency room for evaluation of injuries, and the resident's care plan would be updated upon return. A Root Cause Analysis (RCA) would be completed to address the resident's fall, and an action plan would be created. A review of a progress note, dated 09/12/2021 at 2:00 PM, detailed the same information provided in the injury and accident report. No new interventions were added. A review of a Root Cause Analysis document indicated the document was completed on 09/30/2021 related to the fall on 09/12/2021 with major injury. Resident #152 sustained a left hip femoral neck fracture, impacted intra-articular left distal radius fracture, and a comminuted proximal left humeral head fracture. The Problem indicated Resident #152 had a history of gait instability and was found lying in the doorway of their assigned room. Resident #152 was last observed resting in their low bed with a fall mat on the floor and a tab alarm attached to the resident. Resident #152 removed the tab alarm and exited their bed. Resident #152 left their walker at the bedside and ambulated toward the doorway. Resident #152 fell due to ambulating without their walker and known gait instability. Resident #152 was diagnosed with a urinary tract infection during the hospital stay. The first part of the facility's action plan consisted of continuing to use the low bed, fall mat at bedside on the floor, fall socks, to move furniture away from the head of the bed to prevent injury, and to apply hip guards. The second part of the facility's action plan consisted of consideration of using a pad sensor alarm while the resident was in bed and to offer the resident fluid every shift to prevent dehydration. The third part of the facility's action plan consisted of providing frequent reminders for the resident to use their walker when ambulating. Resident #152 would use their wheelchair during recovery, with the goal of ambulating with a walker. The care plan was not updated to reflect any new interventions, following the root cause analysis. In an interview on 10/09/2021 at 8:40 AM, Assistant Director of Nursing (ADON) #1 stated the care plan should be updated and the interdisciplinary team had guidelines for interventions. ADON #1 stated, As long as we have some type of alarm in place and appropriate footwear, we make sure to provide education on call light use. ADON #1 stated that the facility had prevented numerous falls for Resident #152 and .there was really no other intervention we could put into place. We could get a sitter . During an interview on 10/10/2021 at 1:38 PM, the Administrator stated the expectation was that everything should be updated in the residents' care plans. A review of facility's policy and procedure titled, Interdisciplinary Care Planning and Assessment, revised 01/2021, indicated, care plans are revised as changes in the resident's condition dictates. Reviews are made at least quarterly. A review of facility's policy and procedure titled, Resident Safety Program - Fall Prevention, revised 07/2021, indicated, Procedure: A. A Morse Scale Falls Risk Assessment is completed upon admission and readmission, significant change assessment, quarterly assessment and after each fall event. B. Interventions are implemented based on risk areas identified by the falls risk assessment. The fall prevention/intervention guide may be utilized to assist in identifying and implementing appropriate interventions. C. Risk for falls and/or injury is identified and addressed in the resident's individualized treatment plan. D. Falls will be reviewed weekly by the interdisciplinary team and interventions adjusted and care plans updated as necessary. 3. The October 2021 computerized physician order (CPO) indicated the facility admitted Resident #105 with diagnoses which included paranoid schizophrenia, unspecified dementia with behavioral disturbance, wandering in disease classified elsewhere, restlessness and agitation, and severe psychotic features. The admission Minimum Data Set (MDS), dated [DATE], indicated the resident's cognition was moderately impaired with a SAMS (Staff Assessment for Mental Status). The resident required physical assistance of two persons for dressing and toileting. The resident required physical assistance of one person for personal hygiene. The resident required assistance with setup for bed mobility and eating. The resident exhibited behavioral symptoms such as kicking, hitting, pushing, scratching, grabbing, and sexual abuse directed towards others. The resident's identified symptoms put others at significant risk for physical injury. The resident significantly intruded on the privacy or activity of others. The resident exhibited these behaviors four to six times daily. The resident currently resided in a locked behavior unit. A review of Resident #105's medical record indicated a behavior care plan, dated 02/24/2020, indicated under the focus portion of the plan that Resident #105 resisted care and was combative (hitting/punching/slapping) with staff and at times requires additional certified behavioral technician (CBT) for provision of care. The focus portion also indicated Resident #105 wanders and the resident becomes very intrusive with peers, yells, curses, and threatens peers. Resident #105 takes food from peers' trays at times, becomes verbally and physically aggressive. The intervention portion of the care plan, last revised 02/27/2020, included the following: allow behaviors to continue in a safe manner if it assists with keeping Resident #105 calm, staff to monitor the effectiveness of techniques and report any changes to nurse, doctor, or interdisciplinary committee (IDC) team, offer appropriate seating areas to reduce agitation and over-stimulation, and offer distraction and remove from area when becoming agitated. A review of a facility incident report, dated 06/02/2021, indicated it was reported by an unidentified eyewitness that Resident #197 was propelling themself in their wheelchair on the [NAME] Unit hallway trying to get past Resident #105. The incident report indicated Resident #197 told Resident #105 to excuse them, and Resident #105 responded by punching Resident #197 with a closed fist, which caused a laceration to Resident #197's upper lip. The incident report indicated Resident #197 required an emergency room visit to get their upper lip sutured. A review of a facility incident report, dated 08/13/2021, indicated it was reported by an unidentified eyewitness that Resident #105 was sexually inappropriate with Resident #198. Per the incident report, Resident #105 was observed to have touched Resident #198 on their buttocks while Resident #198 was walking in an unidentified hallway. It was noted in the incident report that when Resident #198 questioned why Resident #105 touched them inappropriately, Resident #105 pushed Resident #198 to the floor. A review of a progress note, dated 10/07/2021, indicated Resident #105 pulled on Resident #234's hair. During an interview with the Activity Assistant (AA) on 10/10/2021 at 3:39 PM, the AA stated that he witnessed the encounter firsthand. Per the AA, Resident #105 pulled Resident #234's hair such that it caused Resident #234's head to tilt abruptly towards the side of the pull and the resident yelled out in a sound that indicated discomfort or pain. Per the AA, Resident #105 had a repeat encounter with Resident #234 within a space of a few minutes. The AA stated that he reported his observations to the nurse on the shift. A review of Resident #105's medical record indicated that for each of the identified incidents of abuse perpetrated by Resident #105 towards the identified residents, the facility failed to reassess Resident #105 and put new interventions in place to prevent further abuse. Specifically, a review of Resident #105's behavior care plan revealed the care plan was formulated between 02/24/2020 through 02/27/2020. There was no amendment to the resident's care plan to reflect that the facility attempted to address what the trigger was for Resident # 105 and to ensure that the resident did not continue to abuse other residents at the facility. During an interview on 10/07/2021 at 2:25 PM, Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) #7 stated that Resident #105 was aggressive, combative, and not easily redirectable. LPN #7 stated that Resident #105 liked to say racial slurs and derogatory speech. She stated that Resident #105 got into other residents' personal space. LPN #7 stated that the resident had grabbed, hit, and punched staff and residents. LPN #7 stated, You need to know how to speak, in order to not get the resident agitated. LPN #7 reviewed Resident #105's care plan and acknowledged Resident #105's care plan related to the resident's behavior had not been updated after it was formulated on 02/24/2020 through 02/27/2020. LPN #7 stated that she had no remarks about the intervention portion of Resident #105's care plan which read, Allow behaviors to continue in a safe manner if it assists with keeping Resident #105 calm. During an interview on 10/09/2021 at 9:00 AM, Assistant Director of Nursing (ADON) #2 stated that Resident #105 had been very challenging with the resident's care. ADON #2 stated that Resident #105's behaviors created a stressful environment for other residents. The ADON verified there was no adjustment in Resident #105's care plan which reflected the facility intervened in ensuring Resident #105 did not continue to abuse residents at the facility. Specifically, ADON #2 verified that following Resident #105's initial encounter with Resident #197 as noted above, the facility had not reviewed or implemented new measures to ensure that Resident #105 did not continue to abuse residents at the facility. During an interview on 10/10/2021 at 3:02 PM, the Nursing Home Administrator (NHA) stated that when an abuse incident was reported to be repeatedly perpetrated by the same resident, he relied on nursing staff to tell him what they had done and their input on what they thought the facility should do differently. The NHA stated that he expected an investigation into all abuse allegations. Per the NHA, investigation was key to identifying the trigger for the aggressor, and it helped direct the proper intervention which helped to ensure residents at the facility continued to be free from abuse. A review of facility's policy and procedure titled, Interdisciplinary Care Planning and Assessment, revised 01/2021, indicated, care plans are revised as changes in the resident's condition dictates. Reviews are made at least quarterly. New Jersey Administrative Code § 8:39-11.2(e)2 Based on observations, interviews, record review, and facility policy review, it was determined that the facility failed to update person-centered care plans to reflect changes in interventions for three (Residents #152, #105, and #213) of 39 residents reviewed for care planning. The facility failed to update the accident/falls care plans with additional interventions after falls occurred for Resident #152 and Resident #213, which could have prevented Resident #152 from falling and sustaining a fracture. The facility also failed to update the behavior care plan for Resident #105. This had the potential to affect all residents. Findings included: 1. A review of Resident #213's quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS), dated [DATE], indicated diagnoses including hypertension, obstructive uropathy, diabetes, personal history of traumatic fracture, and muscle weakness. The resident had a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of 13, which indicated no cognitive impairment. The resident had one fall with injury. A review of a fall risk assessment titled, Morse Fall Scale Assessment, dated 08/17/2021, indicated Resident #213 was at moderate risk for falling. There was no other Morse fall scale completed after that date. A review of Resident #213's care plans, dated 08/31/2021, indicated the resident was at risk for falls, as evidenced by a history of falls, with the last fall on 09/18/2021. Interventions included the following: maintain bed in low position, tab alarm for safety to bed and wheelchair at all times, encourage to use appropriate assistive devices, encourage use of appropriate fitting, non-skid shoes, observe for unsafe behavior, remind to use the call light, and assist with toileting and meeting daily needs. The effective dates for the interventions were 08/31/2021. The care plan did not indicate any additional interventions to prevent falls after 08/31/2021. A review of Resident #213's progress notes indicated the resident sustained a fall on 09/10/2021. The notes indicated the fall occurred in the resident's room at 7:45 PM and was unwitnessed. An x-ray was obtained for complaints of back and hip pain, which indicated no injury. Following the fall on 09/10/2021, the care plan was not updated to reflect any new interventions. A review of Resident #213's progress notes revealed the resident sustained another fall on 09/18/2021 at 9:00 PM. The notes indicated the fall occurred in the hallway next to the resident's wheelchair and was unwitnessed. There was no injury documented. Following the fall on 09/18/2021, the care plan was not updated to reflect any new interventions. An observation of Resident #213 on 10/07/2021 at 7:52 AM revealed the resident sitting on the edge of the bed. The resident was observed to be very hard of hearing. There was no tab alarm (used to indicate if a resident is rising from a seated position), and the bed was not in the low position. An observation of Resident #213 on 10/08/2021 8:38 AM revealed the resident sitting on the edge of the bed. The resident became frustrated when answering questions. There was no tab alarm, and the bed was not in the low position. There was a fall mat next to the bed. On 10/08/2021 at 10:24 AM, an interview was conducted with Assistant Director of Nursing (ADON) #2. When asked if new interventions were put into place after the resident fell on [DATE], ADON #2 stated no. ADON #2 stated that the facility's interdisciplinary team met and concluded no interventions were needed. When asked if any interventions were put into place after the second fall on 09/18/2021, ADON #2 stated the interdisciplinary team did not feel any additional interventions were warranted. When asked if a new Morse fall scale assessment was completed after either fall, ADON #2 stated, no. When asked if the fall which occurred on 09/18/2021 may have been avoided if interventions were put into place after the fall that occurred on 09/10/2021, the ADON #2 stated, maybe. ADON #2 stated they would update the care plans. When asked why the tab alarm was not in place on 10/07/2021 and 10/08/2021, ADON #2 stated they were not sure but would in-service staff. When asked if ADON #2 was aware that per facility policy a Morse fall risk assessment was to be completed after each fall to identify risk areas, ADON #2 stated, no. ADON #2 confirmed there was only one fall risk assessment completed for Resident #213, which was on admission [DATE]). During an interview on 10/10/2021 at 1:38 PM, the Administrator stated the expectation was that everything should be updated in the residents' care plans. A review of facility's policy and procedure titled, Interdisciplinary Care Planning and Assessment, revised 01/2021, indicated, care plans are revised as changes in the resident's condition dictates. Reviews are made at least quarterly. A review of facility's policy and procedure titled, Resident Safety Program - Fall Prevention, revised 07/2021, indicated, Procedure: A. A Morse Scale Falls Risk Assessment is completed upon admission and readmission, significant change assessment, quarterly assessment and after each fall event. B. Interventions are implemented based on risk areas identified by the falls risk assessment. The fall prevention/intervention guide may be utilized to assist in identifying and implementing appropriate interventions. C. Risk for falls and/or injury is identified and addressed in the resident's individualized treatment plan. D. Falls will be reviewed weekly by the interdisciplinary team and interventions adjusted and care plans updated as necessary.
SERIOUS (G)

Actual Harm - a resident was hurt due to facility failures

Accident Prevention (Tag F0689)

A resident was harmed · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observations, record reviews, facility policy review, and interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to ens...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observations, record reviews, facility policy review, and interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure fall assessments were completed and interventions were put into place to decrease the likelihood of falls for 3 (Residents #161, #152, and #213) of 7 residents reviewed for falls. This failed practice resulted in Resident #152 falling and sustaining a fracture. Findings included: 1. The facility admitted Resident #152 with diagnoses of Alzheimer's disease and brain cancer. The annual Minimum Data Set (MDS), dated [DATE], revealed the resident's Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score was a 5 out of 15, which indicated the resident was severely cognitively impaired. Since the previous assessment, the resident had one fall with no injury and two falls with injury. A review of the resident's care plan, which was last updated on 09/21/2021, revealed Resident #152 was at risk for falls. Interventions for the falls included the following: - Physical and occupational therapy referrals for changes in functional mobility, with an effective date of 09/26/2018. - Reminding Resident #152 to call for assistance with activities of daily living, especially transfers, with an effective date of 09/26/2018. - Observation for unsafe behavior, with an effective date of 09/26/2018. - Non-slip footwear, with an effective date of 10/04/2018. - Encouragement for use of hip guards, with an effective date of 04/25/2019. - Blood pressure and pulse monitoring weekly, with an effective date of 09/13/2019. - Pad sensor alarm to bed and chair, with an effective date of 05/12/2020. - Floor mats at bedside, with an effective date of 07/06/2021. There were no interventions listed on the resident's care plan regarding any falls that occurred in 2021, other than the floor mats at bedside. A record review of the fall assessments indicated that on 06/29/2021 and 08/25/2021, Resident #152 was at a moderate risk for falls, and on 09/20/2021, the resident was at a high risk for falls. A review of an injury and accident report indicated that on 06/09/2021 at 8:00 AM, the resident had an unwitnessed fall. Resident #152 stated they fell in their bedroom. A certified nursing assistant noticed a small abrasion on the back of the resident's head, behind the left ear, while showering the resident the same morning after the fall. The resolution listed on the report was that Resident #152 was educated on calling for help. Resident #152 stated, I just want to use the bathroom. The report indicated staff would continue to monitor and encourage the resident to use the call lights. A review of a nursing progress note, dated 06/09/2021 at 2:45 PM, described the note as the initial fall-focused note and detailed the same information provided in the injury and accident report. At the end of the note, the writer had the option to list, New safety interventions added after this fall, and this section was left blank. A review of a nursing progress note, dated 06/09/2021 at 11:10 PM, described the note as the first follow-up fall-focused note. The additional interventions initiated and response to new interventions were left blank and did not identify any new interventions. A review of a progress note, dated 06/15/2021 at 3:36 PM, indicated the interdisciplinary team met regarding the fall on 06/09/2021. The new intervention initiated was alarm to chair. According to the care plan, the intervention of alarm to chair was already listed on the care plan with an initiated date of 05/12/2020. A review of an injury and accident report indicated that on 06/29/2021 at 2:00 PM, the resident had an unwitnessed fall. Resident #152 was found lying on the left side of their body on the floor between the door and the bed. Resident #152 was transferring themselves from the bed to the wheelchair. The wheelchair brakes were not locked. The resolution listed on the report indicated the resident stated, I forgot to lock my brakes. Resident #152 was educated on calling for assistance, and staff would continue to monitor. A review of a progress note, dated 06/29/2021 at 4:23 PM, detailed the same information provided in the injury and accident report. No new interventions were added, and additional comments were made stating that safety education was provided to the resident on locking the wheelchair brakes and using the call bell for assistance. A review of a nursing progress note, dated 06/29/2021 at 10:37 PM, described the note as the first follow-up fall-focused note. The additional interventions initiated and response to new interventions were left blank and did not identify any new interventions. A review of a nursing progress note, dated 06/30/2021 at 11:31 AM, described the note as the second follow-up fall-focused note. New orders were received for an x-ray for cervical, thoracic and lumbar spine, and bilateral hips due to the resident complaining of pain. The additional interventions initiated and response to new interventions were left blank. A review of a physician's progress note, dated 07/01/2021 at 2:59 PM, indicated the resident had a vertebral compression fracture of the L1/T12 site with an indeterminate age. New orders were given for pain medication and an orthopedic consult. A review of a progress note, dated 07/06/2021 at 12:13 PM, indicated the interdisciplinary team met regarding the fall on 06/29/2021. The new intervention initiated was floor mats. A review of an injury and accident report indicated that on 07/15/2021 at 11:50 AM, the resident had an unwitnessed fall. Resident #152 spilled milk in their lap, self-ambulated to the bathroom without calling for help, and the resident's tab alarm alerted staff. Resident #152 was found on the floor, sitting with their back against the wall and their legs out in front of them. Resident #152 reported they just went down while trying to get to the toilet. There was no resolution given. A review of a progress note, dated 07/15/2021 at 2:40 PM, detailed the same information provided in the injury and accident report. The new interventions added were to educate the resident on the use of the call bell and calling for help. A review of a nursing progress note, dated 07/15/2021 at 11:50 PM, described the note as the first follow-up fall-focused note. The additional interventions initiated and response to new interventions were left blank and did not identify new interventions. A review of a nursing progress note, dated 07/16/2021 at 6:54 AM, described the note as the second follow-up fall-focused note. The additional interventions initiated and response to new interventions were left blank. A review of a progress note, dated 07/20/2021 at 10:01 AM, indicated the interdisciplinary team met regarding the fall on 07/15/2021. The new intervention initiated was to remind the resident to call for assistance. A review of a social service progress note, dated 08/19/2021 at 4:23 PM, indicated the resident had cognitive impairment shown by memory loss, impaired decision-making skills, and episodes of confusion. A review of an injury and accident report indicated that on 09/12/2021 at 2:00 PM, the resident had an unwitnessed fall. Staff heard a loud bang, and Resident #152 screamed out. Staff noted the resident lying on the floor in the doorway of their bedroom, lying on the left side of their body with their left arm behind them. Resident #152 then turned themselves over onto their stomach. Resident #152 was transferred to the emergency room at 2:45 PM the same day. The resolution listed on the report was that the resident was transferred to the emergency room for evaluation of injuries, and the resident's care plan would be updated upon return. A Root Cause Analysis (RCA) would be completed to address the resident's fall, and an action plan would be created. A review of a progress note, dated 09/12/2021 at 2:00 PM, detailed the same information provided in the injury and accident report. No new interventions were added. A review of a progress note, dated 09/20/2021 at 4:01 PM, indicated the resident returned from the hospital with a left humerus fracture. A review of a Root Cause Analysis document indicated the document was completed on 09/30/2021 related to the fall on 09/12/2021 with major injury. Resident #152 sustained a left hip femoral neck fracture, impacted intra-articular left distal radius fracture, and a comminuted proximal left humeral head fracture. The Problem indicated Resident #152 had a history of gait instability and was found lying in the doorway of their assigned room. Resident #152 was last observed resting in their low bed with a fall mat on the floor and a tab alarm attached to the resident. Resident #152 removed the tab alarm and exited their bed. Resident #152 left their walker at the bedside and ambulated toward the doorway. Resident #152 fell, due to ambulating without their walker and known gait instability. Resident #152 was diagnosed with a urinary tract infection during the hospital stay. The first part of the facility's action plan consisted of continuing to use the low bed, fall mat at bedside on the floor, fall socks, move furniture away from the head of the bed to prevent injury, and apply hip guards. The second part of the facility's action plan consisted of consideration of using a pad sensor alarm while the resident was in bed and to offer the resident fluid every shift to prevent dehydration. The third part of the facility's action plan consisted of providing frequent reminders for the resident to use their walker when ambulating. Resident #152 would use their wheelchair during recovery with the goal of ambulating with a walker. On 10/08/2021 at 3:15 PM, Assistant Director of Nursing (ADON) #1 provided the injury and accident reports, as well as any fall assessments, for the resident within the last six months. ADON #1 verified there were three fall assessments that had been completed on the resident, which were 06/29/2021, 08/25/2021, and 09/20/2021. There were no fall assessments for 06/09/2021 or 07/15/2021. In an interview on 10/09/2021 at 8:40 AM, ADON #1 stated it was the facility's policy to complete a fall assessment after each fall, which was completed by the interdisciplinary team (IDT), and there should have been one completed after each fall for Resident #152. ADON #1 stated the care plan should be updated and the IDT team had guidelines for interventions. ADON #1 stated, As long as we have some type of alarm in place and appropriate footwear, we make sure to provide education on call light use. ADON #1 stated that the facility had prevented numerous falls for Resident #152 and .there was really no other intervention we could put into place. We could get a sitter . During an interview on 10/10/2021 at 1:39 PM, the Administrator stated the expectations of the facility was to provide care to prevent falls from occurring and to intervene after a fall to try to prevent further falls. The Administrator stated a fall should be documented in an incident report, and the interdisciplinary team would review the fall and seek to find interventions to prevent further falls. The Administrator also stated the interventions should be updated in the care plans and was disappointed they were not. Review of the facility's policy and procedure titled, Resident Safety Program/Fall Prevention, revised on 07/21, revealed, Policy: All residents who are at risk for falls will be identified through a comprehensive assessment process. This risk will be addressed in the resident's individualized treatment plan and evaluated through the IDC process .Procedure: A Morse Scale Falls Risk Assessment is completed upon admission and readmission, significant change assessment, quarterly assessment and after each fall .F. Falls will be reviewed weekly by the IDC team using the IDC team fall event review note, interventions adjusted, and care plans adjusted as necessary. 2. The facility admitted Resident #161 with diagnoses of history of falling, muscle weakness, and age-related osteoporosis. The quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS), dated [DATE], revealed the resident's Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score was 14 out of 15, which indicated the resident was cognitively intact. Since the previous assessment, the resident had one fall with no injury, two falls with injury, and one fall with major injury. A review of the resident's care plan, with a revision date of 08/31/2021, indicated the resident was at risk for falls that resulted in right hip surgery on 05/2021 and multiple rib displacements on 08/2021 and pain. Interventions listed included the following: - Observe Resident #161 for unsafe behavior and redirect accordingly, with an effective date of 5/26/2021. - Resident #161 to use comfortable, proper fitting non-skid shoes, with an effective date of 5/26/2021. - Monitor Bowel and Bladder needs, with an effective date of 05/26/2021. - Provide adequate lighting, with an effective date of 05/26/2021. - Encourage current activity level, with an effective date of 05/26/2021. - Tab alarm to bed and chair, with an effective date of 06/03/2021. - Pad alarm to bed and chair, with an effective date of 07/06/2021. - Keep bed in low position and call bell within reach, with an effective date of 07/06/2021 - Provide assistance as needed for activities of daily living (ADL), with an effective date of 07/06/2021. - Observe for signs of discomfort and monitor resident for complaints of pain and follow pain interventions as per doctor's orders, with an effective date of 07/06/2021. - Hip protectors at all times except for care, with an effective date of 07/07/2021. - Pressure relieving scoop mattress, with an effective date of 08/20/2021. - Keep call bell within reach, remind and encourage resident to use it before getting out of bed, with an effective date of 08/31/2021. A review of all of the resident's assessments indicated the resident had one fall assessment, which was completed on the day the resident was admitted , on 05/18/2021. There were no other fall assessments in the resident's electronic health record. A review of an injury and accident report indicated that on 06/01/2021 at 12:15 AM, the resident had an unwitnessed fall. The resident was found on the floor at bedside and stated they fell on their way back from the bathroom. The resolution listed on the report was that the resident was alert, awake, oriented, and able to make needs known. Resident #161 stated they fell on their way from the bathroom and believed it was their shoe that caused the fall. Staff were re-educated on monitoring the resident's footwear. The facility was to follow up with the resident's family member on providing appropriate footwear for the resident. A tab alarm was to remain in place as an intervention. A review of an injury and accident report indicated that on 07/06/2021 at 7:15 PM, the resident had an unwitnessed fall. The nurse was notified that the resident was lying on the floor on their left side in front of their closet. The resident's right shoe was off as well as the right side of the resident's pants. Resident #161 remained verbal and alert. Resident #161 stated, I was just standing still, and I don't know what happened. I just fell down. The resident was assessed, and there was bruising and a scrape on the resident's left elbow and left knee. Resident #161 complained of moderate pain to their left elbow and knee. There was no swelling or deformities noted. The resident was educated on safety. There was no resolution listed. A record review of an injury and accident report indicated that on 08/11/2021 at 8:30 PM, the resident had an unwitnessed fall. There was screaming heard coming from Resident #161's room, and the resident was found lying on their back beside their bed. Resident #161 stated they were trying to transfer themselves to the wheelchair, it moved, and they slid to the floor. Resident #161 sustained bruises to their upper back. The resolution listed on the report was to have an x-ray completed, which indicated multiple injuries noted to the rib area. Resident #161 was re-educated on the need to use the call bell for assistance. A tab alarm was to remain in place as an intervention. In an interview on 10/06/2021 at 3:48 PM, Resident #161 stated that it had been hard adjusting to moving into a nursing home facility. When asked if the resident had had any falls or hospitalizations since being admitted , the resident looked away from the surveyor and denied any falls or hospitalizations since being admitted . On 10/08/2021 at 3:15 PM, ADON #1 provided the injury and accident reports, as well as any fall assessments, for the resident within the last six months. ADON #1 verified there was only one fall assessment that had been completed on the resident, on 05/18/2021. In an interview on 10/09/2021 at 8:50 AM, ADON #1 stated Resident #161 should have had a fall assessment completed after each fall. In an interview on 10/10/2021 at 2:40 PM, the Administrator stated the Resident #161 should have had a fall assessment completed after each fall. During an interview on 10/10/2021 at 1:39 PM, the Administrator stated the expectations of the facility was to provide care to prevent falls from occurring and to intervene after a fall to try to prevent further falls. The Administrator stated a fall should be documented in an incident report, and the interdisciplinary team would review the fall and seek to find interventions to prevent further falls. The Administrator also stated the interventions should be updated in the care plans and was disappointed they were not. 3. A review of Resident #213's quarterly MDS Minimum Data Set (MDS), dated [DATE], indicated diagnoses including hypertension, obstructive uropathy, diabetes, personal history of traumatic fracture, and muscle weakness. The resident's Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score was 13, which indicated no cognitive impairment. The MDS indicated the resident had one fall with injury. A review of a fall risk assessment titled, Morse Fall Scale Assessment, dated 08/17/2021, indicated Resident #213 was at moderate risk for falling. There was no other Morse fall scale assessment completed after that date. A review of #213's care plans, dated 08/31/2021, indicated the resident was at risk for falls, as evidenced by a history of falls, with the last fall on 09/18/2021. Interventions included the following: maintain bed in low position, tab alarm for safety to bed and wheelchair at all times, encourage to use appropriate assistive devices, encourage use of appropriate fitting, non-skid shoes, observe for unsafe behavior, remind to use the call light, and assist with toileting and meeting daily needs. The effective dates for the interventions were 08/31/2021. The care plan did not indicate any additional interventions to prevent falls after 08/31/2021. A review of Resident #213's physician's orders, dated October 2021, indicated an order for a tab alarm to chair and bed at all times. The order date was 08/17/2021. There was no order for a low bed A review of Resident #213's progress notes indicated the resident sustained a fall on 09/10/2021. The note indicated the fall occurred in the resident's room at 7:45 PM and was unwitnessed. An x-ray was obtained for complaints of back and hip pain, which indicated no injury. There was no documentation to indicate if the tab alarm was in place at the time of the fall. A review of Resident's #213 IDT (interdisciplinary team) investigation dated 09/13/21 confirmed no interventions were put into place after the fall on 09/10/21. A review of Resident #213's progress notes indicated the resident sustained another fall on 09/18/2021 at 9:00 PM. The notes indicated the fall occurred in the hallway next to the resident's wheelchair and was unwitnessed. There was no injury documented. There was no documentation to indicate if the tab alarm was in place at the time of the fall. A review of Resident's #213 IDT investigation dated 09/24/21 confirmed no interventions were put into place after the fall on 09/18/21. An observation of Resident #213 on 10/07/2021 at 7:52 AM revealed the resident sitting on the edge of the bed. There was no tab alarm (used to indicate if a resident was rising from a seated position), and the bed was not in the low position. An observation of Resident #213 on 10/08/2021 at 8:38 AM revealed the resident sitting on the edge of the bed. There was no tab alarm, and the bed was not in the low position. There was a fall mat next to the bed. On 10/08/2021 at 10:24 AM, an interview was conducted with Assistant Director of Nursing (ADON) #2. When asked if new interventions were put into place after the resident fell on [DATE], ADON #2 stated, no. ADON #2 stated that the facility's interdisciplinary team met and concluded no interventions were needed. When asked if any interventions were put into place after the second fall on 09/18/2021, ADON #2 stated the interdisciplinary team did not feel any additional interventions were warranted. When asked if a new Morse fall scale assessment was completed after either fall, ADON #2 stated, no. When asked if the fall which occurred on 09/18/2021 may have been avoided if interventions were put into place after the fall that occurred on 09/10/2021, the ADON #2 stated, maybe. ADON #2 stated that the care plan would be updated. When asked why the tab alarm was not in place on 10/07/2021 and 10/08/2021, ADON #2 stated they were not sure but would in-service staff. ADON #2 stated the CNA had all the interventions on the Kiosk, which is where they document. When asked if ADON #2 was aware per facility policy a Morse fall risk assessment was to be completed after each fall to identify risk areas, ADON #2 stated, no. ADON #2 confirmed there was only one fall risk assessment completed for Resident #213, which was on admission [DATE]). During an interview on 10/08/2021 at 7:31 PM, a family member for Resident #213 stated the resident had sustained multiple falls at home. The family member stated that they and other family members were concerned about Resident #213's safety. During an interview on 10/10/2021 at 1:39 PM, the Administrator stated the expectations of the facility was to provide care to prevent falls from occurring and to intervene after a fall to try to prevent further falls. The Administrator stated a fall should be documented in an incident report, and the interdisciplinary team would review the fall and seek to find interventions to prevent further falls. The Administrator also stated the interventions should be updated in the care plans and was disappointed they were not. Review of the facility's policy and procedure titled, Resident Safety Program/Fall Prevention, revised on 07/2021, revealed, Policy: All residents who are at risk for falls will be identified through a comprehensive assessment process. This risk will be addressed in the resident's individualized treatment plan and evaluated through the IDC process .Procedure: A Morse Scale Falls Risk Assessment is completed upon admission and readmission, significant change assessment, quarterly assessment and after each fall .F. Falls will be reviewed weekly by the IDC team using the IDC team fall event review note, interventions adjusted, and care plans adjusted as necessary. New Jersey Administrative Code § 8:39-27.1(a)
CONCERN (D)

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

Report Alleged Abuse (Tag F0609)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interviews, record review, and facility policy review, it was determined that the facility failed to report an alleged ...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interviews, record review, and facility policy review, it was determined that the facility failed to report an alleged violation of abuse perpetrated by Resident #105 to the New Jersey Department of Health (NJDOH) against two (Residents #198 and #234) of three residents reviewed for abuse. Specifically, the facility failed to report an allegation of physical and sexual abuse for Resident #198 and failed to timely report an allegation of physical abuse for Resident #234. The facility's failed practice had the potential to affect all residents at the facility. Findings included: The facility admitted Resident #105 with diagnoses which included paranoid schizophrenia, unspecified dementia with behavioral disturbance, wandering, restlessness and agitation, and severe psychotic features. The admission Minimum Data Set, dated [DATE], indicated the resident was moderately impaired with a SAMS (Staff Assessment for Mental Status). The resident required physical assistance of two persons to dress and for toilet use. The resident required physical assistance of one person for personal hygiene. The resident required assistance with setup for bed mobility and eating. The resident exhibited behavioral symptoms such as kicking, hitting, pushing, scratching, grabbing, and sexual abuse directed towards others. The resident's identified symptoms put others at significant risk for physical injury. The resident intruded on the privacy or activity of other residents. The resident exhibited the behaviors four to six times daily. The resident currently resided in a locked behavior unit. 1. Review of a facility incident report, dated 08/13/2021, indicated it was reported by an unidentified eyewitness that Resident #105 was sexually inappropriate with Resident #198. Per the report, Resident #105 was observed to have touched Resident #198 on their buttocks while Resident #198 was walking in an unidentified hallway. It was noted in the report that when Resident #198 questioned why Resident #105 touched them inappropriately, Resident #105 pushed Resident #198 to the floor. Review of the medical record revealed Resident #198 had diagnoses which included dementia with behavioral disturbance and anxiety disorder. The resident was independent with activities of daily living. During an interview on 10/09/2021 at 9:00 AM, the Assistant Director of Nursing (ADON) #2 stated that the incident when Resident #105 was noted to have inappropriately touched Resident #198 on 08/13/2021 was considered behavioral. Per ADON #2, it was not uncommon for residents on the behavior unit to touch each other inappropriately. ADON #2 stated the incident was not reported to the NJDOH. There was no facility-reported event (FRE) to the NJDOH for this allegation. 2. Review of a progress note dated 10/07/2021 revealed Resident #105 pulled on Resident #234's hair. Registered Nurse (RN) #11 who recorded in the medical indicated that Resident #105 pulled Resident #234's hair. RN #1 failed to ensure that she reported the incident to the facility's abuse coordinator. The facility did not report the incident until the survey team brought it to their attention. During an interview with the Activity Assistant (AA) on 10/10/2021 at 3:39 PM, the AA stated that he witnessed the encounter firsthand. Per the AA, Resident #105 pulled Resident #234's hair such that it caused Resident #234's head to tilt abruptly towards the side of the pull, and the resident yelled out in pain. Per the AA, Resident #105 had a repeat encounter with Resident #234 within a space of a few minutes. The AA stated that he reported his observation to the nurse on the shift. During an interview on 10/10/2021 at 3:02 PM, the Nursing Home Administrator (NHA) stated that the facility typically reported abuse incidences. Per the NHA, RN #11 probably thought not to disturb the unit supervisor (ADON #2) at the time because the ADON was helping with the survey process. When the surveyor raised the concern about the facility's failure to report the inappropriate sexual behavior exhibited by Resident #105 towards Resident #234, the NHA stated he would have to investigate why the facility did not file a reportable in that case. The NHA acknowledged that the facility did not file the reportable for the alleged abuse perpetrated against Resident #234 until the survey team brought the situation to the facility's attention. The facility's Policy titled, Abuse, Neglect or Exploitation, with effective date of 10/2020, was provided by the ADON on 10/10/2021 at 11:15 AM. The policy read in part .Contact the NJDOH of abuse and neglect of residents in CHCC's residential LTC programs . as follows: [a] serious bodily injury: immediately or within 2 hours of suspicion; [b] No serious injury: within 24 hours of suspicion . New Jersey Administrative Code § 8:39-5.1(a)
CONCERN (D)

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

Investigate Abuse (Tag F0610)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview, record review, and facility policy review, it was determined that the facility failed to have evidence that ...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview, record review, and facility policy review, it was determined that the facility failed to have evidence that all alleged violations were thoroughly investigated for three (Residents #197, #198, and #234) of three residents reviewed for abuse. Specifically, the facility failed to have evidence that it investigated all abuse violations perpetrated by Resident #105 against Residents #197, #198, and #234. The facility's failed practice has the potential to affect all the residents at the facility. Findings included: The October 2021 computerized physician order (CPO) indicated the facility admitted Resident #105 with diagnoses which included paranoid schizophrenia, unspecified dementia with behavioral disturbance, wandering, restlessness and agitation, and severe psychotic features. The admission Minimum Data Set (MDS),dated 08/09/2021, indicated the resident's cognition was moderately impaired with a SAMS (Staff Assessment for Mental Status). The resident required physical assistance of two persons with dressing and toileting. The resident required physical assistance of one person for personal hygiene. The resident required assistance with setup for bed mobility and eating. The resident exhibited behavioral symptoms such as kicking, hitting, pushing, scratching, grabbing, and sexual abuse directed towards others. The resident's identified symptoms put others at significant risk for physical injury. The resident significantly intruded on the privacy or activity of others. The resident exhibited these behaviors four to six times daily. The resident currently resided in a locked behavior unit. A review of Resident #105's medical record indicated a behavior care plan, dated 02/24/2020, indicated under the focus portion of the plan that Resident #105 resisted care and was combative (hitting/punching/slapping) with staff and at times requires additional certified behavioral technician (CBT) for provision of care. The focus portion also indicated Resident #105 wanders and the resident becomes very intrusive with peers, yells, curses, and threatens peers. Resident #105 takes food from peers' trays at times, becomes verbally and physically aggressive. The intervention portion of the care plan, last revised 02/27/2020, included the following: allow behaviors to continue in a safe manner if it assists with keeping Resident #105 calm, staff to monitor the effectiveness of techniques and report any changes to nurse, doctor, or interdisciplinary committee (IDC) team, offer appropriate seating areas to reduce agitation and over-stimulation, and offer distraction and remove from area when becoming agitated. 1. A review of a facility incident report, dated on 06/02/2021, indicated it was reported by an unidentified eyewitness that Resident #197 was propelling themself in their wheelchair on the [NAME] Unit hallway trying to get past Resident #105. The incident report indicated Resident #197 told Resident #105 to excuse them, and Resident #105 responded by punching Resident #197 with a closed fist, which caused a laceration to Resident #197's upper lip. The incident report indicated Resident #197 required an emergency room visit to get their upper lip sutured. The October 2021 computerized physician order (CPO) indicated Resident #197 had diagnoses which included dementia with behavioral disturbance. The quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS), dated [DATE], indicated the resident was moderately cognitively impaired with a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of 10 out of 15. The resident required extensive assistance of two persons for transfer. 2. A review of a facility incident report, dated 08/13/2021, indicated it was reported by an unidentified eyewitness that Resident #105 was sexually inappropriate with Resident #198. Per the incident report, Resident #105 was observed to have touched Resident #198 on their buttocks while Resident #198 was walking in an unidentified hallway. It was noted in the incident report that when Resident #198 questioned why Resident #105 touched them inappropriately, Resident #105 pushed Resident #198 to the floor. The October 2021 computerized physician order (CPO) indicated Resident #198 had diagnoses which included dementia in other diseases classified elsewhere with behavioral disturbance and anxiety disorder. The resident was independent with activities of daily living. 3. A review of a progress note, dated 10/07/2021, revealed Resident #105 pulled on Resident #234's hair. During an interview with the Activity Assistant (AA) on 10/10/2021 at 3:39 PM, the AA stated that he witnessed the encounter firsthand. Per the AA, Resident #105 pulled Resident #234's hair such that it caused Resident #234's head to tilt abruptly towards the side of the pull, and the resident yelled out in a sound that indicated discomfort or pain. Per the AA, Resident #105 had a repeat encounter with Resident #234 within a space of a few minutes. The AA stated that he reported his observations to the nurse on the shift. The October 2021 computerized physician order (CPO) indicated Resident #234 had diagnoses which included unspecified osteoarthritis, muscle weakness, and dementia with behavioral disturbance. During an interview on 10/10/2021 at 3:02 PM, the Nursing Home Administrator (NHA) stated that when an abuse incident was reported to be repeatedly perpetrated by the same resident, he relied on nursing staff to tell him what they had done and their input on what they thought the facility should do differently. The NHA stated that he expected an investigation into all abuse allegations. Per the NHA, investigation was key to identifying the trigger for the aggressor, and it helped direct the proper intervention which helped to ensure residents at the facility continued to be free from abuse. When the abuse investigation for this incident was requested, the NHA stated that the facility did not have evidence that the facility investigated the abuse incidents identified above. The facility's policy titled, Abuse, Neglect or Exploitation, with effective date of 10/2020, indicated, .Investigation and follow-up . Responsibilities of Supervisors/Nurse Managers and /or Director of Nursing/Nurse Executive or Designee (1). Review the investigations policy and complete the investigator's checklist . New Jersey Administrative Code § 8:39-5.1(a)
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0679 (Tag F0679)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observations, record review, interviews, and facility policy review, it was determined that the facility failed to prov...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observations, record review, interviews, and facility policy review, it was determined that the facility failed to provide a meaningful program of activities for two (Residents #105 and #236) of three residents reviewed for activities. Specifically, the facility failed to ensure the activity program was designed to meet the individual activity needs, interests, and abilities for Residents #105 and #236, who were demented. The facility also failed to invite and encourage group and individual activities of stated interest promoting socialization and decreasing boredom. The failed practice had the potential to affect all 38 residents who resided on the [NAME] Unit (locked unit). Finding included: 1. The October 2021 computerized physician orders (CPO) indicated the facility admitted Resident #105 with diagnoses which included paranoid schizophrenia, unspecified dementia with behavioral disturbance, wandering, restlessness and agitation, and severe psychotic features. The admission Minimum Data Set (MDS), dated [DATE], indicated the resident's cognition was moderately impaired with a SAMS (Staff Assessment for Mental Status). The resident required physical assistance of two persons to dressing and toileting. The resident required physical assistance of one person for personal hygiene. The undated participation and activity interest assessment completed with Resident #105 indicated the resident was not able to respond to the question related to the resident's preferred activities. The report indicated the facility attempted to reach out to the resident's family but was unsuccessful. However, the assessment indicated that staff reported Resident #105 loved music. It was noted that Resident #105 sat and rocked to music whenever music was being played. The facility posted an activity calendar which listed different activities for each day of the month. The calendar indicated the following activities were to be carried out with residents on the [NAME] Unit from 10/06/2021 through 10/10/2021, which were the survey dates. The activity schedule for [NAME] Main Lounge on 10/06/2021 included: - At 10:30 AM (Sit and be fit) - At 11:00 AM (Person, place, or thing game) - At 11:30 AM (Canadian Rocky Mountains Park: Landscape documentary) - At 2:15 PM-3:45 PM (Bingo) The activity schedule for [NAME] Main Lounge on 10/07/2021 included: - At 10:15 AM (Stretch and flex) - From 10:45 AM through 11:20 AM (Chaplain time) - At 11:30 AM (25 most beautiful destinations in America) - At 2:15 PM (Where do these foods come from) - At 3:00 PM (The life of [NAME]) The activity schedule for [NAME] Main Lounge on 10/08/2021 included: - At 10:30 AM (Morning stretch) - At 11:00 AM (Disc drop game) - At 11:30 AM (The [NAME] program) - At 2:15 PM (Trivia: Just for fun) - From 3:00 through 3:45 PM ([NAME] classics) The activity schedule for [NAME] Main Lounge on 10/09/2021 included: - At 10:30 AM (Noodle fitness) - From 11:00 AM through 11:45 AM (Food jingo) - At 2:15 PM (Word association game) - From 3:00 PM through 3:45 PM (Il [NAME] Italian songs) The activity schedule for [NAME] Main Lounge on 10/10/2021 included: - At 10:30 AM (Contemporary Christian music) - At 11:00 AM (Fill in the blank) - At 11:30 AM (Flashback to 1956: A timeline of life in America) - From 2:15 PM through 3:45 PM (Bingo) Observations conducted from 10/06/2021 through 10/09/2021 revealed Resident #105 was unmonitored and was by themself. The resident was always observed in the personal spaces of other residents with closed fist, threatening to punch them. Resident #105 continuously said derogative language, such as using the F-word and B-word towards staff and residents. The resident grabbed staff when they walked by the resident. The observations revealed the resident was never encouraged or invited to participate in any activity. There were no observations of music being played for the resident to rock to as identified in the participation and activity interest assessment. The resident wandered on the unit most of the time and was aggressive towards residents and staff. On 10/06/2021 at 3:29 PM, Resident #105 was heard saying the F word which was directed at staff and residents on the [NAME] Unit. Resident #105 approached the surveyor with a closed fist, threatening to punch the surveyor during this time. On 10/07/2021 at 11:05 AM, Resident #105 aggressively grabbed the rehab assistant (RA) by his left arm when the RA walked by the resident. On 10/07/2021 at 11:39 AM, the RA stated that Resident #105 had been aggressive towards staff and residents since the resident's admission. He said he hardly saw the resident participate in any activity program. On 10/07/2021 at 2:25 PM, Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) #7 stated that Resident #105 was aggressive, combative, and not easily redirectable. LPN #7 stated that Resident #105 liked to say racial slurs and used derogatory speech. LPN #7 stated that Resident #105 got into other residents' personal space. LPN #7 stated that the resident had dragged, hit, and punched staff and residents. LPN #7 stated, You need to know how to speak, in order to not get the resident agitated. LPN #7 verified that Resident #105 liked music. She acknowledged that there was no music activity which encouraged the resident's engagement. On 10/07/2021 at 3:15 PM, Certified Behavior Technician (CBT) #1 stated that Resident #105 was aggressive towards residents and staff. He stated that Resident #105 insulted staff and residents with profanity. CBT #1 stated that the resident had hit staff and residents and was a safety concern to self and other residents. Per CBT #1, he did not know why the activity department ceased playing music for the resident. CBT #1 stated that Resident #105 was known to be calm when music was played. On 10/08/2021 at 2:54 PM, the Activities Director (AD) stated that the [NAME] Unit had two types of activity programs. Per the AD, there were structured group programs and individual room activities where staff provided one-on-one. The AD stated that the one-on-one approaches took place on and off throughout the day. One-on-one activities were not on the activity calendar. The AD stated that one-on-one activities were carried out when residents were more cooperative. The AD stated the different types of one-on-one activities included a rolling sensory cart, hand massage, shoulder massage, and pet therapy. Per the AD, the facility just started up again with indoor pet visitation. The AD added that the facility did one-to-one conversation and facilitated FaceTime calls and virtual visits as activity programs. The AD stated that she knew Resident #105 enjoyed snacking. Prior to COVID-19, Resident #105 enjoyed music and stayed around longer. Per the AD, Resident #105 was calm and relaxed when music was played. She stated that the ongoing renovation at the facility hindered the engagement as they had issues with space. The AD stated that outdoor patio visits, which helped the resident socialize, were also hindered by the renovation. The AD acknowledged that Resident #105 wandered aimlessly across the unit. Per the AD, it was fine for Resident #105 to wander as it was therapeutic. Per the AD, walking was part of activity. The AD stated that the resident's behavior hindered activity staff from inviting the resident to activities. During the interview, the AD provided the activity participation log for Resident #105 from 10/06/2021 through 10/10/2021 (survey dates). The log revealed the acronym MDX on the participation record dated 10/06/2021; the acronym W was reported on the participation log on 10/07/2021; and the acronym WI was recorded on 10/08/2021. The bottom portion of the participation log listed an alphabetical representation of each letter in the acronyms identified above. Specifically, the record identified that M represented music, D represented discussion group, X represented sensory stimulation, W represented outdoor/patio visit and I represented room visit. The AD acknowledged that the reported activities on Resident #105's log contradicted her assertions as reported in the interview above. The AD acknowledged the log did not identify the time and duration of participation. The AD stated that she would look into the contradictory information in the log from activity staff. On 10/09/2021 at 9:00 AM, the Assistant Director of Nursing (ADON) #2 stated that Resident #105 had been very challenging with the resident's care. Resident #105's behaviors created a stressful environment for other residents. ADON #2 stated that he felt the activity department did not engage the resident in activity programs as identified in the resident's activity participation assessment because of the resident's behavior. On 10/10/2021 at 3:02 PM, the Nursing Home Administrator (NHA) stated that he believed activity staff on the behavior ([NAME]) unit were doing their best to engage the residents on the unit. Per the NHA, if activity staff deemed walking/wandering an activity, then it was an activity. The facility's policy titled, Activity Programming and Protocols, effective 01/2021, indicated, All residents (both alert/oriented and regressed/ low functioning, confused, and behavior populations) are provided with a choice for participation in a variety of daily programs. Activity programs promote and enhance resident's socialization, physical, creative, educational/intellectual, cultural, spiritual, awareness stimulation and community integration needs; focus is on maintaining resident's dignity and personal identity, increased feeling of well-being and success. Programs are adapted to resident's level of functioning and are offered in an individual manner, small or large group format. All residents have the right to refuse to participate in programs. Residents are provided with the opportunity to enjoy various recreational/social activities without compromising the participating residents' safety. All programs have therapeutic value and incorporate family-centered activities, which provide a supportive and therapeutic environment to give the families and residents and opportunity to work towards achieving common goals. 2. The October 2021 computerized physician order (CPO) indicated the facility admitted Resident #236 with diagnoses which included Alzheimer's disease, dementia with behavioral disturbance, and obsessive-compulsive disorder. The admission Minimum Data Set (MDS), dated [DATE], indicated the resident's cognition was moderately impaired with a Staff Assessment for Mental Status (SAMS). The resident currently resided in a locked behavior unit. The resident required one-person physical assistance with dressing and personal hygiene. The activity care plan, initiated on 09/23/2021, indicated under the focus portion of the plan that Resident #236 needed support and encouragement to remain within program settings. The care plan indicated that Resident #236 wandered in and out of groups. The goal portion of the care plan indicated the following: that Resident #236's socialization would be increased by friendly visits/one-on-one chat; Resident #236's current amount of activity time per week would not decline; Resident #236 would attend at least one to two activities of choice per day with a duration of five to 10 minutes; and Resident #236 will continue to walk within the unit and will appear to enjoy socialization with staff and certain peers. The intervention portion of Resident #236's care plan indicated the following: gently redirect the resident's attention as necessary within the resident's tolerance to remain in the program or remain on task; compliment Resident #236's participation efforts; schedule activities for the resident on a regular basis and monitor the resident attendance; and provide one-on-one programming [sensory and cognitive stimulation, social engagement, aromatherapy/ therapeutic music, and pet therapy/likes dog]. A review of Resident #236's, undated, activity assessment indicated the resident liked to read magazines and picture books. The activity assessment indicated the resident liked to listen to [NAME], Spanish music, rock and roll, 50's, 60's, and 70's music. The activity assessment indicated the resident liked to do arts and crafts. The resident liked card games and bingo and liked to watch music performances on television. Resident #236 liked playing with a dog. The resident was indicated to have no preference for group activities. The assessment indicated that activity staff would encourage participation in activities of choice. The facility posted an activity calendar which listed different activities for each day of the month. The calendar indicated the following activities were to be carried out with residents on the [NAME] Unit from 10/06/2021 through 10/10/2021, which were the survey dates. The activity schedule for [NAME] Main Lounge on 10/06/2021 included: - At 10:30 AM (Sit and be fit) - At 11:00 AM (Person, place, or thing game) - At 11:30 AM (Canadian Rocky Mountains Park: Landscape documentary) - At 2:15 PM-3:45 PM (Bingo) The activity schedule for [NAME] Main Lounge on 10/07/2021 included: - At 10:15 AM (Stretch and flex) - From 10:45 AM through 11:20 AM (Chaplain time) - At 11:30 AM (25 most beautiful destinations in America) - At 2:15 PM (Where do these foods come from) - At 3:00 PM (The life of [NAME]) The activity schedule for [NAME] Main Lounge on 10/08/2021 included: - At 10:30 AM (Morning stretch) - At 11:00 AM (Disc drop game) - At 11:30 AM (The [NAME] program) - At 2:15 PM (Trivia: Just for fun) - From 3:00 through 3:45 PM ([NAME] classics) The activity schedule for [NAME] Main Lounge on 10/09/2021 included: - At 10:30 AM (Noodle fitness) - From 11:00 AM through 11:45 AM (Food jingo) - At 2:15 PM (Word association game) - From 3:00 PM through 3:45 PM (Il [NAME] Italian songs) The activity schedule for [NAME] Main Lounge on 10/10/2021 included: - At 10:30 AM (Contemporary Christian music) - At 11:00 AM (Fill in the blank) - At 11:30 AM (Flashback to 1956: A timeline of life in America) - From 2:15 PM through 3:45 PM (Bingo) Observations conducted on the [NAME] Unit from 10/06/2021 through 10/10/2021 revealed Resident #236 was never in any activity. The resident did not receive encouragement to participate in any of the identified preferred activities assessed for the resident. Except at mealtimes, Resident #236 was left to wander throughout the unit without any meaningful engagement. The resident wandered into other residents' rooms for most of the observations and exited the rooms with belongings of other residents. On 10/07/2021 at 11:28 AM, Resident #236 exited room [ROOM NUMBER] with a red bag. In the bag was a radio, a pair of shoes, nail polish, and apple juice. On 10/07/2021 at 11:32 AM, Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA) #10 identified the items in the red bag as belonging to a resident who occupied the room. CNA #10 identified the beads on Resident #236 did not belong to the resident. Per CNA #10, she did not know why Resident #236 was not invited to activities. CNA #10 stated that Resident #236 wandered into other residents' rooms every day, and nursing staff had to keep redirecting Resident #236 so the resident was not in any safety related concern. On 10/07/2021 at 2:02 PM, Resident #236 was observed in room [ROOM NUMBER] rummaging through the wardrobes of the residents who occupied the room. The surveyor called the attention of the nursing staff who responded and escorted Resident #236 out of the room. On 10/07/2021 at 2:04 PM, an unidentified resident in room [ROOM NUMBER] was yelling out loud that they were sick and tired because Resident #236 kept coming in their room and displacing their personal items. On 10/07/2021 at 2:13 PM, Certified Behavioral Technician (CBT) #2 stated that Resident #236 always snuck in other residents' rooms and displaced other residents' personal belongings. CBT #2 stated that Resident #236 sometimes snuck out with other residents' personal belongings, and staff did their best to retrieve those items and return them to the identified owners. CBT #2 stated that she had not seen the resident participate in any activity program. Per CBT #2, Resident #236 wandered through the lounge when activities were going on. CBT #2 stated that the resident did not receive encouragement to participate in activities. On 10/07/2021 at 2:09 PM, Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) #7 stated that Resident #236 had obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD). The resident compulsively took things that did not belong to the resident. LPN #7 stated the facility had spoken to the psychiatrist about the resident. Staff tried to be vigilant with the resident. She stated that nursing staff retrieved the items the resident took from their peers' multiple times a day and returned them back to the residents. LPN #7 stated that staff tried to keep the resident in clear view to advert the resident from sneaking into other resident's rooms. LPN #7 stated that lack of engagement with the resident posed a safety risk. Per LPN #7, to hide the items Resident #236 took from other residents' rooms, Resident #236 had been found by staff several times when the resident tried to use the drawers from their bedside table as a ladder to hide items the resident took from other residents on their wardrobe. LPN #7 stated that Resident #236 was not on any activity program. On 10/08/2021 at 2:54 PM, the Activities Director (AD) stated that the [NAME] Unit had two types of activity programs. Per the AD, there were structured group programs and individual room activities where staff provided one-on-one. One-on-one approaches took place on and off throughout the day. The one-on-one activities were not on the activity calendar. The AD stated that one-on-one activities were carried out when residents were more cooperative. The AD stated that the different types of one-on-one activities included a rolling sensory cart, hand massage, shoulder massage, and pet therapy. Per the AD, the facility just started up again with indoor pet visitation. The AD added that the facility did one-to-one conversation and facilitated FaceTime calls and virtual visits as activity programs. The AD stated that she knew Resident #236 enjoyed music, picture books, magazines, and pets. She stated that prior to COVID-19, Resident #236 enjoyed music and stayed around longer. Per the AD, Resident #236 was calm and relaxed when music was played. The AD stated that the ongoing renovation at the facility hindered the engagement, as they had issues with space. She stated that outdoor patio visits which helped the resident socialize were also hindered by the renovation. The AD stated that she was aware that Resident #236 wandered into other residents' rooms and took their personal items. Per the AD, it was fine for Resident #236 to wander as it was therapeutic, and walking was an activity. The AD provided the activity participation log for Resident #236 from 10/06/2021 through 10/10/2021 (survey dates). The log revealed the acronym NXDXE on the participation record dated 10/06/2021; the acronym IZ was reported on the participation log on 10/07/2021; and the acronym ID was recorded on 10/08/2021. The bottom portion of the participation log listed an alphabetical representation of each letter in the acronyms identified above. Specifically, the record identified that N represented physical exercise, D represented discussion group, X represented sensory stimulation, I represented room visit, and Z represented other. The log did not identify the time and duration of Resident #236's participation in any of the reported activities. Resident #236 was not observed to have participated in any activity. On 10/08/2021 at 3:15 PM, the Assistant Activities Director (AAD) stated that she documented moments when Resident #236 walked through the lounge during activities to reflect that the resident participated because the resident had a glance of the television screen when the resident walked through. The AAD stated that when she held the resident's hands to redirect the resident from wandering into spaces on the unit, she reported the interaction as sensory session. The AAD stated that Resident #236's attention span was very short; therefore, activity staff could not do so much with the resident. On 10/10/2021 at 3:02 PM, the Nursing Home Administrator (NHA) stated that he was not made aware of Resident #236 wandering into other residents' rooms or taking other residents' personal belongings. The NHA stated that he believed activity staff on the behavior ([NAME]) unit were doing their best to engage the residents on the unit. Per the NHA, if activity staff deemed walking or hand holding an activity, then it was an activity. The facility's policy titled, Activity Programming and Protocols, effective 01/2021, indicated, All residents (both alert/oriented and regressed/ low functioning, confused, and behavior populations) are provided with a choice for participation in a variety of daily programs. Activity programs promote and enhance resident's socialization, physical, creative, educational/intellectual, cultural, spiritual, awareness stimulation and community integration needs; focus is on maintaining resident's dignity and personal identity, increased feeling of well-being and success. Programs are adapted to resident's level of functioning and are offered in an individual manner, small or large group format. All residents have the right to refuse to participate in programs. Residents are provided with the opportunity to enjoy various recreational/social activities without compromising the participating residents' safety. All programs have therapeutic value and incorporate family-centered activities, which provide a supportive and therapeutic environment to give the families and residents and opportunity to work towards achieving common goals. New Jersey Administrative Code § 8:39-7.3(a)6
CONCERN (D)

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

Pressure Ulcer Prevention (Tag F0686)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observations, interviews, record review, and review of facility policies, it was determined the facility failed to ensu...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observations, interviews, record review, and review of facility policies, it was determined the facility failed to ensure interventions were implemented to prevent wounds from developing or worsening for 1 (Residents #156) of 3 residents reviewed for pressure ulcers. Findings included: 1. A review of Resident #156's quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS), dated [DATE], indicated diagnoses of age-related osteoarthritis, spinal stenosis, pain in left hip, muscle weakness, age-related osteoporosis, and herpes zoster. Resident #156's Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score was 3, which indicated severely impaired cognition. The resident required extensive assistance of two staff with mobility. The resident was always incontinent, and was at risk for developing pressure ulcers. The MDS indicated Resident #156 had four unstageable pressure ulcers. A review of Resident #156's care plan, dated 02/18/2021, had a focus of skin integrity. Interventions included pillows between knees when in bed, assist with repositioning when in bed and chair, pressure relieving air mattress and pressure relieving chair cushion. The interventions were dated 02/19/2021. A review of a progress note for Resident #156, dated 06/18/2021, indicated a new concern of skin breakdown on the right and left foot over bony prominence. The note did not indicate the physician was notified and no new orders were documented. A review of a progress note for Resident #156, dated 07/20/2021, indicated a new concern for open area on the right hip measuring 3 centimeters (cm) x 2 cm and the left hip was noted to have an area of non-blanchable redness measuring 1 cm x 2 cm. Orders were obtained for the wound clinic to evaluate and treat. A record review indicated that Resident #156 was assessed by a wound care clinic for treatment and follow-up. A note dated 07/22/2021 indicated the resident had a full thickness ulceration of the right trochanter/hip. This measured 2.5 cm x 2.5 cm. The wound base was 100% necrotic tissue (dead, nonviable). The resident also had a full thickness ulceration of the left trochanter/hip. This measured 0.4 cm x 1.2 cm. The wound base had stable eschar (dark scab tissue). The resident also had an area of deep purplish discoloration of the left lateral foot surface. This measured 4.0 cm x 1.2 cm. The resident also had a full thickness wound of the first metatarsal on the left foot. This measured 1.2 cm x 1.2 cm. The suggested interventions from the wound care clinic included the following: offload pressure to affected area with soft pillow, continue repositioning in accordance with assessed needs, alternating pressure relief mattress, and wheelchair cushion. A record review indicated that Resident #156 was assessed by a wound care clinic for treatment and follow-up. A note dated 07/29/2021 indicated the resident had a full thickness ulceration of the right trochanter/hip. This wound was stable. The resident also had a full thickness ulceration of the left trochanter/hip. This measured 2.0 cm x 2.0 cm. The wound base has stable. The resident also had an area of deep purplish discoloration of the left lateral foot surface. This measured 4.0 cm x 3.0 cm. The resident also had a full thickness wound of the first metatarsal on the left foot. This measured 1.5 cm x 1.0 cm and was stable. The resident acquired a new wound to the right lateral foot surface, and was assessed as a Stage 1 pressure injury that was non-blanchable. The suggested interventions from the wound care clinic included the following: offload pressure to affected area with soft pillow, continue repositioning in accordance with assessed needs, alternating pressure relief mattress, and wheelchair cushion. A record review indicated that Resident #156 was assessed by a wound care clinic for treatment and follow-up. A note dated 08/05/2021 indicated the resident had a full thickness ulceration of the right trochanter/hip. This measured 2.7 cm x 3.0 cm x 1.0 cm. The resident also had a full thickness ulceration of the left trochanter/hip. This wound was stable. The resident also had an area of deep purplish discoloration of the left lateral foot surface. This wound was stable. The resident also had a full thickness wound of the first metatarsal on the left foot. This wound was stable. The resident acquired a new wound to the left lateral foot surface, and was assessed as an unstageable pressure injury. The resident also had a Stage one pressure injury to the right lateral foot surface. This wound was stable. The resident also had a full thickness wound of the left bunion. This measured 2.0 cm x 2.3 cm. Wound base was 60% yellow slough tissue. The suggested interventions from the wound care clinic included the following: offload pressure to affected area with soft pillow, continue repositioning in accordance with assessed needs, alternating pressure relief mattress, and wheelchair cushion. A review of the Braden Score (measures risk of skin breakdown), dated 08/20/2021, was assessed as 13 which indicated Resident #156 was at moderate risk for skin breakdown. A record review indicated that Resident #156 was assessed by a wound care clinic for treatment and follow-up. A note dated 08/26/2021 indicated the resident had a full thickness ulceration of the right trochanter/hip. This measured 2.0 cm x 3.0 cm x 1.2 cm. The resident also had a full thickness ulceration of the left trochanter/hip. This measured 3.5 cm x 3.5 cm. The resident also had a full thickness wound of the left lateral foot surface. This measured 2.0 cm x 3.0 cm. The resident also had a full thickness wound of the first metatarsal/bunion on the left foot. This measured 1.0 cm x 2.0 cm. The wound bed was 60% slough and 40% granular tissue. The suggested interventions from the wound care clinic included the following: offload pressure to affected area with soft pillow, continue repositioning in accordance with assessed needs, alternating pressure relief mattress, and wheelchair cushion. A record review indicated that Resident #156 was assessed by a wound care clinic for treatment and follow-up. A note dated 09/02/2021 indicated the resident had a full thickness ulceration of the right trochanter/hip. This measured 1.8 cm x 2.5 cm x 1.2 cm. The resident also had a full thickness ulceration of the left trochanter/hip. This measured 6.0 cm x 5.0 cm. The resident also had a full thickness wound of the left lateral foot surface. This measured 1.0 cm x 2.0 cm. The resident also had a full thickness wound of the first metatarsal/bunion on the left foot. This measured 1.5 cm x 1.5cm. x 0.1 cm. The wound bed was 60% slough and 40% granular tissue. The suggested interventions from the wound care clinic included the following: offload pressure to affected area with soft pillow, continue repositioning in accordance with assessed needs, alternating pressure relief mattress, and wheelchair cushion. According to the wound clinic notes from 07/20/2021 through 09/02/2021, Resident #156 wounds to the right trochanter, left trochanter, and the first metatarsal/bunion to the left foot worsened based on the measurements recorded. The resident also developed a new wound to the right ankle. On 09/06/2021, a new care plan with a focus of wound was added to the care plan. There were no new interventions added. A review of a report of certified nurse assistant (CNA) daily documentation of skin condition for September 2021 provided by Assistant Director of Nursing (ADON) #2, revealed there were 83 documented observations of skin for Resident #156. Of those documentations, 59 observations were documented as intact skin. The remaining 24 observations were documented as open area to skin. A review of Resident #156's physician's orders, dated October 2021, indicated the resident had an order for a pressure relieving air mattress/alternating setting #1. The order date was 08/25/2021. The wound clinic had made the recommendation for an air mattress on 07/22/2021. There was also an order for pillows between knees while in bed. The order date was 06/11/2021. A review of Resident #156's Treatment Administration Record (TAR) and Medication Administration Record (MAR) for September 2021 and October 2021 indicated no documentation regarding pressure relieving interventions. An observation on 10/06/2021 at 9:11 AM revealed Resident #156 was in bed, lying on their left side. There was an air mattress in place. There were no pillows for off-loading or other pressure-relieving devices noted. An observation on 10/07/2021 at 7:43 AM revealed Resident #156 lying in bed on their left side. An air mattress was in place. There were no pillows for off-loading or other pressure-relieving devices noted. During an interview on 10/08/2021 at 9:27 AM, Assistant Director of Nursing (ADON) #2 stated skin observations were completed daily by the CNAs. The CNAs report to the nurses any concerns or changes in the residents' skin. When asked if the nurses did any assessments, ADON #2 stated only if a CNA brought a concern to them. When asked about the accuracy of the monthly CNA documentation of skin integrity for Resident #156, ADON #2 stated they were not sure why CNAs were documenting intact skin when the resident had wounds. The ADON stated they would re-educate staff. ADON #2 stated the facility staff performed wound care on most residents. ADON #2 stated that residents who are under hospice care received wound care by the hospice nurse or their staff. Some residents were seen by a wound care clinic that came to the facility to perform wound care, measurements, and assessments. ADON #2 stated that Resident #156 received wound care from the wound care clinic staff, as well as the facility nurses. When asked what interventions were in place to prevent wounds from developing or worsening on Resident #156, ADON #2 stated the resident had an air mattress, pillows for support, and heel protectors. ADON #2 stated they were unaware that the resident did not have heel protectors on or pillows for offloading of feet when informed of observations on 10/06/2021 and 10/07/2021. ADON #2 stated they would in-service staff immediately on the need to use heel protectors or use of pillows for offloading. When asked why an air mattress was not ordered until 08/25/2021 and heel protectors were not ordered, ADON #2 stated they were not sure but would look into it. During an interview on 10/10/2021 at 1:38 PM, the Administrator stated that skin issues for any residents would be handled immediately. The Administrator stated that their expectation was for nurses to assess the residents' wounds and skin daily, as a CNA could not assess. The Administrator stated that the CNA could report alteration in skin to the nurse, but the facility should take all steps to prevent skin breakdown from happening or getting worse. The Administrator stated an incident report should be completed as soon as a wound was discovered, and appropriate monitoring and care planning should be completed. A review of the facility's policy and procedure titled, Wound Care, revised 07/2021, indicated, Pressure injury prevention. 1. identify individuals at risk for skin breakdown using the Braden scale. 2. A skin assessment will be completed on admission, readmission or transfer, and skin assessment/observation daily thereafter. New Jersey Administrative Code § 8:39-27.1(e)
CONCERN (D)

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

Incontinence Care (Tag F0690)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observations, resident and staff interviews, record review, and facility policy review, it was determined the facility ...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observations, resident and staff interviews, record review, and facility policy review, it was determined the facility failed to assess the bladder function and implement a bladder retraining program to restore continence for 1 (Resident #254) of 44 residents admitted to the [NAME] Wing within the past 30 days. The facility also failed to follow the policy for providing indwelling urinary catheter care and failed to secure the indwelling urinary catheter for 1 (Resident #121) of 8 residents reviewed for having an indwelling urinary catheter. Findings included: 1. The facility's policy titled, Incontinence Management, with an effective date of 07/2021, indicated the purpose was to ensure a resident who was incontinent of urine or stool would receive appropriate treatment and services to restore as much normal function as possible. Under Procedure, the policy indicated The Registered Nurse is responsible for the completion of the nursing assessment for bowel and bladder. The assessment is to begin by day three and be completed by day 10. The elimination record will be kept on the CNA clipboard until complete. The facility admitted Resident #254 with diagnoses that included an unspecified fracture of the femur, diabetes, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, and generalized muscle weakness. The admission Nursing Assessment, dated 09/21/2021, indicated Resident #254 had very limited mobility but walked occasionally. Bowel and bladder continence was not assessed on the admission nursing assessment. A review of the baseline care plan, dated 09/21/2021, indicated Resident #254 was alert, verbal, and had clear speech. The assessment indicated Resident #254 was incontinent of bowel and bladder and should be checked and changed to maintain skin integrity. The psychosocial care plan, dated 09/21/2021, indicated Resident #254 did not adjust easily to change in routine and had a strong identification with the past. The goal was Resident #254 would be involved in care at the highest level of independence to be achieved by involving the resident in decisions and reinforcing independent behavior. The care plan did not address the resident's use of briefs or incontinence. The admission Minimum Data Set (MDS), dated [DATE], indicated Resident #254 was cognitively intact with a score of 13. No behaviors were identified. The MDS indicated Resident #254 required extensive assistance with transferring, toilet use, and personal hygiene. The MDS indicated the resident had not had a trial toileting program and was frequently incontinent of bowel and bladder. Physician orders received on 09/29/2021, indicated Resident #254 could bear weight as tolerated, and the resident had instructions to get up and walk more frequently. During an interview with Resident #254 on 10/06/2021 at 10:21 AM, the resident stated briefs were not needed if staff answered the call light promptly. Resident #121 stated that upon admission, a choice about wearing briefs, pull-ups, or personal under garments was not given. The resident added that staff placed the resident in briefs when morning care was provided without asking a preference. Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA) #2 was interviewed on 10/08/2021 at 10:42 AM. The CNA worked with Resident #254 and stated the resident was able to communicate their needs. CNA #2 added Resident #254 would be found wet when the CNA arrived for work in the morning, but during her shift, Resident #254 was taken to the bathroom on request and remained continent. The CNA added she found Resident #254 in adult briefs in the morning so that's what she put on the resident during the day, although the resident was able to remain continent during the day shift. CNA #2 stated that sometimes, due to the resident's continence, she would place the resident in briefs with an elastic waist that could easily be pulled up and down, adding that was what she had placed on the resident that morning. During an interview on 10/08/2021 at 11:30 AM, Resident #254 confirmed they had on a brief with taped sides and not a pull-up, adding that pull-ups were what was worn at home. Registered Nurse (RN) #5 was interviewed on 10/08/2021 at 2:28 PM. RN #5 had cared for Resident #254 previously. The RN stated prior to placing a resident on a bowel and bladder retraining program, a physician's order must be obtained. After the order was obtained, the CNA would be informed. RN #5 stated each resident and/or responsible family member should be asked if the resident was continent or incontinent and asked if the resident wished to wear a brief. RN #5 stated she did not think the facility used bowel and bladder assessments to determine if a resident was appropriate for a bladder retraining program. RN #7 was interviewed on 10/08/2021 at 2:54 PM. RN #7 was familiar with Resident #254. The RN stated both bowel and bladder assessments were done by the admission nurse on admission. The RN stated a toileting schedule had not been attempted for Resident #254. RN #7 described Resident #254 as alert and oriented. She stated she was unsure if Resident #254 knew when urinary voiding was needed but would verify with Resident #254 if the resident was aware when voiding was needed. RN #7 added that if Resident #254 chose not to wear a brief and a brief was placed, wearing the brief could negatively affect the resident's dignity and self-respect. RN #2 was interviewed on 10/09/2021 at 8:52 AM. RN #2 was the charge nurse for the unit where Resident #254 lived. The RN stated that routinely the CNA would offer residents to toilet every two hours and offer incontinence care if needed. RN #2 stated she was unsure if any resident was participating in a personalized bladder retraining program. The RN added residents had a right not to wear a brief if they did not want. RN #2 stated Resident #254 had not told her a brief had been required. The Assistant Director of Nursing (ADON) #1 was interviewed on 10/09/2021 at 10:38 AM The ADON stated incontinence management included taking residents to the bathroom. She stated staff should ask residents if they need to void. The ADON stated that on admission, bowel and bladder assessments are completed which indicated if the resident was continent or incontinent. The facility's bladder policy was reviewed with the ADON. The bladder and bowel assessment form and elimination diary for Resident #254 was requested as outlined by the facility's policy. The ADON stated the facility had not completed those forms for the resident. The ADON added she was unaware of any resident currently enrolled in a bladder retraining program. An interview with the Administrator was held on 10/10/21/2021 at 1:30 PM. The Administrator stated a bladder retraining program included residents wearing briefs. He added the facility was the residents' home, and each resident should be able to thrive, enjoy their stay, and engage in stimulating activities that would make staying at the facility a worthwhile experience. The Administrator stated if Resident #254 was continent during the day, the resident should be provided a means, such as a pull-up, that would make staying continent easier. 2. The facility's procedure on Catherization of the Urinary Bladder, with an effective date of 04/2021, indicated staff should secure catheter to thigh to prevent catheter movement and tractions on the urethra. Under Section B, Catheter Care, the instructions were for staff to cleanse around the area where the catheter enters the urethral meatus with soap and water daily. Under Performance Phase, staff were instructed to cleanse with a downward stroke from tip to foreskin Discard after each stroke. The facility admitted Resident #121 on 08/04/2021 with diagnoses that included osteomyelitis of vertebra, abnormalities of gait, Parkinson's disease, polyneuropathy, and urinary retention. Nurse's progress notes, dated 08/10/2021, indicated the indwelling urinary catheter was removed, but Resident #121 was unable to void. A bladder scan was completed which indicated 957 milliliters of urine was left in the resident's bladder. The physician was notified, and an order was obtained to replace the catheter. The admission Minimum Data Set (MDS), dated [DATE], indicated Resident #121 was moderately cognitively impaired. At the time of the assessment, the resident was identified with an indwelling urinary catheter. A physician's order, dated 08/11/2021, indicated Resident #121 should have a follow-up with a urologist due to urinary retention. Nurse progress notes, dated 09/09/2021 at 4:03 PM, indicated Resident #121 failed attempts to remove the catheter, with a documented 324 milliliters urinary residual in the resident's bladder. The last attempt to remove the catheter was documented in the progress notes for 09/28/2021, with the resident failing that attempt as well. Current October 2021 physician's orders indicated Resident #121 had a size 16 French indwelling urinary catheter with a 20 cubic centimeter balloon foley catheter. Resident #121 was interviewed on 10/08/2021 at 10:28 AM. The resident stated staff came in daily and cleaned around the catheter. Resident #121 raised the pant leg and observation revealed there was no leg band holding the indwelling urinary catheter tubing securely in place. An observation of Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA) #3 performing catheter care on Resident #121 was conducted on 10/08/2021 at 10:47 AM. The CNA initially emptied the catheter drainage bag and stated she had completed catheter care. When questioned, CNA #3 stated she was only responsible for emptying the drainage bag, and nurses were responsible for cleaning the catheter where the catheter entered the body. At this time, no privacy bag was observed covering the urinary drainage bag, and the catheter tubing had not been secured to the resident's leg. Registered Nurse (RN) #2 was interviewed on 10/08/2021 at 10:56 AM. RN #2 stated that CNA #3 must have misunderstood, adding that CNAs did complete catheter care. At 11:06 AM, CNA #3 again demonstrated catheter care. The urinary catheter tubing for Resident #121 was pulled taunt and the CNA pulled up on the catheter tubing to loosen the catheter prior to cleaning. CNA #3 wet her cloth, applied soap, and then, holding the washcloth three to four inches above the resident, squeezed the cloth, allowing soapy water to pour on the resident. Taking the soapy cloth, CNA #3 wiped around the resident, where the catheter entered the resident's body, in circles using the same cloth. The CNA then took the same cloth and washed from distal section of the catheter tubing toward the resident's body to the point where the catheter entered the resident's body. No visible means of securing the catheter to the resident's leg was observed. The urinary drainage bag was not covered. RN #7 was interviewed on 10/08/2021 at 12:07 PM. The RN stated that during catheter care, the CNA should clean the area around the catheter using one swipe and then either discard the cloth or use a different section of the cloth. She stated another cloth should be used to clean the tubing, with the correct technique being to start where the catheter enters the resident's body and go away from the body. RN #7 stated this was to avoid cross contamination with bacteria. The RN stated the facility's policy included having the indwelling urinary catheter secured in place to avoid any tension or pulling on the catheter. She stated the CNA had not reported to her that Resident #121 did not have the indwelling urinary catheter secured. The RN also stated the urinary drainage bag should be covered to provide privacy, adding that she had received no reports that the drainage bag was not covered. Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) #2, who was working with RN #7, was interviewed at 12:23 PM on 10/08/2021. The LPN verified at this time there was no privacy bag covering the drainage bag, and Resident #121's catheter was not secured. The LPN stated the danger of not having the catheter secured was accidently pulling the catheter out, causing bleeding and trauma. On 10/08/2021 at 2:08 PM. CNA #3 was interviewed. She stated she was not expected to have the urinary drainage bag in a privacy bag if the bag was on the opposite side of the bed away from the door. When asked, if the room mate or anyone else entering the room could see the urine in the drainage bag she stated she had not given thought that the roommate of Resident #121, staff, and visitors that entered the room would be able to view the urinary drainage bag no matter which side of the bed the bag was positioned. CNA #3 stated she knew it was the policy of the facility to secure the catheter to keep the catheter from causing harm to the resident and acknowledged she had not reported the lack of securement to anyone. The CNA stated when she went into Resident #121's room to complete catheter care, the resident was already dressed, so she had not noticed the catheter was not secured. The CNA stated she was taught to #a clean cloth or a different section of the cloth for each swipe when providing catheter care. She added that typically she would not have provided catheter care for Resident #121 since she had not been assigned to that resident and had only provided catheter care due to the charge nurse asking her to do the care. An observation made on 10/09/2021 at 8:25 AM revealed the urinary drainage bag for Resident #121 continued to hang on the side of the bed without the benefit of a privacy bag. The catheter for the resident had been secured with a leg band. CNA #4 was interviewed on 10/09/2021 at 8:33 AM. She had been assigned to Resident #121 on 10/08/2021 and had provided catheter care earlier in the morning. The CNA stated since she was an agency CNA, she had been asked not to provide catheter care for the surveyor. CNA #4 stated she observed CNA #3 use the same cloth multiple times to provide catheter care for Resident #121. She stated she had worked in the facility previously with Resident #121 and acknowledged that sometimes the resident had a privacy bag for the urinary drainage bag and sometimes not. The CNA stated she had removed the leg strap from Resident #121 on 10/08/2021 around 7:30 AM when she had provided catheter care and had forgotten to place the leg strap back. RN #2 was interviewed on 10/09/2021 at 8:52 AM. RN #2 stated the facility's policy was to secure the foley catheter to the resident's leg to keep the catheter from pulling and causing hematuria. The RN stated in this facility privacy bags for urinary drainage bags were not used, since the bags were always kept on the side of the bed away from the door. The Assistant Director of Nursing (ADON) #1 was interviewed on 10/09/2021 at 10:38 AM. ADON #1 stated the facility's policy was always to secure indwelling urinary catheters to prevent the catheter from being pulled. She stated this would prevent pain and bleeding. ADON #1 stated the facility's policy was to provide privacy bags to keep urinary drainage bags covered, and the drainage bag should also be kept on the side of the bed away from the door. The ADON added that when a CNA provided incontinent care, the CNA should clean from the catheter's insertion site away from the body. The facility's preference was to use disposable wipes for providing catheter care and for the disposable wipe to be discarded and a new cloth used after each swipe to clean. An interview with the Administrator was held on 10/10/2021 at 1:30 PM. The Administrator stated that securing the urinary catheter was a normal practice to keep from pulling the catheter out or being moved about. He added not covering the drainage bag was a dignity issue. He stated the description of CNA #3's catheter care for Resident #121 did not meet the standard for catheter care, and the CNA required retraining. New Jersey Administrative Code 8:39-27.1(a)
CONCERN (D)

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

Respiratory Care (Tag F0695)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observations, interviews, record review and facility policy review, it was determined that the facility failed to ensur...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observations, interviews, record review and facility policy review, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure respiratory equipment was cleaned and stored properly for a bilevel positive airway pressure (BiPAP) machine (Resident #249) and failed to provide oxygen therapy as ordered by the physician (Resident #254). This affected 2 of 2 residents reviewed for respiratory care. The facility identified 23 residents followed by respiratory therapy. Findings included: 1. The facility admitted Resident #249 on 09/16/2021with a diagnosis of obstructive sleep apnea. A review of the admitting Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment, dated 09/23/2021 revealed the resident was cognitively intact with a Brief Interview for Mental Status score of 13 out of 15. Section O - Special Programs and Treatments revealed the resident was not using a bilevel positive airway pressure (BiPAP) machine. During an observation on 10/06/2021 at 9:42 AM, the BiPAP machine, tubing, and mask were sitting uncovered on the nightstand. During an observation on 10/07/2021 at 11:15 AM, the BiPAP machine, tubing, and mask were sitting uncovered on the nightstand. During an observation on 10/07/2021 at 2:33 PM, the BiPAP machine, tubing, and mask were sitting on the nightstand uncovered. During an observation on 10/08/2021 at 8:34 AM, the BiPAP machine was on the nightstand, and the tubing and mask were hanging over the mattress uncovered. During an interview on 10/07/2021 at 2:25 PM, Resident #249 stated they were able to put on and take off the mask. The resident stated the mask had never been cleaned or placed in a protective bag since the resident had been in the facility. During an interview on 10/07/2021 at 2:26 PM with Registered Nurse (RN) # 3, she stated respiratory therapy took care of all BiPAP machines. During an interview with Respiratory Therapist #1 on 10/08/2021 at 8:35 AM, he stated he was unaware that the resident had a BiPAP machine. He stated if the resident owned the machine, then nursing usually took care of adding the water and cleaning the mask and tubing and keeping the facemask bagged. Respiratory Therapist #1 stated the tubing needed to be cleaned weekly and the mask daily because it could get greasy when worn. He stated there did not appear to be any type of storage bag in the room to cover the mask when it was not in use. The therapist stated he would clean the tubing and bring in a bag to put the mask into when not in use. Respiratory Therapist #1 further stated if the BiPAP was a personal machine, Respiratory Therapy should have been notified on admission so they could have checked the machine to ensure it was working properly. During an interview on 10/08/2021 at 8:37 AM with the resident and Respiratory Therapist #1, the resident stated no one had cleaned the tubing or bagged the mask since admission. During an interview with Assistant Director of Nursing (ADON) #1 on 10/08/2021 at 12:15 PM, she stated there should have been an order for the BiPAP which would have placed the equipment into the system. Then respiratory therapy would have been monitoring, cleaning, and storing the equipment as needed. During an interview with the Administrator on 10/10/2021 at 1:39 PM, he stated it would be expected that the facility had an order for the BiPAP machine, that the machine would be cleaned and stored properly, and that the use of the BiPAP would be care planned. A review of the policy titled, Medical Equipment Selection, Evaluation, Inventory, and Inspection, dated 10/98 and effective date 5/21, did not address the storage or cleaning of the BiPAP machine. 2. The facility admitted Resident #254 with diagnoses that included chronic obstructive pulmonary disease with a dependence on oxygen. Review of admission Nursing Assessment, dated 09/21/2021, indicated Resident #254 received oxygen at two liters per minute (2L/min) via nasal cannula (NC) and indicated the resident was short of breath with exertion. Review of Resident #254's admission Minimum Data Set (MDS), dated [DATE], indicated Resident #254 was cognitively intact with a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of 13. The resident was identified on the MDS as receiving oxygen therapy both prior to admission and since admission. Review of physician's orders, received on 09/29/2021, indicated Resident #254 required oxygen at two liters/min per nasal cannula continuously. Review of Resident #254's comprehensive care plan, with an effective date of 10/08/2021, identified a focus of respiratory dysfunction with a goal of improvement in activity intolerance and an improvement in the resident's oxygenation level. These goals were to be obtained in part by providing respiratory assessments to include lung sounds, vital signs, and oxygen saturation. Interventions listed also included pulmonary rehabilitation as ordered and provision of respiratory medications as ordered. On 10/06/2021 at 10:26 AM, Resident #254 was interviewed. Resident #254 stated the physician had ordered oxygen to be delivered at 2 L/min by NC. An observation at this time indicated the oxygen concentrator for Resident #254 was set at 3 L/min. The resident added that oxygen at home had only been used during times of sleep. Review of nurse progress notes written on 10/06/2021 at 9:18 AM, indicated Resident #254's oxygen saturation was 96%. Lung sounds were identified as diminished. The progress notes indicated the resident was given a breathing treatment. An observation of Resident #254 was made on 10/07/2021 at 12:17 PM. The resident was sitting up in the wheelchair. The oxygen concentrator had been turned off. Resident #254 stated staff (unknown) had checked the resident's oxygen saturation the prior afternoon and found the oxygen saturation to be 95% (normal range 90% to 100%) and stated oxygen delivery was not required. A review of physician's orders for Resident #254, completed on 10/07/2021 after speaking with Resident #254, did not reveal a physician's order to discontinue the continuous oxygen had been obtained. A review of progress notes did not document any conversations with the physician regarding the delivery of oxygen or a verbal order to use the oxygen as needed. Nurse progress notes failed to reveal documentation of a respiratory assessment to include lung sounds and oxygen saturation for Resident #254. A review of the October 2021 Treatment Administration Record on 10/07/2021 indicated oxygen was checked as given to Resident #254 on 10/06/2021 for the 3:00 PM to 11:00 PM shift, the 11:00 PM to 7:00 AM shift, and the current 10/07/2021 7:00 AM to 3:00 PM shift. Oxygen delivery for Resident #254 remained an active order. Resident #254 was interviewed on 10/08/2021 at 11:16 AM. The resident's oxygen concentrator was not on, and oxygen was not being delivered per nasal cannula. Resident #254 stated no shortage of breath had been experienced since oxygen removal on 10/06/2021. Registered Nurse (RN) #7 was interviewed on 10/08/2021 at 2:54 PM. RN #7 stated oxygen was a medication, and physician's orders were required to start oxygen and to discontinue oxygen. The RN reviewed the orders for Resident #254 and acknowledged there was not a physician's order to discontinue the resident's continuous oxygen. The RN acknowledged she had signed the oxygen as given that day (referring to 10/08/2021), although the resident had not received oxygen, and stated she had no answer as to why she had signed the oxygen off as being administered. The RN stated she would take care of notifying the physician and obtaining an order to discontinue the oxygen if the physician agreed. The RN was unaware of what staff member had discontinued the oxygen. Review of a nurse progress note for the removal of the oxygen was not written until 10/08/2021 at 4:02 PM. The note indicated the resident had removed the oxygen prior to the nurse entering the room. The nurse, RN #7, documented Resident #254 told her oxygen was not used during day light hours. At this time the resident's oxygen level was measured at 95% with no shortness of breath noted. The nurse practitioner was notified and approved using the oxygen only as needed. The nurse had documented that the resident had removed the oxygen prior to them entering the room, but at that time, the resident had not received oxygen for approximately 24 hours. The Assistant Director of Nursing (ADON) #1 was interviewed on 10/9/2021 at 11:20 AM. The ADON stated oxygen was a medication, and a physician's order would be required before adding oxygen, discontinuing oxygen, or changing the amount of oxygen a resident received. The ADON added she would have expected the person that discontinued the oxygen to have obtained an order before discontinuing oxygen therapy and would have expected documentation after discontinuation that described the resident's respiratory effort and at a minimum record the resident's oxygen saturation without the oxygen. On 10/10/2021 at 1:30 PM, the Administrator was interviewed. The Administrator stated his expectations were for an order to have been obtained from the physician before discontinuing the oxygen therapy for Resident #254. He stated his background was in respiratory therapy, and he did not understand why someone would turn off the resident's oxygen when the physician had ordered continuous oxygen. The Administrator added that follow-up assessment and documentation was expected to make sure the removal of the oxygen had not compromised Resident #254. The facility's policy titled, Oxygen Therapy, undated, indicated prior to therapy the physician's order should be verified. The facility's policy titled, Discontinued Medications, with an effective date of 09/2018, indicated the nurse documented the physician's order to discontinue the medication in the resident's record. The Medication Administration Record is then updated to indicate the order is discontinued. New Jersey Administrative Code 8.39-19.4(k)
CONCERN (D)

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

Drug Regimen Review (Tag F0756)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on interviews, record reviews, and facility policy review, it was determined the facility's consultant pharmacist failed to notify the facility about the lack of side effects and behavior monito...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on interviews, record reviews, and facility policy review, it was determined the facility's consultant pharmacist failed to notify the facility about the lack of side effects and behavior monitoring for 1 (Resident #121) of 2 residents reviewed for receiving an antipsychotic medication on the [NAME] Wing. Findings included: 1. The facility admitted Resident #121 on 08/04/2021with diagnoses that included Parkinson's disease, anxiety, depression, unspecified dementia without behavioral disturbance, and unspecified psychosis not due to a substance or known physiological condition. A review of physician orders, received on 08/04/2021, indicated Resident #121 had required a psychiatry consultation due to being a new admission and taking alprazolam, bupropion, mirtazapine, and risperidone. Pharmacy consultation notes, dated 08/05/2021 at 12:25 PM, indicated Resident #121's Risperidone order required review. There was no explanation of what part of the order needed review, and no follow-up documentation was found. The current October 2021 physician's orders for Resident #121 included the following: bupropion HCL XL 300 milligrams (mg) daily for depression, Buspirone 5 mg three times a day for anxiety, Mirtazapine 7.5 mg daily for depression, and Risperidone 0.5 mg daily for psychosis not otherwise specified. A review of the August, September, and October 2021 nurse progress notes and the Medication Administration Record (MAR) did not identify target behaviors for Resident #121 and did not record any episodes of behaviors exhibited by Resident #121. A review of the consultant pharmacist notes, dated 08/05/2021 did not indicate the lack of behavior monitoring or the lack of target behavior identification had been brought to the facility's attention. A call was placed to the consultant pharmacist on 10/10/2021 at 1:00 PM d a message left to call for a telephone interview. There was no return call received. During an interview with the Administrator on 10/10/2021 at 1:30 PM, the Administrator stated he would have expected the consultant pharmacist to notify the facility of the need to monitor for target behaviors and side effects of the antipsychotic medication received by Resident #121. Review of the facility's Medication Management policy, with an effective date of 08/2020, indicated to optimize the therapeutic benefit of medication therapy and minimize or prevent potential adverse consequences the consultant pharmacist along with other members of the team should monitor for appropriate, effective, and safe medication use. New Jersey Administrative Code § 8:39-29.3(a)(1)
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0757 (Tag F0757)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on interviews, record review, and facility policy review, it was determined the facility failed to monitor and document the potential side effects and failed to monitor and document any behavior...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on interviews, record review, and facility policy review, it was determined the facility failed to monitor and document the potential side effects and failed to monitor and document any behaviors exhibited by one (Resident #121) of two residents reviewed for receiving an antipsychotic medication. Findings included: 1. The facility's policy titled, Medication Management, with an effective date of 08/2020, indicated if a resident was admitted on an antipsychotic, ongoing monitoring for appropriate, effective, and safe medication use was required. The facility admitted Resident #121 on 08/04/2021 with diagnoses that included Parkinson's disease, anxiety, depression, unspecified dementia without behavioral disturbance, and unspecified psychosis not due to a substance or known physiological condition. A review of physician orders, received on 08/04/2021, indicated Resident #121 had required a psychiatry consultation due to being a new admission and taking alprazolam, bupropion, mirtazapine, and risperidone. Pharmacy consultation notes, dated 08/05/2021 at 12:25 PM, indicated Resident #121's Risperidone order required review. There was no explanation of what part of the order needed review and no follow-up documentation was found. The consultant psychiatrist's initial psychiatric evaluation, dated 08/06/2021, indicated he had been asked by staff to evaluate Resident #121 for depression. The psychiatrist documented Resident #121 had a sad mood, spontaneous speech, blunt affect, and normal thought content with no homicidal or suicidal thoughts. He added in documentation that Resident #121 was alert, oriented to person and place, memory was well preserved, and attention and concentration was adequate with fair insight and judgment. Under the review of systems section, the psychiatrist had indicated Resident #121 had no complaints of depression, anxiety, delusion, or hallucination. The psychiatrist noted Resident #121 had a history of psychosis not otherwise specified and recommended continuing medications as ordered. No behaviors were identified on the physician's evaluation. Presence or absence of tardive dyskinesia or any other side effects of the medications taken by Resident #121 were not documented on the evaluation completed by the psychiatrist. A review of Resident #121's comprehensive care plan, with an onset date of 08/25/2021, indicated Resident #121 had a problem of psychiatric pharmacy with a goal of assuring the resident received the lowest possible dose to achieve the desired outcome. Interventions included monitoring for side effects. The care plan did not identify the target behaviors (behaviors that required the use of an antipsychotic medication) or non-pharmacological interventions. The current October 2021 physician's orders for Resident #121 included the following: bupropion HCL XL 300 milligrams (mg) daily for depression, Buspirone 5 mg three times a day for anxiety, Mirtazapine 7.5 mg daily for depression and Risperidone 0.5 mg daily for psychosis not otherwise specified. A review of the August, September, and October 2021 nurse progress notes and the Medication Administration Record (MAR) did not identify target behaviors for Resident #121 and did not record any episodes of behaviors exhibited by Resident #121. Registered Nurse (RN) #7 was interviewed on 10/08/2021 at 12:07 PM. RN #7 described Resident #121 as pleasant as pie and exhibited no behaviors. RN #7 added Resident #121 had received antipsychotic medication since admission, but the nurse was unaware of target behaviors or behavior monitoring. RN #2 was interviewed on 10/08/2021 at 2:44 PM. The RN stated any behaviors exhibited by a resident were recorded in nurse progress notes along with target behaviors. RN #2 stated she was not aware of any type of behavior monitoring sheet or any place that resident-specific target behaviors were recorded. Assistant Director of Nursing (ADON) #1 was interviewed on 10/9/2021 at 10:38 AM. The ADON stated she was not familiar with the term target behaviors. When the term was explained by the surveyor, the ADON stated she was not aware what Resident #121's target behaviors were. She added that to identify target behaviors, the nurses on the hall would be expected to read the psychiatric consultation notes, since the psychiatrist documented behaviors in his notes. The ADON added that short-term residents in the Post-Acute Care Unit (PACU), where Resident #121 lived, were not given behavior monitoring sheets, and behavior monitoring and target behaviors were not added to the Medication Administration Record. The ADON stated the MDS nurse was responsible for care planning any behaviors exhibited by a resident. The Social Worker (SW) was interviewed on 10/09/2021 at 3:51 AM. The SW stated she was not familiar with the terms AIMS (Abnormal Involuntary Movement Scale), DISCUS (Dyskinesia Identification System), or target behaviors. The SW stated she was not sure what target behaviors Resident #121 exhibited. She added when a resident on psycho-active medications was admitted , the psychiatrist followed that resident. ADON #1 was interviewed on 10/09/2021 at 4:20 PM. The ADON stated she was not familiar with the AIMS or the DISCUS and verified the tests were not used on the post-acute care unit, where Resident #121 lived. RN #2 was interviewed on 10/10/2021 at 11:45 AM. RN #2 stated she was unaware of the facility's Monthly Antipsychotic and Anxiolytic Review form and added the forms were not used in PACU. An interview with the ADON #1 was held on 10/10/2021 at 11:50 AM. She reviewed the Monthly Antipsychotic and Anxiolytic Review form and stated nurses completed this monthly for residents receiving psychotropic medications. When this writer asked to review the forms that had been completed for Resident #121, the ADON stated there were none, adding no monitoring was done for residents in the PACU, and residents in PACU were followed by the psychiatrist. The Administrator was interviewed on 10/10/2021 at 1:30 PM. The Administrator stated he expected nursing staff to complete the appropriate monitoring for not only antipsychotic medications but any medication a resident had been ordered. New Jersey Administrative Code § 8:39-5.1(a)
CONCERN (E)

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

Deficiency F0565 (Tag F0565)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on resident and staff interviews and facility document review, it was determined the facility failed to notify all residen...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on resident and staff interviews and facility document review, it was determined the facility failed to notify all residents, including the 158 residents who resided in a locked unit, in advance of Resident Council meetings. This had the potential to affect the 143 residents residing on East Wing by their needs, recommendations, concerns, or grievances not being heard and acted upon. Findings included: 1. A Resident Council meeting was conducted on 10/07/2021 at 10:34 AM with seven residents (Resident #161, #209, #100, #82, #176, #161, and #83). Resident #161, Resident #209, and Resident #100 all resided on the locked East Wing. When asked if they regularly attended the Resident Council meetings, Residents #161, #209 and # 100, stated that it was the first time they had ever been invited to the meeting. All three residents stated they would attend future Resident Council meetings if they were invited. A review of Resident #161's quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS), dated [DATE], indicated a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of 14, which indicated the resident had no cognitive impairment. A review of Resident #209's quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS), dated [DATE], indicated a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of 13, which indicated the resident had no cognitive impairment. A review of Resident #100's quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS), dated [DATE], indicated a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of 15, which indicated the resident had no cognitive impairment. During an interview on 10/08/2021 at 12:50 PM, Assistant Director of Nursing (ADON) #1 stated they believed 90% of residents on East Wing had a diagnosis of dementia and would not be able to attend the meeting. When asked if there were any residents that resided on the East Wing who were cognitively intact, ADON #1 stated, no. During an interview on 10/08/2021 at 1:13 PM, ADON #2 stated residents with higher BIMS scores were permitted to transfer to the [NAME] Wing to reside. When asked how many residents currently residing on the East Wing had a BIMS score between 13 and 15 (cognitively intact), ADON #2 stated they were not sure. When asked if they were aware there were 22 residents residing on East Wing with a BIMS score between 13 and 15, ADON #2 stated they were not aware. When ADON #2 was made aware that there were currently 22 residents residing on East Wing with a BIMS between 13 and 15, ADON #2 stated they were surprised. ADON #2 confirmed residents on East wing were not invited to the Resident Council meetings. During an interview on 10/10/2021 at 1:11 PM, Social Worker (SW) #1 stated the residents on [NAME] Wing are the more cognitively aware residents. SW #1 is the person who invites the residents to the meeting and stated the East wing used to have resident council meetings as well, but residents did not attend because of their poor cognition. SW#1 stated the residents on East wing have not been invited since for years and does not know who made that decision. SW #1 reported the facility had looked into restarting the East wing Resident council meetings and confirmed the first one was the one conducted on 10/07/21 with the survey team. This meeting was attended by Resident #169, #100, #209 who resided on the East wing. SW#1 also stated the meetings were attended by all administrative staff and the meeting was lead by SW#1. During an interview on 10/10/2021 at 2:25 PM, the Administrator stated they were unaware that residents that resided on East Wing were not invited to Resident Council meetings. The Administrator stated all residents should be invited and have the right to attend. The facility did not provide a policy and procedure regarding Resident Council meetings. The facility did provide a note, which was not dated or titled, but indicated, Resident Council meetings for East Wing was initiated on or about 2018. At that time, we had approximately 4-5 residents who are cognitively suitable to attend. Over time, the East Resident Council meetings were found to be ineffective due to lack of interest and cognitive impairment. This remained the same throughout the year into the next year and during the height of the pandemic. However, we had 2 East Wing residents that we felt would benefit from the opportunity to attend the [NAME] Wing Resident Council meetings and did so on 9/26/18 among a few other dates. In September 2021 we revisited the opportunity to re-establish monthly resident Council meetings for East Wing. The September Resident Council meeting was well attended, and residents were looking forward to the upcoming monthly meetings. New Jersey Administrative Code § 8:39-4.1(a)29
CONCERN (E)

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

Comprehensive Care Plan (Tag F0656)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** 4. The facility admitted Resident #249 on 09/16/2021 with a diagnosis of obstructive sleep apnea. A review of the admission Mini...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** 4. The facility admitted Resident #249 on 09/16/2021 with a diagnosis of obstructive sleep apnea. A review of the admission Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment, dated 09/23/2021, revealed the resident was cognitively intact with a Brief Interview for Mental Status score of 13 out of 15. The MDS also indicated the resident was not using a bilevel positive airway pressure (BiPAP) machine. During an interview on 10/07/2021 at 2:25 PM, Resident #249 stated they were able to put on and take off the mask. During an interview on 10/07/2021 at 2:26 PM with Registered Nurse (RN) #3, she stated respiratory therapy took care of all BiPAP machines. During an interview with Minimum Data Set (MDS) Coordinator #1 on 10/08/2021 at 10:01 AM, she stated the resident had triggered for oxygen and BiPAP use on the five-day admission assessment on 09/23/2021 because the look-back period was 14 days, and the resident used the BiPAP while in the hospital. She stated she was unaware that the resident was using the BiPAP there at the facility since there was not an order for BiPAP use. She further stated since she was unaware the BiPAP was in use, there was no care plan for the BiPAP use. During an interview with Assistant Director of Nursing (ADON) #1 on 10/08/2021 at 12:15 PM, she stated there should have been a care plan for the use of the BiPAP machine. During an interview with the Administrator on 10/10/2021 at 1:39 PM, he stated it would be expected that the facility would have done a care plan for the BiPAP use. A review of the facility policy titled, Interdisciplinary Care Planning and Assessment, dated 01/2021, revealed, A comprehensive assessment and care plan shall be developed for each resident by the Minimum Data Set Coordinator/Charge Nurse or designee and reviewed by the Interdisciplinary Team. New Jersey Administrative Code § 8:39-11.2(e)1 Based on observations, interviews, record review, and facility policy review, it was determined that the facility failed to develop person centered, comprehensive care plans for four (Residents #213, #182, #121, #249) of 39 residents reviewed for care planning. This had the potential to affect all residents. Findings included: 1. A review of Resident #213's quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS), dated [DATE], indicated diagnoses included hypertension, obstructive uropathy, diabetes, dementia with behavioral disturbance, and depression. The MDS also indicated a Brief Interview of Mental Status (BIMS) score of 13, which indicated the resident was cognitively intact. The resident's hearing ability was moderately difficult (speaker had to increase volume and speak distinctly). The MDS indicated the resident had an indwelling urinary catheter. A review of Resident #213's care plan, dated 08/31/2021, revealed there was no care plan for the resident's indwelling urinary catheter. There was also no care plan that the resident was hard of hearing or for the use of hearing aids. A review of Resident #213's Medication Administration Record (MAR) for September 2021 indicated a physician's order to apply a hearing aid in the morning (AM) and remove in the evening (PM). The start date was 09/14/2021. A review from September 14 through September 30 indicated by nurse signature that hearing aids were applied and removed each day except for 9/21/2021, where there was no indication for removal of hearing aids. The MAR for October 2021 contained a nurse's signature from October 1 through October 6 that hearing aids were placed into the ears in the morning and removed in the evening. A review of a physician order, dated 10/2021, indicated an indwelling urinary catheter (18F (French) /10cc (cubic centimeter) balloon) for obstructive uropathy, change every four weeks and as needed by nursing staff. The date ordered was 09/16/2021. An observation of Resident #213 on 10/07/2021 at 7:52 AM, revealed the resident sitting on the edge of the bed. An indwelling urinary catheter leg bag was visible under the pant leg on the left leg. The resident was observed to be very hard of hearing, cupping their hand to their ear to assist in hearing. The resident was not wearing any hearing aids. Resident #213 stated the hearing aids were missing. An observation and interview with Resident #213 on 10/8/2021 at 8:38 AM, revealed the resident sitting on the edge of the bed. The resident became frustrated when answering questions. Resident #213 stated, I can't hear anything you are saying. The resident was not wearing any hearing aids. An interview was conducted on 10/08/2021 at 7:31 PM with a family member for Resident #213. The family member stated the resident's hearing aids had been lost for several weeks. The family member stated the facility had found one hearing aid and last week found the other hearing aid. The family member stated Resident #213 was very hard of hearing and became very frustrated when they could not hear, which was why the resident used the hearing aids. During an interview on 10/09/2021 at 9:27 AM, Registered Nurse (RN) #1 stated that care plans were updated and initiated by MDS coordinators or the RNs on the floor. When asked if there was a care plan regarding the need for an indwelling urinary catheter for Resident #213, RN #1 stated no, there was none, but there was an intervention to change the catheter bag. When asked if there was care plan developed for the use of hearing aids, RN#1 stated no. 2. A review of Resident #182's quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS), dated [DATE], indicated diagnoses included history of falling, dysphagia (difficulty swallowing), Alzheimer's disease, and dementia with behavioral disturbance. The MDS also indicated a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of 3, which indicated the resident had severe cognitive impairment. The MDS indicated the resident was receiving an anti-psychotic medication. A review of Resident #182's Mood/Behavior care plans, dated 08/27/2021, did not address interventions related to dementia or the monitoring of target behaviors and side effects of the use of psychotropic medications. A review of Resident #182's physician's orders for October 2021 indicated an order for risperidone 2.5 milligram (an antipsychotic used to treat schizophrenia, bipolar disorder, and irritability caused by autism) to be given daily. The order date was 06/17/2021. An observation on 10/06/2021 at 9:24 AM, revealed Resident #182 was lying in bed, awake, smiling, and unable to answer questions. Resident #182 was exhibiting teeth grinding and picking at things in the air that were not there. Resident #182 was talking but words did not make sense. An observation on 10/07/2021 at 7:41 AM, revealed Resident #182 was lying in bed. The bed was in a low position, and the alarm was in place. The resident was talking out loud and appeared angry or frustrated. The resident was picking and grasping at the air as if something was there and was grinding their teeth. An observation on 10/08/2021 at 7:50 AM, revealed Resident #182 was lying in bed. The resident was grinding their teeth and reaching for things in the air. The resident appeared frustrated and angry. During an interview on 10/09/2021 at 9:27 AM, Registered Nurse (RN) #1 stated that care plans were updated and initiated by MDS coordinators or the RNs on the floor. When asked if there were interventions regarding dementia or the monitoring of target behaviors and side effects of psychotropic medications and RN #1 stated that there was not and that it was the responsibility of RN #1 to complete the care plan. A review of the facilities policy and procedure titled, Interdisciplinary Care Planning and Assessment, revised on 01/2021, revealed, Policy: a comprehensive assessment and care plan shall be developed for each resident by the MDS coordinator/charge nurse or designee and reviewed by the interdisciplinary team. They will include measurable objectives, timetables to meet the resident's medical, nursing and psychological needs and incorporate goals and objectives which lead to the resident's highest obtainable level of independence. 3. The facility admitted Resident #121 with diagnoses that included osteomyelitis of vertebra, protein calorie malnutrition, Parkinson's disease, anxiety, depression, unspecified dementia without behavioral disturbance, and unspecified psychosis. A review of the admission Minimum Data Set (MDS), dated [DATE], indicated the resident was moderately cognitively impaired. Resident #121 was at risk of developing pressure ulcers but at the time of the assessment was free from pressure ulcers. The resident was identified as receiving an antipsychotic medication for six days during the assessment period. Resident #121 had no behaviors identified during the assessment period. A. Skin alteration for Resident #121 captured on the baseline care plan, dated 08/04/2021, was a surgical wound. The comprehensive care plan dated, 08/25/2021, indicated Resident #121 was at risk for skin breakdown, but at the time of the care plan had no skin breakdown. A review of the September 2021 Treatment Administration Record (TAR) indicated an entry dated 09/01/2021 at 12:42 PM that indicated Resident #121 had bilateral heel redness that would be cleaned daily, skin prep applied, and the heels would be covered with a dressing. On 09/03/2021 at 6:47 PM, the order on the TAR for Resident #121 was changed. The treatment order for the resident's bilateral heels now read to clean the bilateral unstageable pressure ulcers with normal saline or a wound cleanser, continue the skin prep, and cover with a foam dressing every 72 hours and as needed. The care plan for Resident #121 had not been revised to include the development of bilateral unstageable pressure ulcers to the heels. The MDS Coordinator was interviewed on 10/08/2021 at 1:50 PM. The MDS Coordinator stated facility-acquired pressure ulcers were care planned by the nurse on the hall that first identified the pressure ulcer. The MDS Coordinator stated her duties were strictly MDS scheduling and assessments and completion of the initial comprehensive care plan. Assistant Director of Nursing (ADON) #1, for the [NAME] Wing, was interviewed on 10/09/2021 at 10:38 AM. The ADON stated care plans for pressure ulcers were the responsibility of the MDS nurse and the nurses on the hall. The ADON stated care planning of a pressure ulcer should occur as soon as the pressure ulcer is identified. The ADON reviewed the care plan for Resident #121, acknowledged the resident had two unstageable pressure ulcers, and verified the care plan did not accurately reflect the resident's current situation. On 10/10/2021 at 1:30 PM, the Administrator was interviewed. The Administrator stated he was unsure who would be responsible for revising care plans for pressure ulcers but added Resident #121's care plan should have been revised when the pressure ulcers were identified to reflect the status of the resident. The facility's policy titled, Wound Care, with an effective date of 07/2021, was reviewed. The policy did not address who would be responsible for care planning wounds. B. The facility's policy titled, Medication Management, with an effective date of 08/2020, indicated information gathered during the initial and ongoing evaluation is incorporated into a comprehensive care plan that reflects appropriate medication-related goals and parameters for monitoring the resident's condition and ongoing need for the medication. The care plan should include what is monitored, who will be responsible, and how often and when re-evaluation is necessary. Review of Resident #121's physician orders, dated 08/04/2021, indicated Resident #121's physician had ordered a psychiatry consultation for new admission since Resident #121 took multiple psychoactive medications including Risperidone (an antipsychotic medication). A review of Resident #121's comprehensive care plan, with an onset date of 08/25/2021, indicated Resident #121 had a problem of psychiatric pharmacy with a goal of assuring the resident received the lowest possible dose to achieve the desired outcome. Interventions included monitoring for side effects. The care plan did not identify the target behaviors (behaviors that required the use of an antipsychotic medication) or non-pharmacological interventions. The MDS Coordinator was interviewed on 10/08/2021 at 1:50 PM. The MDS nurse stated her duties were strictly MDS scheduling and assessments and completion of the initial comprehensive care plan. She was only aware psychoactive medications required a care plan for potential side effects. Assistant Director of Nursing (ADON) #1, for the [NAME] Wing, was interviewed on 10/09/2021 at 10:38 PM. ADON #1 stated the term target behaviors was unfamiliar, and she was not sure what the target behaviors were for Resident #121. The ADON stated the MDS nurse was responsible for behavior care plans. Social Worker (SW) #1 was interviewed on 10/09/2021 at 3:51 PM. SW #1 stated she was not familiar with the term target behavior and was not sure why Resident #121 received the antipsychotic medication. The Administrator was interviewed on 10/10/2021 at 1:30 PM. The Administrator stated a behavioral care plan to include target behaviors would be the responsibility of the nurse on the hall.
CONCERN (E)

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

Quality of Care (Tag F0684)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** 4. The facility admitted Resident #58 with diagnoses of Alzheimer's disease, dementia with behavioral disturbances, depression, ...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** 4. The facility admitted Resident #58 with diagnoses of Alzheimer's disease, dementia with behavioral disturbances, depression, anxiety, and psychosis. The significant change Minimum Data Set (MDS), dated [DATE], revealed the resident's Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score was a 2 out of 15, which indicated the resident was severely cognitively impaired. The significant change was related to the resident being admitted to hospice services. A review of Resident #58's care plan, with a revision date of 08/25/2021, indicated the resident would remain comfortable and pain free during the end-of-life process. Resident #58 had behaviors of .calling out, yelling out, screaming, disrobing, and removing dressings. Resident #58's physician's orders for October 2021 were reviewed and the resident had the following physician's orders: - lorazepam (antianxiety medication) 0.5 milligram (mg) tablet. Take one tablet (0.5 mg) by oral route every six hours for anxiety. The resident was scheduled to take this medication every day at 12:00 AM, 6:00 AM, 12:00 PM, and 6:00 PM. The start date was 08/25/2021. - quetiapine (antipsychotic medication) 50 mg tablet. Give one tablet twice daily for anxiety. The resident was scheduled to take this medication every day at 6:00 AM and 2:00 PM. The start date was 08/25/2021. A review of a progress note written on 09/26/2021 at 2:52 PM, by Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) #5, indicated Resident #58 had a sudden change in normal behavior. The resident had restlessness not relieved by routine care, repositioning, and/or resident specific interventions. The resident exhibited facial expressions, such as grimacing, fearful, frowning and/or sad expression. Interventions provided were emotional support, comfort measures, and distractions. The interventions were not effective, and pain medication was given, which was effective. During an observation on 10/06/2021 at 9:59 AM, Resident #58 was lying in bed, in their bedroom. The resident's eyes were closed tight, with facial grimacing. At 10:04 AM, Resident #58 yelled out, Mommy! numerous times. The resident's eyes remained closed but no longer closed tightly. During an observation on 10/06/2021 at 12:42 PM, Resident #58 yelled out, My head hurts! Mommy! My head hurts! Nursing Assistant (NA) #1 was in the hallway, near the resident's room. NA #1 stated that the resident yelling was a common behavior and stated the resident was okay, and the nurse was aware of the resident's behavior. A review of the resident's Medication Administration Record (MAR) for October 2021 indicated the resident did not receive their 6:00 AM medication for quetiapine 50 mg and lorazepam 0.5 mg on 10/01/2021, 10/02/2021, and 10/06/2021 as indicated by a -. In an interview on 10/07/2021 at 11:05 AM, LPN #6 stated the resident received routine medication to control their pain and anxiety and had as-needed medications for pain. LPN #6 stated that the resident cried out often and could not be comforted at times. The resident had a normal behavior of yelling out, but the resident was unable to make their needs known. When asked why the resident did not get their 6:00 AM medications on October 1, 2, and 6, she stated she worked the 7:00 AM to 3:00 PM shift and was not aware the resident did not receive their medications, and that was not their shift. In an interview on 10/09/2021 at 3:45 PM, Assistant Director of Nursing (ADON) #2 stated that the facility was controlling the resident's pain and behaviors by hospice putting the resident on round-the-clock antianxiety medication. ADON #2 stated that the family, hospice, and interdisciplinary team felt that since the resident was in the dying process, hospice was focused on pain management and antipsychotic medication. ADON #2 stated the resident also had as-needed medication that should be offered. When asked what the - meant on the MAR, ADON #2 stated that it meant the medication was not administered, and there should be a reason documented. ADON #2 reviewed the MAR and stated there was not a reason documented on why the medication was not administered. ADON #2 stated, I expect us to follow the physician's orders. We have had challenges on the night shift. The patient needs the adequate medications. In an interview on 10/10/2021 at 2:40 PM, the Administrator stated the facility should address medications not received, and staff should follow orders as prescribed by the resident's physician and provide those medications. A policy regarding documentation of physician's orders was requested from the facility. The facility did not provide a policy, as they did not have one. 5. The facility admitted Resident #249 on 09/16/2021 with a diagnosis of obstructive sleep apnea. A review of the admitting Minimum Data Set (MDS), dated [DATE], revealed the resident was alert and oriented with a Brief Interview for Mental Status score of 13 out of 15. The MDS also revealed the resident was not using a bilevel positive airway pressure (BiPAP) machine. The BiPAP machine, tubing, and mask were observed on the resident's nightstand on 10/06/2021 at 9:42 AM, 10/07/2021 at 11:15 AM, 10/07/2021 at 2:33 PM and 10/08/2021 at 8:34 AM. During an interview with Minimum Data Set (MDS) Coordinator #1 on 10/08/2021 at 10:01AM, she stated the resident had triggered for oxygen and BiPAP use on the five-day admission assessment on 09/23/2021 because the look-back period was 14 days, and the resident used the BiPAP while in the hospital. She stated she was unaware that the resident was using the BiPAP there in the facility since there was not an order for BiPAP use. She further stated since she was unaware the BiPAP was in use, there was no care plan for the BiPAP use. An interview with Assistant Director of Nursing (ADON) #1 on 10/08/2021 at 12:15 PM was done. She stated there should have been an order for the BiPAP machine. During an interview with the Administrator on 10/10/2021 at 1:39 PM, he stated it would be expected that the facility had a physician's order for the BiPAP machine use. New Jersey Administrative Code § 8:39-27.1(a) Complaint Intake: NJ146851 Based on observations, interviews, record review, and facility policy review, it was determined the facility failed to provide treatment and care according to professional standards of practice for 5 of 39 (Resident #58, Resident #249, Resident #38, Resident #213, and Resident #214) residents reviewed for quality of care. The facility failed to provide pain management to Resident #58. The facility failed to receive or follow physician's orders for Resident #249 regarding respiratory treatments, for Resident #38 regarding fall precautions, for Resident #213 regarding the use of hearing aids, and for Resident #214 regarding the use of splints. Findings included: 1. A record review of Resident #38's admission Minimum Data Set (MDS), dated [DATE], indicated diagnoses included dementia with behavioral disturbance, repeated falls, muscle weakness, abnormalities of gait and mobility, anxiety disorder, depression, and limitation of activities due to disability. The MDS indicated the resident had both short-term and long-term memory problems, inattention, and disorganized thinking. The MDS also indicated the resident required extensive assistance of two staff with transfers. A review of Resident #38's care plan, dated 07/20/2021, indicated a focus for falls. Interventions included the following: apply tab alarm as ordered to bed, apply tab alarm as ordered to chair, assist with applying hip protectors to be used at all times, and maintain bed in low position. A review of physician's orders, dated October 2021, indicated an order for a special awareness-low bed, hip protectors, tab alarm to bed and chair. The order date was 07/01/2021. A review of Resident #38's Medication Administration Record (MAR) and Treatment Administration Record (TAR) for the months of September 2021 and October 2021 indicated no documentation of the use of bed in low position, hip protectors or tab alarms to the bed. An observation on 10/06/2021 at 11:26 AM revealed Resident #38 sitting in a wheelchair in the resident's room. There was no tab alarm attached to the wheelchair.The bed was not in the low position.There was a fall mat on the floor. There were no hip protectors seen in the room. An observation on 10/07/2021 at 7:46 AM revealed Resident #38 lying in bed. There were no hip protectors noted. There was no tab alarm noted. There was a fall mat at the edge of the bed, and the bed was in the low position. An observation on 10/08/2021 at 7:39 AM revealed Resident #38 lying in bed, yelling for a car. There were no hip protectors noted. The bed was in the low position. There was a fall mat at the side of the bed, and the tab alarm was in place. During an interview on 10/09/2021 at 7:44 AM, Certified Nurse Assistant (CNA) #1, who was assigned to Resident #38, stated that they were unaware Resident #38 was to wear hip protectors. CNA #1 stated they were also unaware of the need to attach the tab alarm. During an interview on 10/09/2021 at 10:31 AM, CNA #9, who was assigned to Resident #38, stated they did not know Resident #38 was to wear hip protectors. CNA #9 stated they were also not aware of the need to attach a tab alarm. During an interview on 10/10/2021 at 11:18 AM, Assistant Director of Nursing (ADON) #2 stated the CNAs accessed the interventions for the residents from the Kiosk. The Kiosk was where the CNAs documented their daily observations. ADON #2 stated that the interventions listed on the care plan were to be sent to the Kiosk. ADON #2 stated that the physician's orders should transfer to either the MAR or TAR. When asked who was monitoring and ensuring the interventions of the tab alarm, bed in the low position and the hip protectors for Resident #38 were completed, ADON #2 stated the nurses documented the interventions in the MAR or TAR. ADON #2 confirmed there was nothing on the MAR or TAR. ADON #2 stated that the facility would look into the issue. During an interview conducted on 10/10/2021 at 10:30 AM, the Administrator stated the expectation of staff was to obtain a physician's order for every medication, treatment, or assistive device and to document in the medical record that the medication was received, treatment was provided, or assistive device was placed as ordered. A policy regarding documentation of physician's orders and/or following physician's orders was requested from the facility. The facility did not provide a policy, as they did not have one. 2. A review of Resident #213's quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS), dated [DATE], indicated diagnoses included hypertension, obstructive uropathy, diabetes, personal history of traumatic fracture, and muscle weakness. The resident's Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score was 13, which indicated no cognitive impairment. The resident's hearing ability was moderately difficult (speaker had to increase volume and speak distinctly). A review of Resident #213's the care plan, dated 08/31/2021, indicated there was no care plan indicating that the resident was hard of hearing or that the resident wore hearing aids. A review of Resident #213's Medication Administration Record (MAR) for September 2021 indicated a physician's order to apply a hearing aid in the morning (AM) and remove in the evening (PM). The start date was 09/14/2021. A review from September 14 through September 30 indicated by nurse signature that hearing aids were applied and removed each day except for 9/21/2021, where there was no indication for removal of hearing aids. The MAR for October 2021 contained a nurse's signature from October 1 through October 6 that hearing aids were placed into the ears in the morning and removed in the evening. An observation of Resident #213 on 10/07/2021 at 7:52 AM revealed the resident sitting on the edge of the bed. The resident was observed to be very hard of hearing. The resident would cup their hand to their ear to assist in hearing. The resident was not wearing hearing aids. Resident #213 stated the hearing aids were missing. An observation and interview with Resident #213 on 10/08/2021at 8:38 AM revealed the resident sitting on the edge of the bed. The resident became frustrated when trying to answer questions. Resident #213 stated, I can't hear anything you are saying. The resident was not wearing hearing aids. During an interview on 10/08/2021 at 7:31 PM, a family member for Resident #213 stated the resident had lost their hearing aids for several weeks. The family member stated the facility had found one hearing aid and last week found the other hearing aid. The family member stated Resident #213 was very hard of hearing and became very frustrated when they could not hear. During an interview on 10/08/2021 at 8:42 AM, Assistant Director of Nursing (ADON) #2 confirmed the hearing aids for Resident #213 were lost. When asked when they were found, ADON #2 stated one hearing aid was found last week. When questioned why staff continued to document they were applying and removing the resident's hearing aids even though the hearing aids were missing, ADON #2 stated the facility would do some re-education. ADON #2 stated they were not sure why they were documenting that they were applying and removing the resident's hearing aids. During an interview conducted on 10/10/2021 at 10:30 AM, the Administrator stated the expectation of staff was to obtain a physician's order for every medication, treatment, or assistive device and to document in the medical record that the medication was received, treatment was provided, or assistive device was placed as ordered. A policy regarding documentation of physician's orders and/or following physician's orders was requested from the facility. The facility did not provide a policy, as they did not have one. 3. A review of Resident #214's significant change Minimum Data Set (MDS), dated [DATE], indicated diagnoses including catatonic disorder, abnormalities of gait and mobility, limitation of activities due to disability, schizoaffective disorder, and bipolar disease. There was no Brief Interview of Mental Status (BIMS) score, as the resident was unable to answer questions. The significant change MDS was initiated when Resident #214 was discharged from hospice. A review of Resident #214's care plans, dated 02/13/2021 indicated no care plan regarding the use of splints. A record review of physician's orders, dated October 2021, indicated an order for bilateral C bar orthoses (used to help lessen hand contractures) to be worn on the right and left upper extremity for approximately five to six hours a day. This could be included in morning (AM) care. The order date was 09/23/2021. A record review of Resident #214's Medication Administration Record (MAR) and Treatment Administration Record (TAR) for the months of September 2021 and October 2021 indicated no documentation that the splints were applied as ordered. An observation on 10/06/2021 at 9:20 AM revealed Resident #214 lying in bed. The resident had bilateral heel protectors in place. There were splints lying on top of the air conditioning unit by the window. An observation on 10/07/2021 at 7:58 AM revealed Resident #214 lying in bed. The resident had disposable wash cloths in bilateral hands. The splints were noted on top of the air conditioning unit by the window. An observation on 10/08/2021 at 7:29 AM revealed no hand splints in Resident #214's room. Wash cloths were noted in the resident's bilateral hands. An observation on 10/09/2021 at 8:14 AM revealed Resident #214 did not have hand splints. The resident had wash cloths in bilateral hands. During an interview on 10/09/2021 at 7:44 AM, Certified Nurse Assistant (CNA) #1 , who was assigned to Resident # 214, stated they did not have any idea what to do about splints for Resident #214. CNA #1 stated they were unaware the resident had splints. During an interview on 10/09/2021 at 10:31 AM, CNA #9, who was assigned to Resident #214, stated they did not know what the splints were for. CNA #9 stated they were not aware Resident #214 was to wear splints. During an interview on 10/06/2021 at 9:14 AM, Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) #2 stated there was nothing documented in the MAR or TAR regarding splint use for Resident #214. When asked if the LPN was aware Resident #214 was to wear splints, LPN #2 stated, no. During an interview on 10/10/2021 at 11:18 AM, Assistant Director of Nursing (ADON) #2 stated the splint order should have been on the TAR for Resident #214. When asked if there was any documentation regarding the splint placement, ADON #2 confirmed there was no documentation. ADON #2 stated that the facility would look into why the order for the splints did not transfer to the MAR or TAR. During an interview conducted on 10/10/2021 at 10:30 AM, the Administrator stated the expectation of staff was to obtain a physician's order for every medication, treatment, or assistive device and to document in the medical record that the medication was received, treatment was provided, or assistive device was placed as ordered. A policy regarding documentation of physician's orders and/or following physician's orders was requested from the facility. The facility did not provide a policy, as they did not have one.
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 observations, interviews, Centers for Disease Control (CDC) guidelines, and the New Jersey Administrative Code (NJAC) 8:24, it was determined that the facility failed to follow proper sanitat...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observations, interviews, Centers for Disease Control (CDC) guidelines, and the New Jersey Administrative Code (NJAC) 8:24, it was determined that the facility failed to follow proper sanitation and food handling practices to prevent the outbreak of foodborne illness. Specifically, the facility failed to ensure sanitizer used to disinfect food preparation surfaces and cooking utensils did not record zero parts per million (PPM) for three of three sanitization buckets. The facility also failed to ensure dietary staff performed hand hygiene between tasks, between gloves changes and after repeatedly touching their facemasks. This failed practice had the potential to affect all residents living in the facility who ate from the kitchen. Findings included: Reference: NJAC 8:24-3.3, Protection from contamination after receiving indicates, (m) Requirements for wiping cloths shall include the following: 2. Cloths used for wiping food spills shall be: ii. Wet and cleaned as specified under N.J.A.C. 8:24-4.10(b)4, stored in a chemical sanitizer at a concentration specified in N.J.A.C. 8:24-4.8(j) 1, and used for wiping spills from food-contact and non food-contact surfaces of equipment. 1. On 10/06/2021 at 8:44 AM, an initial tour observation of the kitchen was conducted with the Assistant Director of Dining and Nutrition Services (ADDNS). The tour revealed the facility was serving the morning meal. Dietary Aides (DA) #1 and #2 cleaned the counter tops in the kitchen with a solution in red buckets labelled Sanitizer solution. Portioning scoops and spoons were in another similar bucket. The ADDNS tested the solution in the buckets and reported the solution indicated zero PPM. On 10/06/2021 at 9:07 AM, the AADNS stated that dietary staff completed a log which recorded the PPM of the sanitizing solution. The AADNS stated it was the individual staff's responsibility to ensure the solution was changed out as needed to ensure it maintained its recommended concentration. The AADNS stated the sanitizing solution needed to be at a minimum of 200 PPM to be considered potent enough to perform its sanitizing function. He acknowledged, however, that the sanitizing solution indicated zero PPM when the DA used it. The AADNS acknowledged that dietary staff had prepared meals, which were served to residents, on the food preparation table that was not properly disinfected. The AADNS stated that the consequence of the observed practice was that food preparation surfaces and utensils were not sanitized appropriately and could result in the spread of foodborne illnesses across the facility. On 10/09/2021 at 12:33 PM, the Infection Control Preventionist (ICP) stated she was part of the quality assessment (QA) committee and conducted training with dietary staff in collaboration with the director of dining and nutrition services (DDNS) on infection control and prevention practices. The ICP stated she in-serviced with staff on a weekly and as-needed (PRN) basis. The ICP enumerated the training she had provided to staff to include proper use of chemical disinfectant, hand hygiene, cough etiquette, and proper use of personal protective equipment. The ICP stated that it was important to follow the manufacturer's recommended concentrations for disinfecting sanitizers used in the kitchen. The ICP stated that failure to adhere to the recommended concentrations for the sanitizers meant that the food preparation surfaces were not adequately disinfected. The ICP stated when there was a breach in infection control practice in the kitchen, it affected the entire population of the residents, as they all ate meals which came from the kitchen. On 10/10/2021 at 3:02 PM, the Nursing Home Administrator (NHA) stated that the kitchen was central to the facility. The NHA stated when there was a breach in infection control practice in the kitchen, it affected the entire population of the residents, as they all ate meals which came from the kitchen. Reference: NJAC 8:24-2.3, Personal cleanliness indicates (f) Food employees shall clean their hands and exposed portions of their arms immediately before engaging in food preparation including working with exposed food, clean equipment and utensils, and unwrapped single-service and single-use articles, and: 5. After handling soiled equipment or utensils; 6. During food preparation, as often as necessary to remove soil and contamination and to prevent cross contamination when changing tasks; 8. Before donning gloves for working with foods; and 9. After engaging in other activities that contaminate the hands. 2. During an observation on 10/08/2021 at 11:40 AM, Dietary Aide (DA) #1 intermittently adjusted her mask and scratched her head during the noon meal service. DA #1 stood behind the serving line and was responsible for placing cold beverages on the residents' meal trays. The observation revealed DA #1 placed her right hand on the serving portion of the residents' plates after having intermittently adjusted her mask and scratched her head. DA #1 was wearing a pair of gloves and failed to remove her gloves and perform hand hygiene after her gloved hands had been contaminated when she intermittently adjusted her face mask and scratched herself. The gloves worn by DA #1 contacted the serving surface portion of the residents' plates when she transferred them to the rack. On 10/08/2021 at 11:45 AM, DA #2 was observed in the kitchen as he emptied the filter from a coffee maker. DN #2 proceeded to dispose of the filter in a full trash can which sat next to the serving line. DA #2 pulled open the trash can lid with his gloved hands, disposed of the filter, then rubbed his hands against his shirt. DA #2 then returned to the coffee maker and started another round of setup to make the coffee without changing out his gloves and/or performing hand hygiene. DA #2 drew coffee into a portable cup with a plastic lid. During the process of drawing the coffee, DA #2 repeatedly adjusted his mask, and without performing glove changes or hand hygiene, he held the coffee cups such that his fingers were in contact with the inner part of the cups. Although the surveyor advised DA #2 of the need to change his gloves, DA #2 changed his gloves without performing hand hygiene. On 10/08/2021 at 2:18 PM, DA #1 stated she did not know that there was the potential to cross-contaminate the dishes by touching the plating portion of the dishes after adjusting her mask and scratching her head. DA #1 acknowledged that she did not perform glove changes and hand hygiene after the identified practice. DA #1 stated she received hand hygiene training every week through facility-wide in-service. On 10/09/2021 at 11:33 AM, the Director of Dining and Nutrition Services (DDNS) stated that dietary staff received hand hygiene training weekly, and it was taught to them by the infection control preventionist (ICP). The DDNS stated dietary staff were trained to wash their hands when they were visibly soiled, between completing different tasks, and before they donned and after they doffed gloves. The DDNS stated that dietary staff should not be touching body parts or adjusting masks without hand hygiene. On 10/09/2021 at 12:33 PM, the infection control preventionist (ICP) stated she was part of the quality assessment (QA) committee and conducted training with dietary staff in collaboration with the director of dining and nutrition services (DDNS) on infection control and prevention practices. The ICP stated she in-serviced with staff on weekly and as-needed (PRN) basis. The ICP enumerated the training she had provided to staff to include proper use of chemical disinfectant, hand hygiene, cough etiquette, and proper use of personal protective equipment. The ICP went through an overview of the importance of hand hygiene. The ICP stated hand hygiene was a standard infection control practice in healthcare setting. The ICP stated that dietary staff's failure to perform proper hand hygiene was a fast way to spread germs. The ICP stated staff should perform hand hygiene when they went in the bathroom, when they adjusted their masks, and before they donned new gloves. On 10/10/2021 at 3:02 PM, the Nursing Home Administrator (NHA) stated that the kitchen was central to the facility. The NHA stated when there was a breach in infection control practice in the kitchen, it affected the entire population of the residents, as they all ate meals which came from the kitchen. New Jersey Administrative Code § 8:39-17.2(g)
MINOR (B)

Minor Issue - procedural, no safety impact

Deficiency F0577 (Tag F0577)

Minor procedural issue · This affected multiple residents

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observations and interviews, it was determined the facility failed to make survey results readily available to all resi...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observations and interviews, it was determined the facility failed to make survey results readily available to all residents, staff, and visitors. This had the potential to affect all residents. Findings included: 1. During the Resident Council meeting on 10/07/2021 at 10:35 AM, Residents #220, #82, #83, #176, #161, #209, and #100 stated that they were unaware of where the survey results were kept. These seven residents were cognitively intact and could communicate effectively. An observation on 10/07/2021 at 11:18 AM, revealed a sign posted in the front lobby that indicated to ask the receptionist for the state survey book. There was no survey book visible in the area. During an interview on 10/07/2021 at 11:19 AM, Receptionist #1 stated they were unaware of where the book was kept. Receptionist #1 left the area and went into a back office and brought out the survey book. When asked what time the reception area closed, Receptionist #1 stated at 8:00 PM. During an interview on 10/07/2021 at 11:24 AM, the Assistant Administrator stated the survey book was kept in a file folder box attached to the wall behind the front desk, which was attended by a receptionist from 8AM until 8PM. When asked if there were any other copies of the survey book available, the Assistant Administrator stated, no. An observation on 10/07/2021 at 11:24 AM, revealed the Assistant Administrator placed the survey book into the file folder box behind the front desk. The front desk counter was approximately 4.5 feet from the ground and approximately 2.5 feet wide. A table was observed in front of the counter which was approximately 2 feet wide. The reach from the table to the survey book was approximately 4.5 feet. This surveyor attempted to return the survey binder to the file folder box but was unable to do so without assistance from staff behind the desk because the reach was too far. A review of the facility census, dated 10/07/2021, indicated there were 120 residents that resided on a locked unit called East Wing, and 38 residents that resided on a locked unit called [NAME]. The residents residing on these units would not have direct access to the survey binder since the units were locked. During an interview on 10/07/2021 at 11:30 AM, the Assistant Administrator confirmed the 158 residents that resided in those locked units did not have direct access to the survey results. The Assistant Administrator stated they would fix the problem. During an interview on 10/07/2021 11:45 AM, the Administrator confirmed there was no policy and procedure regarding access to the state survey book. The Administrator stated that they were aware the survey results had to be available to all residents and that currently they were not. A policy regarding access to the state survey binder was requested from the facility. The facility did not provide a policy, as they did not have one. New Jersey Administrative Code § 8:39-9.4 (b)
Understanding Severity Codes (click to expand)
Life-Threatening (Immediate Jeopardy)
J - Isolated K - Pattern L - Widespread
Actual Harm
G - Isolated H - Pattern I - Widespread
Potential for Harm
D - Isolated E - Pattern F - Widespread
No Harm (Minor)
A - Isolated B - Pattern C - Widespread

Questions to Ask on Your Visit

  • "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
  • • 23% annual turnover. Excellent stability, 25 points below New Jersey's 48% average. Staff who stay learn residents' needs.
Concerns
  • • Multiple safety concerns identified: 4 life-threatening violation(s), 2 harm violation(s). Review inspection reports carefully.
  • • 43 deficiencies on record, including 4 critical (life-threatening) violations. These warrant careful review before choosing this facility.
  • • $15,593 in fines. Above average for New Jersey. Some compliance problems on record.
  • • Grade F (15/100). Below average facility with significant concerns.
Bottom line: This facility has 4 Immediate Jeopardy findings. Serious concerns require careful evaluation.

About This Facility

What is Christian Health's CMS Rating?

CMS assigns CHRISTIAN HEALTH CARE CENTER an overall rating of 4 out of 5 stars, which is considered above average nationally. Within New Jersey, this rating places the facility higher than 99% of the state's 100 nursing homes. This rating reflects solid performance across the metrics CMS uses to evaluate nursing home quality.

How is Christian Health Staffed?

CMS rates CHRISTIAN HEALTH CARE CENTER's staffing level at 5 out of 5 stars, which is much above average compared to other nursing homes. Staff turnover is 23%, compared to the New Jersey average of 46%. This relatively stable workforce can support continuity of care.

What Have Inspectors Found at Christian Health?

State health inspectors documented 43 deficiencies at CHRISTIAN HEALTH CARE CENTER during 2021 to 2024. These included: 4 Immediate Jeopardy (the most serious level, indicating potential for serious harm or death), 2 that caused actual resident harm, 36 with potential for harm, and 1 minor or isolated issues. Immediate Jeopardy findings are rare and represent the most serious regulatory concerns. They require immediate corrective action.

Who Owns and Operates Christian Health?

CHRISTIAN HEALTH CARE CENTER is owned by a non-profit organization. Non-profit facilities reinvest revenue into operations rather than distributing to shareholders. The facility operates independently rather than as part of a larger chain. With 304 certified beds and approximately 286 residents (about 94% occupancy), it is a large facility located in WYCKOFF, New Jersey.

How Does Christian Health Compare to Other New Jersey Nursing Homes?

Compared to the 100 nursing homes in New Jersey, CHRISTIAN HEALTH CARE CENTER's overall rating (4 stars) is above the state average of 3.3, staff turnover (23%) is significantly lower than the state average of 46%, and health inspection rating (2 stars) is below the national benchmark.

What Should Families Ask When Visiting Christian Health?

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 Christian Health Safe?

Based on CMS inspection data, CHRISTIAN HEALTH CARE CENTER has documented safety concerns. Inspectors have issued 4 Immediate Jeopardy citations (the most serious violation level indicating risk of serious injury or death). The facility has a 4-star overall rating and ranks #1 of 100 nursing homes in New Jersey. Families considering this facility should ask detailed questions about what corrective actions have been taken since these incidents.

Do Nurses at Christian Health Stick Around?

Staff at CHRISTIAN HEALTH CARE CENTER tend to stick around. With a turnover rate of 23%, the facility is 23 percentage points below the New Jersey average of 46%. Low turnover is a positive sign. It means caregivers have time to learn each resident's needs, medications, and personal preferences. Consistent staff also notice subtle changes in a resident's condition more quickly. Registered Nurse turnover is also low at 12%, meaning experienced RNs are available to handle complex medical needs.

Was Christian Health Ever Fined?

CHRISTIAN HEALTH CARE CENTER has been fined $15,593 across 1 penalty action. This is below the New Jersey average of $33,235. 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 Christian Health on Any Federal Watch List?

CHRISTIAN HEALTH CARE 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.