THE GRAND REHABILITATION AND NRSG AT GUILDERLAND

428 STATE ROUTE 146, ALTAMONT, NY 12009 (518) 861-5141
For profit - Limited Liability company 127 Beds THE GRAND HEALTHCARE Data: November 2025 1 Immediate Jeopardy citation
Trust Grade
3/100
#571 of 594 in NY
Last Inspection: March 2025

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

Overview

The Grand Rehabilitation and Nursing at Guilderland has received a Trust Grade of F, indicating significant concerns and a poor overall quality of care. Ranking #571 out of 594 facilities in New York places it in the bottom half statewide, and it is the lowest-ranked facility in Albany County at #11 out of 11. The situation appears to be worsening, with reported issues increasing from 9 in 2024 to 29 in 2025. Staffing is a major concern, rated at 1 out of 5 stars, with a high turnover rate of 54%, which is above the state average. There were also serious incidents, such as multiple residents not receiving critical medications, leading to psychiatric decompensation and potential health risks, as well as issues with inadequate staffing levels that did not meet state requirements, compromising resident safety and care quality. Overall, while there is some RN coverage, it is less than 83% of facilities in the state, adding to concerns about the quality of care provided.

Trust Score
F
3/100
In New York
#571/594
Bottom 4%
Safety Record
High Risk
Review needed
Inspections
Getting Worse
9 → 29 violations
Staff Stability
⚠ Watch
54% turnover. Above average. Higher turnover means staff may not know residents' routines.
Penalties
○ Average
$40,937 in fines. Higher than 58% of New York facilities. Some compliance issues.
Skilled Nurses
⚠ Watch
Each resident gets only 19 minutes of Registered Nurse (RN) attention daily — below average for New York. Fewer RN minutes means fewer trained eyes watching for problems.
Violations
⚠ Watch
56 deficiencies on record. Higher than average. Multiple issues found across inspections.
★☆☆☆☆
1.0
Overall Rating
★☆☆☆☆
1.0
Staff Levels
★★☆☆☆
2.0
Care Quality
★☆☆☆☆
1.0
Inspection Score
Stable
2024: 9 issues
2025: 29 issues

The Good

  • Full Sprinkler Coverage · Fire safety systems throughout facility
  • No fines on record

Facility shows strength in fire safety.

The Bad

1-Star Overall Rating

Below New York average (3.0)

Significant quality concerns identified by CMS

Staff Turnover: 54%

Near New York avg (46%)

Higher turnover may affect care consistency

Federal Fines: $40,937

Above median ($33,413)

Moderate penalties - review what triggered them

Chain: THE GRAND HEALTHCARE

Part of a multi-facility chain

Ask about local staffing decisions and management

The Ugly 56 deficiencies on record

1 life-threatening
Mar 2025 29 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

Deficiency F0760 (Tag F0760)

Someone could have died · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observations, record review, and interviews during a recertification and abbreviated survey (Case #'s NY00363829, NY003...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observations, record review, and interviews during a recertification and abbreviated survey (Case #'s NY00363829, NY00364424, and NY00347964), the facility failed to ensure residents were free of any significant medication errors for five (5) (Resident #s 12, 23, 47, 77, and 327) of 10 residents reviewed for medication administration. Specifically, (a.) Resident #47 was not administered 12 days-worth of psychiatric medication from 11/25/2024 to 12/06/2024. Over the 12 days, the resident decompensated psychiatrically, and on 11/29/2024 at 9:00 AM, the resident requested to be sent to the hospital. (b.) Resident #12 was not administered their antibiotics (medication to treat active infections) 10 of 20 times as prescribed. (c.) Resident #23 was not administered antibiotics as prescribed, receiving only four (4) of eight (8) doses prescribed. (d.) Resident #77 was not administered prescribed medication to lower their high potassium level on 12/21/2024 and did not receive the medication until 12/25/2024, after it was noted that Resident #77's potassium level was further elevated. (e.) Resident #327 was not administered antibiotics until two (2) days after the order was prescribed, causing a delay in treatment for an active infection. This resulted in actual harm for Resident #47 which was Immediate Jeopardy and Substandard Quality of Care with the likelihood of risk for harm to the health and safety of Residents #12, #23, #77, and #327. This is evidenced by: The Policy and Procedure titled, Administering Medications, effective 10/1997 and reviewed on 1/2025, documented that Medications should be administered in a safe and timely manner, and as prescribed. The policy Interpretation and Implementation documented the following: Medications must be administered in accordance with the orders, including any required time frame; medications must be administered within one (1) hour of their prescribed time, unless otherwise specified; if a dosage was believed to be inappropriate or excessive for a resident, or an education had identified consequences, the person preparing or administering the medications should contact the resident's Attending Physician or the facility's Medical Director to discuss the concerns. The following information must be checked/verified for each resident prior to administering medications: allergies to medications; vital signs, if necessary; for residents not in their rooms or otherwise unavailable to receive medication on the pass, the Electronic Medication Administration Record may be flagged. After completing the medication pass, the nurse would return to the missed resident to administer the medication; if a drug was withheld, refused, or given at a time other than the scheduled time, the individual administering the medication should document the same in the Electronic Medication Administration Record for that drug and dose. The person withholding, receiving the refusal, or administering medication at a different time would notify the attending/covering physician. The individual administering the medication must sign the resident's Electronic Medication Administration Record as indicated by the software after giving each medication and before administering the next one. As required or indicated for medication, the individual administering the medication would record in the resident's medical record: (a.) the date and time the medication was administered; (b.) the dosage; (c.) the route of administration; (d.) the injection site (if applicable); (e.) any complaints or symptoms for which the drug was administered; (f.) any results achieved and when those results were observed; and (g.) the signature and title of the person administering the drug; topical medication used in treatment must be recorded on the resident's treatment record; and residents may self-administer their own medications only if the Attending Physician, in conjunction with the Interdisciplinary Care Planning Team, had determined that they have the decision-making capacity to do so safely. Resident #47 Resident #47 was admitted to the facility with diagnoses of schizophrenia (a mental condition characterized by thoughts or experiences that seem out of touch with reality), chronic obstructive pulmonary disease with acute exacerbation (a chronic lung disease that causes progressive and irreversible damage to the airways in the lungs), and type 2 diabetes mellitus (a chronic condition where the body does not use insulin properly or does not produce enough insulin to regulate blood sugar levels). The Minimum Data Set, dated , 10/01/2024 documented the resident was cognitively intact, could be understood, and understand others. The Care Plan for Resident Displays/Reports the following moods: feeling down, depressed, hopeless, feeling tired or having little interest or pleasure in doing things, revised 12/02/2024, documented the resident had a history of suicidal ideation and their last statement was on 11/25/2024, when they had suicidal ideation, no plan. Interventions included administer psychotropic medications as ordered, assess for suicidal ideation if needed, no cords per statement of suicidal ideation, and psychological services as needed Order Summary Report for order date range 11/01/2024 to 3/07/2025, documented an order dated 11/25/2024 for Clozapine oral tablet, give 375 milligrams by mouth at bedtime for schizophrenia. There was no end date on the order. Record review of manufacturer specification of Clozaril (clozapine), located at https://clozaril.com/important-safety-information/ documented the following: Important Safety Information, Discontinuing Treatment documented to reduce the dose gradually over a period of 1 to 2 weeks if termination of clozapine therapy was planned and there was no evidence of moderate to severe neutropenia (low number of neutrophils (a type of white blood cell) in the bloodstream). For abrupt clozapine discontinuation for a reason unrelated to neutropenia, continuation of the existing ANC (absolute neutrophil count) monitoring was recommended. It documented to monitor all patients carefully for the recurrence of psychotic symptoms. Medication Administration Record dated November 2024 documented, Clozapine 375 milligrams was to start on 11/25/2024 at 9:00 PM and documented: o 11/25/2024 was not given and documented: awaiting pharmacy delivery. o 11/26/2024 was not given and documented: medication was enroute from pharmacy, would administer upon arrival. Physician notified. o 11/27/2024 was documented as given. o 11/28/2024 was not given and documented: the medication was on order and awaiting arrival from the pharmacy. Skilled nursing would follow up. Hospital Discharge summary dated [DATE], Hospital Course documented the resident was found to have a lung infection and was also seen by psychiatry services. The resident was on one-to-one observation for suicidal ideation. Prior to discharge, the resident was cleared by psychiatry services and was taken off one-to-one observation. Discharge diagnosis/plan included schizophrenia and suicidal ideation. Behavioral Health Services Note dated 11/26/2024 documented the resident recently returned for a hospitalization for medical reasons, but then required additional time on the psychiatric unit for suicidal ideation. The resident currently was reporting feeling more stable, with no thoughts of suicidal ideation. The resident reported continued thoughts of mild depression and confusion. Target symptoms that would be the focus of treatment: depression, psychosis. A nursing note dated 11/29/2024 at 8:36 AM by Registered Nurse #5 documented Resident #47 stated, I want to die. I want to go to the hospital. Registered Nurse #5 informed the provider and social work and assigned a staff member to sit with the resident. 911 was called and the resident was sent to the Emergency Department. The resident was sent to the hospital at 9:00 AM. A nursing note dated 11/29/2024 at 4:07 PM, documented the resident returned from the Emergency Department at 4:05 PM. The Medication Administration Record dated November 2024 documented Clozapine 375 milligrams was given on 11/29/2024 and 11/30/2024 at 9:00 PM. Surveyors were unable to determine how/why Clozapine was documented as given on 11/27/2024, 11/29/2024, and 11/30/2024. There was no documented evidence Clozapine was delivered to the facility in November 2024: Pharmacy report for Clozapine for Resident #47, dispense date range 2/01/2024 to 3/03/2025, did not document Clozapine was dispensed in November 2024. The medication was not dispensed until 12/6/2024. Per the report of what was available in the facility PYXIS (automated medication dispensing system), Clozapine was not stocked in the facility. The Medication Administration Record dated December 2024documented Clozapine 375 milligrams was to be given at bedtime and was scheduled for 9:00 PM. It documented: o 12/01/2024 was not given and documented: enroute from pharmacy. Physician notified. o 12/02/2024 was documented as given. o 12/03/2024 was documented as given. o 12/04/2024 was documented as given. o 12/05/2024 was not given and documented: awaiting pharmacy delivery. There was no documented evidence that Clozapine was delivered to the facility from 12/01/2024 to 12/05/2024. A Physician Progress Note dated 12/06/2024 at 3:38 PM by Nurse Practitioner #2, documented Resident #47 was prescribed Clozapine for schizophrenia. Clozapine level was less than 10. (therapeutic range 350-600 nanograms/milliliter) It documented questionable medication adherence. The medication administration report showed 5 times the resident did not receive medication, unclear why. A nursing note dated 12/06/2024 at 4:01 PM documented the nurse was informed by the pharmacy that the resident's clozapine was waiting for approval, and as soon as it was approved, it would be sent on the next delivery. Provider was made aware. The Medication Administration Record dated December 2024 documented Clozapine 375 milligrams was not given on 12/06/2024 at 9:00 PM. A Medication Administration Note dated 12/06/2024 at 8:51 PM, documented: awaiting pharmacy delivery. The Pharmacy Packing Slip Proof of Delivery documented Clozapine 375 milligrams was delivered to the facility for Resident #47 on 12/06/2024 at 9:49 PM. There was no documentation on the Medication Administration Record dated 12/06/2024 that the clozapine was administered on 12/06/2024 after it was received in the facility at 9:49 PM. The Medication Administration Record dated 12/7/2024 documented Clozapine 375 milligrams was given at 9:00 PM. A nursing note dated 12/08/2024 at 4:24 PM by Registered Nurse #6 documented at 3:35 PM Registered Nurse #6 and the unit nurse entered the resident's room and found Resident #47 flailing their arms around and flipping their body over continuously and putting themselves onto their knees and attempting to stay on the floor. Resident #47 was not speaking normally, oriented to self , and unable to say the name of the facility. Typically, the resident could say the name of the facility. Resident #47 has also known Registered Nurse #6's name for months but could not recall their name. Resident #47 stated they wanted to go to the hospital. Resident #47 has not received their psychiatric medication in a week and the resident was not functioning safely. A nursing note dated 12/08/2024 at 5:19 PM by Registered Nurse #documented they called 911 and report was given to the Emergency Medical Technicians. Resident #47 appeared to understand they were going to the hospital and wanted to go. The Hospital Emergency Documentation documented the resident was seen on 12/8/2024 at 7:36 PM. Chief complaint: The resident was brought in by ambulance from the nursing home for altered mental status. The resident had a history of schizophrenia and has not been given their clozapine for unknown time/unreason. The Emergency Department Course/Medical Decision Making documented resident presents with altered mental status. Differential diagnosis included but not limited to medication side effect, medication withdrawal, urinary tract infection, or metabolic abnormality. Basic labs, urinalysis, and chest x-ray were obtained. Urinalysis was not suggestive of urinary tract infection. Chest x-ray and computed tomography did not show any significant findings. On reevaluation, the resident was arousable and was able to have a conversation. The resident stated they remembered feeling somewhat confused that afternoon but now felt back to normal. The resident was discharged and transported back to the facility by ambulance. The Emergency Department Clinical Summary, Discharge Information, documented the resident discharged on 12/09/2024 at 2:26 AM with diagnosis of confusion. A Physician Progress Note dated 12/09/2024 at 3:39 AM by Nurse Practitioner #6 documented they received a call from the facility for admission medication reconciliation. The resident returned from the hospital after hallucinating. During an interview on 3/2/2025 at 12:12 PM, Nurse Practitioner #2 stated Resident #47 missed several doses of Clozapine and ended up going to the hospital because they were suicidal. Resident #12 Resident #12 was admitted to the facility with diagnoses of severe intellectual disabilities (a developmental delay that limits a person's ability to function in social and practical ways), chronic kidney disease stage 3 (a moderate level of kidney damage that would make it harder for kidneys to filter waste and fluid from the blood), and type 2 diabetes mellitus. The Minimum Data Set (an assessment tool) dated 12/09/2024 documented the resident had severe cognitive impairments, could be understood, and sometimes understand others. A Physician Progress Note dated 1/02/2025 at 12:28 PM documented Resident #12 was diagnosed with a urinary tract infection on 12/19/2024, with enterococcus faecalis bacteria in critically high amounts. It documented they were prescribed an antibiotic, Amoxicillin 500 milligrams by mouth; however, according to nursing staff, the resident had been spitting out the pills and refusing to take them. Based on the resident's behavior, the oral antibiotic was changed to intravenous antibiotic (administered into a vein). The resident was prescribed the antibiotic Ampicillin, 2 grams intravenously every 6 hours for 7 days. A Physician Order dated 1/02/2025 at 11:56 AM documented Resident #12 was to receive Ampicillin Sodium Solution, reconstituted 2 grams, starting 1/02/2025 at 6:00 PM, administered intravenously every 6 hours at 12:00 AM, 6:00 AM, 12:00 PM, and 6:00 PM for 7 days. Registered Nurse Orders Administration Report dated 1/02/2025 6:00 PM dose was not given. The record was blank. There was no documented evidence why the medication was not given. A Physician Order dated 1/03/2025 at 1:10 PM documented Ampicillin Sodium Solution reconstituted 2 grams, intravenously every 6 hours at 12:00 AM, 6:00 AM, 12:00 PM, and 6:00 PM for 7 days. Start date 1/3/2025 at 6:00 PM. A Registered Nurse Orders Administration Report dated January 2025 documented Ampicillin Sodium Solution Reconstituted 2 grams, use intravenously every 6 hours for urinary tract infection for seven (7) days. The medication was scheduled to be given at 12:00 AM, 6:00 AM, 12:00 PM, and 6:00 PM. The resident did not receive 10 out of 20 scheduled doses as follows: o 1/03/2025 12:00 AM, 6:00 AM, and 12:00 PM doses were not given and there were no progress notes. Physician Progress Note dated 1/03/2025, documented the resident missed three (3) doses due to a delay in delivery by the pharmacy and a staff shortage. o 1/04/2025 12:00 AM, 6:00 AM, and 6:00 PM doses were not given and there was no documented evidence why the medication was not given. o 1/05/2025 6:00 PM dose was not given and there was no documented evidence why the medication was not given. o 1/06/2025 6:00 PM dose was not given and there was no documented evidence why the medication was not given. o 1/07/2025 12:00 PM dose was not given and there was no documented evidence why the medication was not given. A Physician Progress Note dated 1/07/2025 at 4:50 PM by Nurse Practitioner #2 documented they were notified that several doses of intravenous Ampicillin had been missed. Ampicillin was ordered to treat enterococcus faecalis urinary tract infection. The intravenous medication was specifically ordered as the resident had been refusing all medications by mouth. This was brought to the physician's attention on 1/02/2025 and as a result, was started on Ampicillin 2 grams intravenously every six (6) hours. Order changed to Levaquin 250 milligrams intravenously once a day at 2:00 PM, for better medication compliance. The Medication Administration Record dated January 2025 documented Levofloxacin (Levaquin) intravenous solution, use 250 milligrams intravenously in the afternoon for urinary tract infection for three (3) days, to start on 1/07/2025 at 2:00 PM. A record review of the Medication Administration Record revealed the resident did not receive the Levaquin on 1/09/2025. There was no documented evidence why the medication was not given. A Physician Progress Note dated 1/10/2025 at 11:50 AM by Nurse Practitioner #2 documented the resident was prescribed intravenous Levaquin for urinary tract infection. The resident did not receive the last dose yesterday afternoon (1/09/2025). Plan: would give the last dose of intravenous Levaquin 250 milligrams now. The provider would follow up to ensure the dose was received. A record review of the Medication Administration Record revealed the resident received the intravenous Levaquin on 1/10/2025. During an interview on 3/02/2025 at 12:12 PM, Nurse Practitioner #2 stated they had to alter orders to account for no staffing. It had been something they had to do since about October 2024. They could not recall other resident names, but they knew missed medication doses for other residents had happened in the past. They stated nurses were documenting medications were not available but were not notifying providers. Providers had to double cover infections with more than one (1) antibiotic because they were unsure if residents had received all the doses. They stated Resident #12 was ordered to have Ampicillin intravenously every six (6) hours to treat urinary tract infection. They did not have enough nurses on the unit to administer the medication as ordered and the resident missed doses of Ampicillin. They had to think of a way to provide medication to the resident and ordered Levaquin intravenously once daily for three (3) days for better medication compliance by nursing staff. They stated that even with the Levaquin being a once daily medication, the resident did not get it for three (3) consecutive days as ordered. They stated the resident missed the third dose and they had to order a one-time dose of Levaquin intravenously. Resident #23 Resident #23 was admitted to the facility with diagnoses of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (a chronic lung disease that causes progressive and irreversible damage to the airways in the lungs), acute on chronic systolic congestive heart failure (a sudden worsening of symptoms of a pre-existing condition of weakened heart muscles), and type 2 diabetes mellitus. The Minimum Data Set, dated [DATE] documented the resident was cognitively intact, could be understood, and understand others. A Physician Progress Note dated 2/22/2025 at 6:00 PM by Nurse Practitioner #3 documented they received a call from nursing staff reporting the resident's urinalysis and culture results returned positive for urinary tract infection and was sensitive to Augmentin (antibiotic). The resident was prescribed Augmentin 875 milligrams twice daily. A Physician Order dated 2/22/2025 documented Amoxicillin-potassium clavulanate (Augmentin) tablet 875-125 milligrams, give 1 tablet by mouth every 12 hours for urinary tract infection for seven (7) days. Start date 2/22/2025. The Medication Administration Record dated February 2025 documented Amoxicillin-potassium clavulanate tablet 875-125 milligrams, give one (1) tablet every 12 hours for urinary tract infection for seven (7) days, to start on 2/22/2025 at 6:00 PM. It was scheduled to be given at 6:00 AM and 6:00 PM. The order was discontinued on 2/26/2025 at 8:29 AM, for a total of eight (8) doses to be given. The facility printed a report from the automated medication dispensing system on 2/27/2025 for Resident #23, for date range 2/21/2025 to 2/25/2025, documented Augmentin (four (4) doses) were removed from the automated medication dispensing system on: o 2/22/2025 at 5:43 PM o 2/23/2025 at 7:12 AM o 2/24/2025 at 4:02 PM o 2/25/2025 at 3:34 PM Review of the Medication Administration Record dated February 2025 for Amoxicillin-potassium administration revealed the resident did not receive four (4) doses as follows: o 2/23/2025 6:00 PM documented Augmentin was given. There was no record that it was removed from the automated medication dispensing system. o 2/24/2025 6:00 AM was not given and there was no documented evidence why the medication was not given. o 2/25/2025 6:00 AM documented Augmentin was not given. The medication administration notes documented: did not come from pharmacy and not available in automated medication dispensing system. Supervisor aware. o 2/26/2025 6:00 AM was not given. The medication administration notes documented: not available from pharmacy and none in automated medication dispensing system. Supervisor notified. During an interview on 2/26/2025 at 12:40 PM, Resident #23 stated they missed two or three doses of antibiotics because they were not available. During an interview on 3/02/2025 at 12:12 PM, Nurse Practitioner #2 stated Resident #23 developed pneumonia while being treated for urinary tract infection. They stated the Augmentin that was ordered would have taken care of the urinary tract infection and pneumonia if the nurses had given the medication as ordered. They stated they had to order intravenous antibiotic for Resident # 23's pneumonia because of the missed doses of Augmentin. They stated Resident #47 missed several doses of Clozapine and ended up going to the hospital because they were suicidal. Resident #77 Resident #77 was admitted to the facility with diagnoses of chronic kidney disease (chronic kidney damage that makes it harder for kidneys to filter waste and fluid from the blood), cerebral infarction (a medical condition where the blood flow to the brain is interrupted, leading to the death of brain cells), and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. The Minimum Data Set, dated [DATE] documented the resident was cognitively intact. The resident made themselves understood and was able to understand others. A Laboratory Report dated 12/21/2024 documented the results of a basic metabolic panel (helps doctors check the body's fluid balance and levels of electrolytes) that was collected on 12/20/2024. The potassium result was 5.2 (reference range 3.5 - 5.1) and was flagged as being high. An Order Summary Report for 11/01/2024 to 3/31/2025 documented an order dated 12/21/2024 for sodium zirconium cyclosilicate, give one (1) packet by mouth for hyperkalemia (high level of potassium in the blood often caused by kidney disease) for one (1) day. A nursing note dated 12/21/2024 at 10:54 PM by the Registered Nurse #3 documented they received a call from the provider regarding Resident #77 having a potassium level of 5.2. The provider placed a new order for sodium zirconium cyclosilicate. Registered Nurse #3 contacted the pharmacy, and they reported they were not able to get the medication to the facility until the following afternoon. The provider was made aware and confirmed it was okay that the medication was not available until the following afternoon. The Medication Administration Record dated December 2024 did not document sodium zirconium cyclosilicate was given on 12/22/2024, and there was no documented evidence in a Nursing Progress Note that the provider was notified. A Laboratory Report dated 12/24/2024 documented the results of a basic metabolic panel that was collected on 12/23/2024. The potassium result was 5.4 (reference range 3.5 - 5.1) and was flagged as being high. A Physician Progress Note dated 12/24/2024 at 3:45 PM by Physician #2 documented the resident was seen for routine lab review related to chronic illness. It documented resident received one (1) dose of the sodium zirconium cyclosilicate for potassium of 5.2 on 12/21/2024, and on that day the potassium level was 5.4. There was no documented evidence Resident #77 received sodium zirconium cyclosilicate on 12/21/2024, 12/22/2024, or 12/23/2024. An Order Summary Report for order date range 11/01/2024 to 3/31/2025, documented an order dated 12/24/2024 for sodium zirconium cyclosilicate oral packet 10 grams (sodium zirconium cyclosilicate), give one (1) packet by mouth two (2) times a day for hyperkalemia for one (1) day. An Order Note dated 12/25/2024 at 2:16 AM by Registered Nurse documented the order for sodium zirconium cyclosilicate oral packet 10 grams, give one (1) packet two (2) times a day for hyperkalemia was outside of the recommended dose or frequency. The frequency of two (2) times a day exceeded the usual frequency of every two (2) days to daily. It documented the provider was aware. The Medication Administration Record dated December 2024 documented sodium zirconium cyclosilicate oral packet 10 grams was given on 12/25/2024 at 9:00 AM. Resident #327 Resident #327 was admitted to the facility with fracture of upper and lower end of the right fibula (when the smaller bone in the lower leg is broken at both the knee and the ankle regions), atrial fibrillation (a common heart rhythm disorder where the upper chambers of the heartbeat irregularly and rapidly), and dementia (a chronic generative condition characterized by progressive or persistent memory impairment). The Minimum Data Set, dated [DATE] documented the resident was able to understand and be understood by others. A Physician's Order dated 4/16/2024 documented the resident was to receive Azithromycin (an antibiotic) 500 milligrams intravenously one time a day for pneumonia for two (2) administrations. The Medication Administration Record documented the resident did not receive either dose of the antibiotic. The progress note dated 4/16/2024 documented the nurse was unable to establish intravenous access, the provider was called and did not give any new orders. There was no documentation on the Medication Administration Record or in the progress notes for the missed dose on 4/17/2024. On 4/18/2024, Resident #327 was transferred to the hospital by family request and admitted overnight. The resident was treated for pneumonia and received intravenous antibiotics. During an interview on 3/02/2025 at 1:48 PM, Director of Nursing #1 stated that they were aware there were medications missing from the pharmacy. They had been looking into it. They stated they had not run into any reports of missing medications or medication errors but had just been informed by staff that pharmacy did not send medications. Director of Nursing #1 stated they would expect staff who discovered medications were not in-house to check the automated medication dispensing system to see if there were any available, contact the Medical Doctor to tell them what was available for substitution, document in the Electronic Medical Record that the medication was not available and that the dose was missed, and call the pharmacy to make sure the medication would come on the next run. Missed medications should be reported to the supervisor. Director of Nursing #1 stated they were unaware that there was a medication error form, and that documentation of missed medications should be in the shift-to-shift 24-hour report that was reviewed every day. Director of Nursing #1 stated Nurse Managers were also supposed to check the 24-hour shift to shift report for discrepancies on their units. The Quality Assurance Plan Initiative meeting had occurred one time since they have been a Director of Nursing, and they were having night nurses review carts and medications to ensure that everything was where it needed to be. The pharmacy made three (3) deliveries a day, early in the morning on the overnight shift, in the afternoon on day shift, and on the evening shift around 8:00 PM or 9:00 PM. During an interview on 3/02/2025 2:00 PM, Administrator #1 stated in the past they had reached out to the providers to help figure out issues. They stated they would expect staff to call the pharmacy for missing medication doses and to find out when they could be delivered. Administrator #1 stated they would expect staff to call the Medical Director to see if something else could be given. They stated they would expect staff to monitor the resident and document whatever direction was given by provider. They stated the medication issues in the building just came to light over the last week. The facility completed medication error/missed dose sheets when there was an error or missed medication. Administrator #1 stated they had not received any sheets in January or February 2025 unless they were on the Director of Nursing's desk, and they did not know it. They stated they did not run reports specific to medication issues, but they would expect the nurses would write a progress note that would be on the 24-hour report that gets reviewed daily. They stated they had never heard that there were not enough staff at the facility to get medications passed or resident care done. During an additional interview on 3/02/2025 at 3:11 PM, Administrator #1 stated they had started a house-wide education regarding what was available in the automated medication dispensing system and what to do when something was not available. Supervisors and unit managers had been reeducated on the policy of checking their reports, checking the clinical dashboard for late and/or missing medications. Daily reports would be run regarding medication errors and missed doses and if the providers were notified. Administrator #1 stated they will be checking reports for yellow and red colors (indicated late or missed doses) daily and trying to correct inconsistencies in real time. 10 New York Codes Rules and Regulations 415.12(m)(2)
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0554 (Tag F0554)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, record review, and interview, during the recertification survey, the facility did not ensure a resident wa...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, record review, and interview, during the recertification survey, the facility did not ensure a resident was assessed by the interdisciplinary team to determine a resident's ability to safely administer their own medications if clinically appropriate for 1 (Resident #23) of 1 resident reviewed. Specifically, Resident #23 was observed with topical steroid cream in their room and there was no assessment in the medical record and/or physician order for the resident to self-administer the medication. This is evidenced by: Cross-referenced to F656: Develop/Implement Comprehensive Care Plan Cross-referenced to F711: Physician Visits - Review Care/Notes/Order Resident #23 was admitted with the diagnoses of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (a chronic lung disease that cause progressive and irreversible damage to the airways in the lungs), acute on chronic systolic congestive heart failure (a sudden worsening of symptoms of a pre-existing condition of weakened heart muscles), and type 2 diabetes mellitus (a chronic condition where the body does not use insulin properly or does not produce enough insulin to regulate blood sugar levels). The Minimum Data Set, dated [DATE], documented the resident was cognitively intact. The resident made themselves understood and was able to understand others. The Policy and Procedure titled, Self-Administration of Medications, reviewed 1/2025, documented residents had the right to self-administer medications if the interdisciplinary team had determined that it was clinically appropriate and safe for the resident to do so. As part of their overall evaluation, the staff and practitioner would assess each resident's mental and physical abilities to determine whether self-administering medications was clinically appropriate for the resident. In addition to general evaluation of decision-making capacity, the staff and practitioner would perform a more specific skill assessment including but not limited to the resident's a) ability to read and understand medication labels, b) comprehension of the purpose and proper dosage and administration time for his or her medications, c) ability to remove medications from a container and to ingest and swallow (or otherwise administer) the medications, and d) ability to recognize risks and major adverse consequences of his or her medications. The staff and practitioner would document their findings and the choices of residents who were able to self-administer medications. Self-administered medications must be stored in a safe and secure place, which was not accessible by other residents. If safe storage was not possible in the resident's room, the medications of residents permitted to self-administer would be stored on a central medication cart or in the medication room. Nursing staff would review the self-administered medication record on each nursing shift, and they would transfer pertinent information to the medication administration record kept at the nursing station, appropriately noting that the doses were self-administered. Resident #23 was admitted to the facility with diagnoses of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (a chronic lung disease that cause progressive and irreversible damage to the airways in the lungs), acute on chronic systolic congestive heart failure (a sudden worsening of symptoms of a pre-existing condition of weakened heart muscles), and type 2 diabetes mellitus (a chronic condition where the body does not use insulin properly or does not produce enough insulin to regulate blood sugar levels). The Minimum Data Set, dated [DATE], documented the resident was cognitively intact. The resident made themselves understood and was able to understand others. Physician's Progress Note dated [DATE] at 10:49 AM by Physician #1, documented the resident was seen today [DATE] for rash. The rash was a fungal infection that frequently comes and goes, which previously responded to clotrimazole-betamethasone (Lotrisone Cream). Rash on the bilateral face. Plan: fungal skin rash; take regular shower, clotrimazole-betamethasone 1-0.05% ointment on the lesion twice daily. Medication Administration Record dated February 2025, documented Lotrisone Cream 1-0.05% (clotrimazole-betamethasone) apply to per additional directions topically two times a day for fungal skin rash. There were no instructions for where the medication was to be applied. Start date [DATE] at 5:00 PM and was discontinued following interview with Physician #1 on [DATE] at 3:48 PM. - Lotrisone Cream was administered several times from [DATE] to [DATE]. During an observation and interview on [DATE] at 12:40 PM, Resident #23 stated they were a Registered Nurse for 52 years. When asked about the fungal skin rash, the resident stated they had a rash under their right breast that was caused from not having a bra that properly fit them and being sweaty under the breasts. The resident then picked up a bottle of antifungal powder that was on their nightstand and stated they had been using it regularly for the rash under their breast and pointed to their right breast. The surveyor asked about a rash that was noted on the resident's face which appeared red and blotchy across the forehead, nose, and cheeks. Resident #23 than reached in a bag and handed the surveyor a tube of cream that was in a clear plastic bag with a pharmacy label on it. The facility pharmacy label documented Clotrim/Beta cream 1-0-0.5 % generic for Lotrisone. Apply to per directions topically every dayshift for 14 days. Apply under the breast. Resident #23 stated the nurse left it for them (the resident) to apply themselves. The resident stated they had applied it to the rash on their face. They stated the nurse told them to look in the mirror and apply it to their face. The surveyor told the resident that the directions on the cream stated to apply it under the breast. The resident was not aware it was for the breast and stated they had applied the cream once yesterday afternoon and the rash on their face was gone. There was a red label on the prescription bag that read, for external use only: keep out of the eyes, inside of nose or mouth. Resident #23 stated they read the label and thought it said to affected area only. Resident #23 stated they were normally good at reading labels but does not always wear their glasses. Resident #23 stated they had no formal assessment to self-administer the medication. During an interview on [DATE] at 3:48 PM, Physician #1 stated they saw the resident on [DATE] because of a rash on the face, nose, and forehead. Lotrisone cream was prescribed for the resident's face. They stated the rash comes and goes because the resident was not following proper hygiene. When they saw the resident, they told the resident the plan was for the resident to shower every day and for the Lotrisone cream to be applied on the face on the affected skin. They stated the order for the Lortisone had detailed instruction on where the nurse should apply it. They stated they would not expect the patient to use it themselves. They stated, The instructions were for the nurse, not the patient. They stated they were not aware the resident had a fungal infection under their breast and could not explain why the prescription from the pharmacy documented to apply under the breast. They stated the resident only complained about the rash on their face when they saw them on [DATE]. They stated a fungal infection on the forehead could spread to the rest of the body. During an interview on [DATE] at 4:15 PM, Resident #23 stated the Lotrisone cream was removed from the room shortly after the surveyor left the room earlier that afternoon. The resident stated they told them the medication had expired. Upon further investigation, the surveyor identified a previous order dated [DATE], for Lotrisone Cream to be applied topically every dayshift for dermatitis (inflammation, redness, and itching) for 14 days, to be applied under the right breast. The order ended on [DATE]. During an interview on [DATE] at 2:02 PM, the Registered Nurse Regional Clinical Director #1, stated for self-administering medications, the physician would look at the resident's capacity and determine if they were able to safely administer the medications. A self-administration of medication form would then be completed. The physician would then write an order to leave medications at the bedside. 10 New York Codes Rules and Regulations 415.3(f)(1)(vi)
CONCERN (D)

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

Grievances (Tag F0585)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on interview and record review conducted during a recertification survey, the facility did not ensure residents were aware of the grievance process. Specifically, (1.) grievance forms were not r...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on interview and record review conducted during a recertification survey, the facility did not ensure residents were aware of the grievance process. Specifically, (1.) grievance forms were not readily available to residents; (2.) residents did not have the option to file a grievance anonymously; and (3.) 12 of 12 residents present at the Resident Council meeting reported they did not know the process by which to file a grievance. This is evidenced by: The facility policy, Filing A Grievance/Complaint dated 11/2016, documented any resident or resident representative may file a grievances and/or complaint regarding care, treatment, staff members etc. without fear of retaliation. Grievances could be made orally or in writing. The facility had a designated Grievance Officer who investigated grievances and/or complaints. During the Resident Council meeting held on 2/24/2025 at 10:34 AM, residents present did not know how to file a grievance and were unsure who the Grievance Officer was. Residents stated they would bring concerns to the Resident Council President or the Activity's Director. Some residents reported that they feared retaliation if they made a complaint. During an interview on 2/24/2025 at 10:34 AM, Activity's Director #1 stated that when they received a complaint or grievance, they informed the appropriate department and the social worker. They were not aware of a grievance form. During an interview on 2/24/2025 at 2:57 PM, Director of Social Work #1 stated they were the Grievance Officer and had grievance forms in their office. They believed there were forms in the supervisor's office, but they were not sure if forms were available on the units. Staff collected statements from residents, provided them to Director of Social Work 1, they collaborated with the appropriate department to resolve the complaint, and provided follow up to resident and/or resident representative. They had an open-door policy and received many informal complaints. Director of Social Work #1 reported they were not sure if there was anyway to file a grievance anonymously. During an interview on 3/07/2024 at 2:00 PM, Regional Clinical Director of Nursing #1, stated if a resident made a complaint, the staff would take down the grievance, have the Social Worker talk with the resident, then the complaint would be brought to the Administrator and Director of Nursing to have it addressed. They acknowledged that the facility had already taken corrective action to address the process for filing grievances. During an interview on 3/07/2025 at 2:41 PM, Administrator #1 stated that they were unaware of the issues surrounding grievances but as soon as the concern was raised during survey, the process was examined and the staff educated on officially filing grievances. Additionally, a locked box for grievances was installed outside the social work office in order to facilitate residents being able to file grievances anonymously. 10 New York Code Rules and Regulations 415.3(c)(1)(i)
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 record review and interviews during a recertification survey, the facility did not ensure that all alleged violations i...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review and interviews during a recertification survey, the facility did not ensure that all alleged violations involving abuse were reported immediately, or no later than 2 hours after the allegation was made for 2 (Residents #68 and #113) for 6 reviewed for abuse. Specifically, an allegation of a resident-to-resident altercation was reported by Resident #113 on 12/13/2024. The incident was not reported to the New York State Department of Health. This is evidenced by: The policy and procedure titled, Abuse Prevention Program/Abuse and Neglect - Clinical Protocol/Abuse Investigation and Reporting reviewed 1/2023 documented all reports of resident abuse, neglect, exploitation, misappropriation of resident property, mistreatment and/or injuries of unknown source (abuse) shall be promptly reported to local, state and .federal agencies (as defined by current regulations). Resident #68 was admitted to the facility with the diagnoses of Alzheimer's disease, osteoarthritis, and thrombocytopenia (a condition characterized by abnormally low levels of platelets. The Minimum Data Set (an assessment tool) dated 1/28/2025 documented the resident was understood by others, able to understand others, and was severely cognitively impaired. Resident #113 was admitted to the facility with the diagnoses of alcoholic cirrhosis of the liver (a permanent scarring that damages your liver and interferes with its functioning. It can lead to liver failure), acute kidney failure, and hypotension. The Minimum Data Set, dated [DATE] documented the resident was understood by others, able to understand others and was cognitively intact. The Incident Report dated 12/13/2024 at 3:30 PM documented Resident #113 reported to staff that Resident #68 had entered their room, knocked off their hat and tapped them on their cheek. Both residents were assessed with no injury. The Summary of Investigation documented Resident #113 felt safe in the facility. It documented that Resident #68 was not malicious and had no intent to cause injury or harm to Resident #113. The facility declined to report the incident to the New York State Department of Health. During an interview on 03/07/25 at 2:30 PM, Administrator #1 stated Resident #113 had self-reported to staff that Resident #68 had taken off their hat and tapped them on the head. It was determined in the investigation that the incident was playful in manner and not malicious and was not reported to Department of Health because of that. 10 New York Codes, Rules, and Regulations 415.4(b)(2)
CONCERN (D)

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

Transfer Notice (Tag F0623)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interviews and record review during a recertification survey, the facility did not ensure that written notification was...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interviews and record review during a recertification survey, the facility did not ensure that written notification was sent to the resident, the resident's representative, and to the Office of State Long-Term Care Ombudsman of the resident's transfer or discharge for 2 (Residents #112 and 123) of 2 residents reviewed for hospitalization. Specifically, (a.) for Resident #112, written notification of transfer to the hospital was not provided to the Ombudsman for 3 out of 4 hospital admissions; (b.) for Resident #123, written notification of transfer was not provided to the resident, the resident's representative, or the Ombudsman when the resident was admitted to the hospital from the facility on 12/27/2024 . This is evidenced by: The facility policy titled, Transfer or Discharge Notice revised on 10/2022, documented the resident and/or resident representative was to be notified in writing of the reason for the transfer or discharge, the effective date of transfer or discharge, location at which the resident was being transferred or discharged , and of the resident's appeal rights. When a resident was temporarily transferred to an acute care facility on an emergency basis, notice of the transfer may be provided to the resident or resident representative as soon as practicable according to 42 Code of Federal Regulations 483.15(c)(4)(ii)(D). Copies of notices of emergency transfers would also be sent to the Ombudsman when practicable, such as providing a list of residents to the Ombudsman on a monthly basis. Resident #112 Resident 112 was admitted to the facility with diagnoses of metabolic encephalopathy (a change in how your brain works due to an underlying condition), type 2 diabetes (a chronic condition characterized by insulin resistance and high blood sugar levels), and end stage renal disease (the final stage of chronic kidney disease, where the kidneys have permanently lost most of their ability to function). The Minimum Data Set (an assessment tool) dated 1/26/2025, documented the resident was understood, understands others, and was cognitively intact. A physician progress note, dated 12/31/2024 at 11:55 AM, documented Resident #112 was sent to the hospital to receive dialysis because they had missed their previous dialysis appointment due to feeling lethargic and nauseous. A physician progress note, dated 1/05/2025 at 10:46 AM, documented Resident #112 was sent to the hospital per their request for pain control. A physician progress note, dated 1/11/2025 at 6:17 PM, documented Resident #112 was sent to the hospital due to unresponsiveness and low blood sugars. A nursing progress note, dated 2/25/2025 at 3:36 PM, documented Resident #112 was sent to the hospital due to a critical lab value. During an interview on 3/07/2025 at 10:10 AM, Director of Social Work #1, stated the transfer/discharge notices for Resident #112 for dates 12/31/2024, 1/05/2025, and 1/11/2025 were not documented as sent to the Ombudsman as they should have been. During an interview on 3/07/2025 at 2:24 PM, Regional Clinical Director of Nursing #1, reported that a paper copy of the transfer/discharge notice needed to be sent to the resident and Ombudsman anytime someone transfer/discharges. During an interview on 3/07/2025 at 2:25 PM, Administrator #1, stated that they believed that transfer/discharge notifications were sent to the Ombudsman monthly and was unaware that the notices were not being sent as expected. Resident #123 Resident #123 was admitted to the facility with diagnoses of acute kidney failure (a sudden decline in the functioning of kidneys), absolute glaucoma (increased intraocular pressure that results in permanent vision loss and blindness), and type 2 diabetes (a chronic condition characterized by insulin resistance and high blood sugar levels). The Minimum Data Set, dated [DATE], documented that the resident was understood, could understand others, and had mild cognitive impairments. The resident required substantial/maximal assistance with most activities of daily living. A progress note dated 12/27/2024 at 5:13 AM, documented that Resident #123 was found on the floor during rounds facedown and reported a headache. The nurse practitioner ordered the resident be sent to the hospital. Family was made aware. A neurology consult note from the hospital, dated 12/28/2024 at 3:46 AM, documented Resident #123 was admitted to the hospital on [DATE] status post fall. During an interview on 2/26/2025 at 4:10 PM, Director of Social Work #1 stated that a final discharge notification was never sent to Resident #123, the resident's representative, or the Ombudsman. They stated they did not provide the resident or resident representative with a transfer/discharge notice when they were sent to the hospital. They reported discharge notification forms were only sent to the Ombudsman for voluntary or against medical advice discharges, not for hospital transfers or discharges. During an interview on 2/27/2025 at 11:35 AM, Administrator #1 stated when a resident is sent to the hospital, they should be sent with the transfer/discharge form. Administrator #1 acknowledged the Ombudsman was not notified of Resident #123's transfer to the hospital. 10 New York Code of Rules and Regulations 415.3(i)(1)(iii)(a-c)
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0625 (Tag F0625)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review and interviews during the recertification survey, the facility did not ensure written notice of the facil...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review and interviews during the recertification survey, the facility did not ensure written notice of the facility's bed hold policy was provided to the resident and/or representative upon transfer to the hospital for 2 (Residents #112 and 123) of 2 residents reviewed for hospitalizations. Specifically, a written notice of the facility's bed hold policy was not provided to the resident and/or their representative upon discharge to the hospital. This is evidenced by: The facility policy titled, Bed-Holds and Returns, dated 1/2022, documented residents or resident representatives would be informed in writing of the bed hold and return policy prior to transfers and therapeutic leave. Resident #112 Resident #112 was admitted to the facility with diagnoses of metabolic encephalopathy (a change in how your brain works due to an underlying condition), type 2 diabetes (a chronic condition characterized by insulin resistance and high blood sugar levels), and end stage renal disease (the final stage of chronic kidney disease, where the kidneys have permanently lost most of their ability to function. The Minimum Data Set (an assessment tool), dated 1/26/2025, documented the resident was understood, understands others, and was cognitively intact. A physician progress note, dated 12/31/2024 at 11:55 AM, documented Resident #112 was sent to the hospital to receive dialysis because they had missed their previous dialysis appointment due to feeling lethargic and nauseous. A physician progress note, dated 1/05/2025 at 10:46 AM, documented Resident #112 was sent to the hospital per their request for pain control. A physician progress note, dated 1/11/2025 at 6:17 PM, documented Resident #112 was sent to the hospital due to unresponsiveness and low blood sugars. A nursing progress note, dated 2/25/2025 at 3:36 PM, documented Resident #112 was sent to the hospital due to a critical lab value. There was no documented evidence that a written notice of the facility's bed hold policy was provided to the resident or resident representative upon transfer to the hospital on [DATE], 1/05/2025, 1/11/2025, and 2/25/2025. Resident #123 Resident #123 was admitted to the facility with diagnoses of acute kidney failure (a sudden decline in the functioning of kidneys), absolute glaucoma (increased intraocular pressure that results in permanent vision loss and blindness), and type 2 diabetes (a chronic condition characterized by insulin resistance and high blood sugar levels. The Minimum Data Set, dated [DATE], documented that the resident was understood, could understand others, and had mild cognitive impairments. The resident required substantial/maximal assistance with most activities of daily living. A progress note dated 12/27/2024 at 5:13 AM, documented that Resident #123 was found on the floor during rounds facedown and reported a headache. The Nurse Practitioner ordered the resident be sent to the hospital. Family was made aware. A neurology consult note from the hospital, dated 12/28/2024 at 3:46 AM, documented Resident #123 was admitted to the hospital on [DATE] status post fall. The medical record did not include documentation that the resident and/or resident representative was provided with a copy of the bed hold policy upon their transfer to the hospital on [DATE]. During an interview on 2/26/2025 at 3:30 PM, Social Worker #1 stated that all bed hold notifications should be sent with the resident at the time of transfer. They acknowledged that Resident #123 was sent to the hospital on [DATE] and reported the bed hold policy should have been sent with the resident to the hospital. During an interview on 2/26/2025 at 4:10 PM, Director of Social Work #1 stated on the 7:00 AM to 3:00 PM shift, the social work department was responsible for providing the bed hold policy to the resident and/or representative at the time of transfer. They reviewed the bed hold policy with the resident and/or representative and then documented the conversation in their progress notes. The Registered Nurse supervisor was responsible for providing and reviewing the bed hold policy with the resident and/or representative prior to transfer on the second and third shift. Director of Social Work #1 stated that there was no documentation to support that the bed hold policy was reviewed or provided to Resident #123 when transferred to the hospital on [DATE]. During an interview on 2/27/2025 at 11:35 AM, Administrator #1 stated when a resident was sent to the hospital, the Registered Nurse Supervisor was responsible for calling the resident ' s representative to review the bed hold policy and a notification of bed hold should be sent to the representative by mail. They acknowledged the bed hold procedure had not been followed for Resident #123. Review of the bed hold with the resident ' s representative was not documented in the progress notes and the bed hold notification was not uploaded to the chart as having been mailed. 10 New York Codes Rules Regulations 415.3(h)(4)(iii)(a)
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0645 (Tag F0645)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review and interviews during the recertification survey, the facility did not ensure that each resident was scre...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review and interviews during the recertification survey, the facility did not ensure that each resident was screened for a mental disorder or intellectual disability prior to admission for 1 (Resident #47) of 32 residents reviewed. Specifically, the Preadmission Screening and Resident Review (PASARR, New York State Department of Health form 695) did not identify Resident #47 as having a serious mental illness when indicated, and a Level II referral was not made. This is evidenced by: The Policy and Procedure titled, Preadmission Screening and Resident Review (PASARR), dated 9/2021, documented the admissions coordinator would obtain a Preadmission Screening and Resident Review for all new residents admitted to the facility and a Level II Screen when required. The admission coordinator and/or social worker would review the screen to ensure completion, and that placement was appropriate for the resident. When a Level II is required based on the screen, the admission coordinator would notify the hospital, so that a Level II could be completed and obtained prior to admission to the facility. Resident #47 was admitted to the facility with diagnoses of schizophrenia (a mental condition characterized by thoughts or experiences that seem out of touch with reality), generalized anxiety disorder (a mental health condition that causes fear, a constant feeling of being overwhelmed, and excessive worry about everyday things), and major depression disorder (mood disorder that causes a persistent feeling of sadness and loss of interest). The Minimum Data Set (an assessment tool), dated 10/01/2024, documented the resident was cognitively intact, could be understood, and understand others. The Preadmission Screen and Resident Review for Resident #47, dated 9/24/2024, Level 1 Review for Possible Mental Illness (MI) (question 23- does this person have a serious mental illness?) documented no, when the resident had a diagnosis of schizophrenia, prior to admission. A Level II referral (questions 33 and 35) were not completed. There was no documented evidence of a Level II referral for Resident #47. A hospital Discharge summary dated [DATE], documented Resident #47 was in the hospital from [DATE] to 11/25/2024 for bacterial pneumonia, pleural effusion (a buildup of fluid between the tissues that line the lung and the chest), and acute exacerbation of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. They transitioned to the Psychiatric unit on 11/21/2024 due to suicidal ideation and required 1 to 1 supervision for safety. Psychotropic medications were adjusted, and the 1 to 1 supervision was lifted prior to discharge back to the facility. A psychiatry note dated 11/27/2024, documented that Resident #47 had a history of Schizophrenia with confusion, paranoid delusions and auditory hallucinations. Resident #47 had multiple inpatient hospitalizations in their lifetime. The Comprehensive Care Plan dated 12/02/2024, documented Resident #47 displayed or reported the following moods; feeling down, depressed, hopeless, feeling tired or having little energy, isolates, little interested or pleasure in doing things. Resident #47 has a history of Suicidal Ideation (last statement 11/25/2024, no plan). Has a diagnosis of Schizophrenia. The Annual Minimum Data Set, dated [DATE], documented that Resident #47 received antipsychotics on a routine basis only. During an interview on 3/05/2025 at 9:50 AM, Director of Social Work #1 stated that the Preadmission Screen and Resident Review/Screen comes from the hospital or as part of the admission packet and gets reviewed. Director of Social Work #1 was not screen certified, but they would check the resident's diagnoses to see if the resident needed a level II referral. In the event that a Screen was found to be inaccurate upon a resident's arrival to the facility, they would reach out to the Regional Admissions Coordinator, who is Screen certified, for assistance. 10 New York Code of Rules and Regulations 415.11(e)
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

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 record reviews and interviews during the recertification survey , the facility did not ensure a resident with pressure ...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record reviews and interviews during the recertification survey , the facility did not ensure a resident with pressure ulcers received necessary treatment and services consistent with professional standards of practice, to promote healing, prevent infection, and prevent new ulcers from developing for one (1) (Resident #115) of three (3) residents reviewed. Specifically, for Resident #115, the wound care treatment ordered by provider not was followed. Specifically, on 2/11/2025, when the resident was assessed with a pressure on their left heel and on 2/18/2025, when the resident was seen by the wound care provider for further assessment of the wound. Additionally, the facility failed to ensure a care plan was developed timely and implemented to promote healing of the wound and to prevent infection. A care plan was not developed until 2/27/2025. This is evidenced by: Resident #115 was admitted to the facility with diagnoses of urinary tract infection, acute kidney failure and age-related physical disability. The Minimum Data Set, dated [DATE], documented the resident had moderate cognitive impairment. The resident made themselves understood and was able to understand others. The facility policy and procedure titled Pressure Ulcers/Injuries Overview and reviewed 1/25 documented the purpose of the policy was to provide information regarding clinical identification of pressure ulcers/injuries and associated risk factors, which were derived from definitions in the Code of Federal Regulations 483.25(b)(1) Pressure Ulcers (F686). The policy documented definitions of medical terms related to pressure ulcers. The facility policy and procedure titled Wound Care and reviewed 1/25 documented the purpose of the policy was to provide guidelines for the care of wounds to promote healing. Preparation for wound care documented to verify there was a physician's order for the procedure. The type of wound care given was to be recorded in the resident's medical record. Care Plan for Resident documented Impaired Skin Integrity related to fragile skin which was initiated 2/5/2025 and revised 2/12/2025. The goals of the care plan dated 2/12/2025 documented the resident's impaired skin area would show signs of improvement/healing and the resident would not develop additional sites of impaired skin integrity. The sites of impairment were not documented. Interventions included apply treatment per physician order and refer to appropriate medical specialist as needed for evaluation and treatment. Wound Assessment and Plan dated 2/11/2025 by the wound care provider documented a stage 3 (F/Thk, Depth to SubQ) (full thickness loss of skin in which subcutaneous fat may be visible in the ulcer and granulation tissue (pink-red moist tissue that fills an open wound when it starts to heal) on the left heel. The wound onset date was documented as 2/11/2025 and measured 7 centimeters length x 8 centimeters width x 0.1 centimeters depth. The wound bed tissue composition was 50% epithelial (superficial pink or white tissue that migrates across the wound and occurs in the final stage of healing)/50% granulation. There were no signs of infection. -Wound care provider treatment order dated 2/11/2025, documented that every Tuesday, Thursday and Saturday: cleanse the wound with normal saline or sterile water and apply to alginate (absorbs wound fluid while creating a moist environment) to wound bed. Cover with dry clean dressing and as instructed. Specialized foam dressing: foam - follow manufacturer recommendations. Treatment Administration Record dated February 2025: - The wound care provider's treatment order for the left heel dated 2/11/2025 was not documented as ordered on the administration record. There was an order dated 2/12/2025 for the left heel: clean area with normal saline/sterile water, apply calcium alginate and cover with dry protective dressing and wrap, every dayshift for wound care. The order did not include the foam dressing and that it was to be done on Tuesday, Thursday, and Saturday. o Treatment was administered from 2/12/2025 to 2/16/2025, was not administered on 2/17/2025 (was blank), was administered on 2/18/2025 to 2/20/2025, and was not administered on 2/21/2025 (was blank). - Additionally, there was a previous physician order dated 2/5/2025 that documented left heel open blister cover with Optifoam (foam dressing) heel dressing every day for wound care. o From 2/11/2025 to 2/18/2025, it was documented that this treatment for the left heel continued to be administered concurrently with the order dated 2/12/2025, except for 2/17/2025, when it was documented as not administered. The Wound Assessment and Plan dated 2/18/2025 by the wound care provider documented a stage 3 wound on the left heel. The onset date of the wound was 2/11/2025, and measured 5 centimeters length x 6 centimeters width x 0.1 centimeters depth on 2/18/2025. The wound bed tissue composition was 70% granulation/30% eschar (dead or devitalized tissue that is hard or soft in texture and usually black, brown, or tan in color and may appear scab-like). Healing status: same/stable. There were no signs of infection. -The wound care provider's treatment order for the left heel dated 2/18/2025 documented no changes from the order dated 2/11/2025. Treatment Administration Record dated February 2025: - The wound care provider's treatment order for the left heel dated 2/18/2025 was not documented as ordered on the administration record. There was an order dated 2/22/2025 for the left heel: clean area with normal saline/sterile water, apply calcium alginate and cover with dry protective dressing and wrap, every dayshift for wound care. The order did not include the foam dressing and that it was to be done on Tuesday, Thursday, and Saturday. o Treatment was administered from 2/22/2025 to 2/25/2025. - Additionally, there was a previous physician order dated 2/5/2025, that documented left heel open blister cover with Optifoam (foam dressing) heel dressing every day for wound care. o From 2/22/2025 to 2/25/2025, it was documented that this treatment for the left heel continued to be administered concurrently with the order dated 2/22/2025, except for 2/24/2025, when it was documented as not administered. A care plan for the pressure ulcer on the left heel was not developed and implemented until 2/27/2025. - The Care Plan for Resident had Alteration in Skin Integrity related to pressure injury to left heel (5x8), initiated 2/27/2025 and revised 3/03/2025. Interventions included assess the wound weekly and document wound measurements, wound bed appearance, odor, drainage, and surrounding tissue and refer to the wound care specialist as needed. During an interview on 3/06/2025 at 2:37 PM, Licensed Practical Nurse #8 stated if a resident refused a treatment, they would write a note and would notify the manager or charge nurse and call the provider if needed. They stated wound treatment orders were documented on the treatment administration record and there should not be blanks on the treatment record, which indicated it was not done. They stated wound care should be done per the physician order. Licensed Practical Nurse #8 was aware that Resident #115 was ordered to have wound care treatments. During an interview on 3/07/2025 at 3:08 PM, Registered Nurse Regional Clinical Director #1 stated if the nurse did not have enough time to complete a treatment during their shift, they should notify the provider and provide a hand off to the next shift. 10 New York Codes Rules and Regulations 415.12(c)(1)
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, record review, and interviews conducted during the recertification survey, the facility did not ensure th...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observations, record review, and interviews conducted during the recertification survey, the facility did not ensure that each resident received the necessary respiratory care and services that is in accordance with professional standards of practice, the comprehensive person-centered care plan and the residents' goals and preference for three (3) (Resident #'s 23, 51 and 231) of 5 residents reviewed for oxygen administration. Specifically, (a.) for Resident #s 23 and 231 who were ordered to have medications via nebulizer, the facility did not ensure documentation of nebulizer maintenance; and (b.) for Resident #51, supplemental oxygen was not provided as ordered by the physician. This is evidenced by: The Policy and Procedure titled, Nebulizer Treatment and Maintenance, effective 1/2025, documented to ensure safe and effective use of the nebulizer for medication administration, all staff and caregivers must follow proper procedures for its operation, cleaning, and maintenance. Regular maintenance of nebulizer tubing and components was required to prevent contamination and ensure optimal function. Nebulizer maintenance included daily cleaning after each use, weekly tubing replacement, filter maintenance per manufacturer's guidelines or when visibly dirty, and storage of the nebulizer. The facility policy titled, Oxygen Administration, date effective 10/1997 and last revised 10/2024, documented under Preparation, (1) verify that there is a physician's order for this procedure. Review the physician's orders or facility protocol for oxygen administration; (2) review the residents' care plan to assess for any special needs of the resident; (3) assemble the equipment and supplies as needed. The policy did not include instructions for the documentation of nebulizer maintenance. Resident #23 Resident #23 was admitted with the diagnoses of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (a chronic lung disease that cause progressive and irreversible damage to the airways in the lungs), acute on chronic systolic congestive heart failure (a sudden worsening of symptoms of a pre-existing condition of weakened heart muscles), and type 2 diabetes mellitus (a chronic condition where the body does not use insulin properly or does not produce enough insulin to regulate blood sugar levels). The Minimum Data Set (an assessment tool) dated 1/24/2025, documented the resident was cognitively intact. The resident made themselves understood and was able to understand others. Care Plan for Resident #23 has an Alteration in Respiratory System related to Chronic Obstructive pulmonary disease and shortness of breath when lying flat, revised 2/12/2025. Interventions included administer treatments (nebulizer) and medications per physician orders. During an observation on 2/24/2025 at 12:08 PM, Resident #23's nebulizer was on the bedside table and was unplugged. There was no date on the nebulizer tubing. Medication Administration Record dated February 2025, documented Ipratropium - Albuterol Solution 0.5-2.5 (3) milligrams/3 milliliters, 3 milliliters inhale orally every 4 hours as needed for shortness of breath or wheezing via nebulizer. Start date 1/3/2025 at 2:50 PM. -The medication was administered on 2/25/2025. During an observation on 2/24/2025 at 12:08 PM, Resident #23's nebulizer was on the bedside table and was unplugged. There was no date on the nebulizer tubing. During an interview on 2/26/2025 at 12:40 PM, Resident #23 stated they received Pulmicort and albuterol via the nebulizer. Treatment Administration Record dated February 2025 did not document nebulizer maintenance was performed. Resident #51 Resident #51 was admitted to the facility with the diagnoses of acute and chronic respiratory failure with hypercapnia (functional failure of the lungs that can result when there is too much carbon dioxide in the blood), chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (a progressive lung disease characterized by chronic respiratory symptoms and airflow limitation), and nondisplaced fracture of medical condyle of left femur (type of fracture where the bone remains in its original position but was still broken). The Minimum Data Set, dated [DATE] documented that the resident was able to understand others, be understood and was minimally cognitively compromised. The facility policy titled, Oxygen Administration, date effective 10/1997 and last revised 10/2024, documented under Preparation, (1) verify that there is a physician's order for this procedure. Review the physician's orders or facility protocol for oxygen administration; (2) review the residents' care plan to assess for any special needs of the resident; (3) assemble the equipment and supplies as needed. The Comprehensive Care Plan for Alteration in Respiratory System, date initiated 9/20/2024 and last revised 2/11/2025, documented under Focus: Resident #51 has an alteration in respiratory system related to shortness of breath when lying flat. Under Goal, the plan documented Resident #51 will receive adequate oxygenation as evidenced by resident's acceptable pulse oximetry level through the review date. Under Interventions include: administer treatments (nebulizer) and medications per medical doctor orders; elevate head of bed greater than 35 degrees to prevent shortness of breath; and provide oxygen per medical director orders. Maintain/change tubing per protocol. During an observation on 2/24/2025 at 11:15 AM, Resident #51's oxygen concentrator was set to 4 liters nasal cannula. During an observation on 3/06/2025 at 9:44 AM, Resident #51's portable oxygen flow rate was set for 2 liters nasal cannula. A Physician order dated 1/16/2025 at 11:00 PM documented Resident #51 should have oxygen via nasal cannula at 4 liters per minute to keep stats above 88%. Resident #231 Resident #231 was admitted to the facility with diagnoses of cerebral infarction (stroke), acute cough, and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (a progressive lung disease characterized by chronic respiratory symptoms and airflow limitation). The Minimum Data Set, dated [DATE], documented the resident had moderate cognitive impairment. The resident usually made themselves understood and was usually able to understand others. Care Plan for Resident #231 has an Alteration in Respiratory System related to chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, shortness of breath, and acute laryngitis, revised 3/05/2025. Interventions included administer treatments (nebulizer) and medications per physician orders. Resident #231 observation on 2/26/2025 at 11:13 AM. The resident's nebulizer tubing was not dated. Medication Administration Record dated February 2025, documented Albuterol Sulfate Nebulization Solution (2.5 milligrams/3 milliliters) 0.083%, 3 milliliters inhale orally via nebulizer every 6 hours as needed for shortness of breath. Start date 2/18/2025 at 1:45 PM. - The medication was administered on 2/23/2025 and 2/24/2025. Treatment Administration Record dated February 2025 did not document nebulizer maintenance was performed. During an interview on 3/07/2025 at 11:56 AM, Licensed Practical Nurse #5 stated that when the nebulizer treatment was complete, they would clean the mask and leave it to dry on clean paper towels. When asked by what they meant as clean, Licensed Practical Nurse #5 stated that they ran it under hot water. Licensed Practical Nurse #5 stated that the tubing needed to be labeled and should be good for a week. When asked what they would do if the tubing wasn't labeled, or the Licensed Practical Nurse #5 would do if the tubing was not labeled. They stated that they would get new supplies. Anytime the tubing was changed, the mask should have been changed too. The changing of the tubing and supplied should be documented on the Treatment Administration Record and believed that the night shift changed the tubing. During an interview on 3/07/2025 at 2:00 PM, Regional Director of Nursing #1 stated that licensed staff was responsible for oxygen administration and well as the nebulizer treatments. Licensed staff were supposed to check the order for the set flow rate, document the administration time, how long the treatment took, and the assessment after the respiratory treatment. The tubing and mask should be covered when not in use and cleaned after the treatment was complete. Regional Director of Nursing #1 stated that they believed that was in an order set that was set up when the orders for nebulizer treatments were ordered. 10 New York Code of Rules and Regulations 415.12(k)(6)
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 F0698 (Tag F0698)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observations, record review, and interviews during a recertification and abbreviated survey (Case # NY00347964), the fa...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observations, record review, and interviews during a recertification and abbreviated survey (Case # NY00347964), the facility did not ensure that residents who required dialysis received such services, consistent with professional standards of practice, for two (2) (Resident #s 11, and 110) of 3 residents reviewed for dialysis. Specifically, (a) the facility did not ensure nursing consistently completed, reviewed, and logged dialysis communication sheets for Resident #110 on between 2/18/2025 and 2/26/2025; (b) for Resident #11, there was no ongoing communication and collaboration with the dialysis facility and ongoing assessments in January 2025 and February 2025. This is evidenced by: The facility policy titled, Dialysis, effective date 10/1997 and last revised 1/2024, documented that the facility shall seek to have a written agreement with all Dialysis Center providers who service residents in the facility. The facility would also maintain a communication log with the respective centers on all its residents who go out for Dialysis. In Procedures, the policy documented the following: (1) The administrator would be kept abreast of all the Dialysis Centers who treated facility residents; (2) An agreement with vendor would be sought and effectuated, listing the necessary requirements and services to be rendered; (3) Executed copies of the various agreements would be maintained by the Administrator; (4) A Communications Log would be used for each resident who leaves the building for Dialysis, in order to communicate the residents needs and response to the Dialysis treatments; and (5) Inter-facility communications will be tracked and followed up on. Resident #11: Resident #11 was admitted to the facility with diagnoses of end stage renal disease (loss of kidney function to the point where they no longer work), dependence on renal dialysis (dependence on mechanical filtration of the blood due to kidney failure), and type 2 diabetes mellitus with unspecified complications (a chronic condition where the body does not use insulin properly or does not produce enough insulin to regulate blood sugar levels). The Minimum Data Set (an assessment tool) dated 11/23/2024, documented the resident was cognitively intact. The resident made themselves understood and was able to understand others. The Care Plan for Resident needs dialysis related to end stage renal disease, revised 12/09/2024, documented the resident attends dialysis at a facility on Monday, Wednesday, and Friday at 2:30 PM. Care plan interventions included encourage the resident to go to scheduled dialysis appointments and monitor/document/report to physician signs and symptoms of depression. There was no documented evidence of care plan intervention for assessing and/or monitoring the resident before and after dialysis. The Order Summary Report for order date range 12/01/2024 to 3/31/2025 documented orders dated 12/6/2024 for (a.) book was to be completed for the resident's dialysis treatment one time a day every Monday, Wednesday and Friday for pre (before dialysis, and (b.) book was to be collected, and post notes were to be charted in the evening every Monday, Wednesday, and Friday for post (after) dialysis. Review of the Dialysis Treatment Communication forms documented: - On 1/06/2025, the Prior to Treatment section; the resident's name and vital signs was not completed (was blank) and was not signed by a nurse. The Return from Treatment section was not completed (was blank) and was not signed and dated by the Registered Nurse. - On 1/13/2025, the Return from Treatment section; review and acknowledgement of dialysis communication/recommendations was not completed with the resident's vital signs (was blank) and was not signed and dated by the Registered nurse. - On 1/15/2025, the Dialysis Center section; treatment prior to discharge from treatment was not completed (was blank). The Return from Treatment section was not completed with the resident's vital signs (was blank) and was not signed and dated by the Registered nurse. - On 1/29/2025, the Dialysis Center section; treatment prior to discharge from treatment was not completed (was blank). The Return from Treatment section was not completed with the resident's vital signs (was blank) and was not signed and dated by the Registered nurse. - On 2/03/2025, the Return from Treatment section; review and acknowledgement of dialysis communication/recommendations was not completed with the resident's vital signs (was blank) and was not signed and dated by the Registered nurse. - On 2/05/2025, the Prior to Treatment section; the resident's name and vital signs was not completed (was blank) and was not signed by a nurse. The Return from Treatment section was not completed (was blank) and was not signed and dated by the Registered Nurse. - On 2/10/2025, the Dialysis Center section; treatment prior to discharge from treatment was not completed (was blank). The Return from Treatment section was not completed with the resident's vital signs (was blank) and was not signed and dated by the Registered nurse. - On 2/12/2025, the Return from Treatment section; was not completed with the resident's vital signs (was blank) and was not signed and dated by the Registered nurse. - On 2/17/2025, the Return from Treatment section; was not completed with the resident's vital signs (was blank) and was not signed and dated by the Registered nurse. During an interview on 2/28/2025 at 3:19 PM, Resident #11 stated they went out of the facility for hemodialysis treatments three times a week on Monday, Wednesday, and Friday. They stated they usually took the communication book with them because it was important documentation that was an important part of their care. During an interview on 3/07/2025 at 11:50 AM, Licensed Practical Nurse #8 stated it was expected that the dialysis communication book be filled out by the nurse prior to a resident leaving for dialysis. This includes full vital signs and any concerns or medication changes. It was also expected that upon return from dialysis, any communication from the dialysis center would be entered into the electronic medical record. They stated the unit clerk would scan the individual sheets into the electronic medical record every Monday. They stated there was a section in the Medication Administration Record for the nurse to sign off that vital signs were taken before the resident left for dialysis. They did not know why it would not be filled out. During an interview on 3/07/2025 at 11:50 AM, Licensed Practical Nurse #8 stated it was expected that the dialysis communication book be filled out by the nurse prior to a resident leaving for dialysis. This includes full vital signs and any concerns or medication changes. It was also expected that upon return from dialysis, any communication from the dialysis center would be entered into the electronic medical record. They stated the unit clerk would scan the individual sheets into the electronic medical record every Monday. They stated there was a section in the Medication Administration Record for the nurse to sign off that vital signs were taken before the resident left for dialysis. They did not know why it would not be filled out. Resident #110 Resident #110 was admitted to the facility with the diagnoses of end stage renal disease (loss of kidney function to the point where they no longer work), generalized arthritis (cartilage of several joints has slowly broken down, leading to joint pain and stiffness), and acute respiratory failure (lungs were unable to release enough oxygen to the blood). The Minimum Data Set, dated [DATE], documented the resident usually understood others, was usually able to be understood, and was minimally cognitively impaired. The Comprehensive Care Plan for Dialysis, dated initiated 7/30/2024 and last revised on 11/20/2024, documented the focus of Resident #110 would attend dialysis 3 times a week (Tuesday, Thursday, and Saturday), and that Resident #110 had a dialysis catheter. The documented goals were Resident #110 would have immediate intervention should any signs or symptoms of complications from dialysis occurred through the review date; and Resident #110 would have no signs or symptoms of complications from dialysis through the review date. The interventions documented were as follows: - Monitor intake and output. - Monitor/document/report to medical director as needed any signs or symptoms of infection to access site redness, swelling, warmth or drainage. - Monitor/document/report to medical director as needed for signs or symptoms of renal insufficiency: changes in level of consciousness, changes in skin turgor, oral mucosa, changes in heart and lung sounds. - Monitor/document/report to medical director as needed for signs or symptoms of the following: bleeding, hemorrhage, bacteremia, septic shock. - Obtain vital signs and weight per protocol. Report significant changes in pulse, respirations and blood pressure immediately. During an observation on 2/24/2025 at 10 AM, Resident #110's dialysis binder, which was to have the communication sheets between the facility and the dialysis center, contained only an incomplete sheet dated 2/18/2025. The Prior to Treatment section; the resident's name and vital signs was not completed (was blank) and was not signed by a nurse. The Return from Treatment section was not completed (was blank) and was not signed and dated by the Registered Nurse. The sheets for 2/20/2025 and 2/22/2025 were not able to be located by facility staff. During an observation on 2/26/2025 at 9:37 AM, Resident #110's dialysis book contained only the previously observed incomplete communication sheet dated 2/18/2025. During an interview on 2/24/2025 at 9:30 AM, Resident #110 stated that their dialysis book had been lost. They had last seen it when they went to dialysis and then they did not see it again. The resident was unable to speak to which dialysis trip was the trip that they saw their book. Resident #110 stated that the staff always checked their vitals and weight when they went and came back from dialysis. There were no progress notes documenting resident's condition before or after dialysis on 2/18/2025, no progress note documenting resident's condition after dialysis on 2/20/2025, and no progress note documenting the resident's condition before or after dialysis on 2/24/2025. During a follow up interview on 2/26/2025 at 9:48 AM, Resident #110 stated that they had a communication sheet from the dialysis center on 2/25/2025, which they had given to staff when they returned. No communication log for 2/25/2025 was able to be located by facility staff. During an interview on 3/01/2025 at 8:00 AM, Licensed Practical Nurse #10 stated that they were going to fill out the dialysis communication sheet before Resident #110 left because the resident's blood pressure was a little low. During an interview on 3/03/2025 at 11 AM, Licensed Practical Nurse #9 stated that they always filled out their piece of the dialysis sheet and could not speak to why the older sheets were not able to be found. When asked what they would do if an incomplete communication log sheet was handed to them, Licensed Practical Nurse #9 stated that they would call the dialysis center and ask for the information. Additionally, they would document in the electronic medical record the resident's condition upon return to the facility. During an interview on 3/07/2025 at 2:02 PM, Regional Registered Nurse Clinical Director #1 stated that a dialysis communication binder was sent with the resident when they went out to the dialysis center for treatment. They stated the nurse would do their assessment prior to treatment and document on the dialysis communication form in the binder. The nurse would then send the binder with the resident. Upon return from dialysis treatment, the nurse would assess the resident and document the findings in the binder and notify the physician if necessary. They stated the nurse should contact the dialysis center if the dialysis treatment section was not completed. They stated if the facility side was blank, hopefully dialysis would contact the facility. They stated that if a resident goes to treatment without an assessment and then came back with a subpar report from dialysis, they should assess the resident and then call the dialysis center for more information. They stated the nurse could document in a note or in the binder or both places. During an interview on 3/07/2025 at 2:15 PM, Administer #1 stated that issues regarding dialysis documentation and nurses not filling out the communication sheets were not on the list of concerns being discussed during the Quality Assurance meetings. These issues were brought to light through the survey process and going forward would be a part of the meetings with unit managers. 10 New York Code of Rules and Regulations 415.12
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 F0726 (Tag F0726)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review and interview during the recertification survey, the facility did not ensure licensed nurses and Certifie...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review and interview during the recertification survey, the facility did not ensure licensed nurses and Certified Nurse Aides had the specific competencies and skills necessary to care for resident's need. Specifically, based on the facility assessment of required education, (a.) education records reviewed for Certified Nurse Aides #3 and #4 were incomplete; (b.) Licensed Practical Nurses #s 11 and 12 education were incomplete; (c.) Registered Nurse #4's education record was incomplete, and (d.) Registered Nurse #2 did not possess the knowledge needed to complete the tasks being assigned to their position. This is evidenced by: The Facility assessment dated [DATE], documented under Staff Training/Education, Competencies, and Skill Sets, All NA/R's (Nurse Aides/Resident Assistants) would receive at least 12 hours of Training per year - including all the mandatory trainings, along with basic ADL (Activities of Daily Living) care, dementia training, and areas of weakness as defined by annual performance reviews and as needed. The Facility Assessment documented under Orientation, the following was required for licensed nurses and nurse aides: Topic: Maltreatment, [NAME] of Rights, Resident Rights, Emergency Disaster Plan, Hazardous substances, Health Insurance Portability Accountability Act, Medicaid Fraud, Waste, and Abuse, Job description, Orientation to the resident, Advanced Directives, Infection Control, Quality Assurance Performance Improvement, Principles of person centered care and service delivery, Infection Control, Compliance and Ethics, Behavioral Health, Elder Justice Act, Centers for Medicaid and Medicare Services, Medicare Fraud Waste and Abuse, Trauma-Informed Care, Communication and Conflict Resolution, Cultural Competency, Safe Patient Handling, Explanation Alzheimer's Disease and other Dementia, Assistance with Activities of Daily Livings, Problem solving with challenging behavior, Communication skills, Person-centered planning and service delivery, and Documentation requirements for services provided. The Facility Assessment documented under Annual the following was required for licensed nurses and nurse aides: Topic: [NAME] of Rights, Resident Rights, Emergency/Disaster Plan, Hazardous substances, Health Insurance Portability Accountability Act, Medicaid Fraud, Waste and Abuse, Policies and Procedures, Job description, Orientation to the resident, Advanced Directives, Infection Control, Quality Assurance Performance Improvement, Principles of person centered care and service delivery, Infection Control, Compliance and Ethics, Behavioral Health, Elder Justice Act, Centers for Medicaid and Medicare Services, Medicare Fraud Waste and Abuse, Trauma-Informed Care, Communication and Conflict Resolution, Cultural Competency, Safe Patient Handling, Explanation Alzheimer's Disease and other Dementia, Assistance with Activities of Daily Living, Problem solving with challenging behavior, Communication skills, Documentation requirements for services provided, Emergency and Disaster Preparedness Plan (required 2 times per year), Cognitive Impairment, and Training Program in Rehabilitation for nursing personnel. The Facility Assessment documented under Infection Control Program Evaluation: (Infection Risk Assessment) that all staff were trained in basic infection control on hire and annually. Staff conducted random skill audits such as hand hygiene, glove use, peri cares, wound cares. Certified Nurse Aide #3's education file from the facility did not contain evidence that annual educations had been done after 1/09/2024, one year after Certified Nurse Aide #3 had been employed at the facility. Certified Nurse Aide #4's education file from the facility revealed that Certified Nurse Aide #4's General Orientation Mandatory Checklist dated 1/14/2025, was not signed by an instructor, the Doffing and Donning Personal Protective Equipment competency dated 1/14/2025 was not signed by an Evaluator, the Mechanical Lift Competency dated 1/15/2025 was not signed by a Validator, and the Handwashing Competency was not signed at all. Licensed Practical Nurse #11's education file from the facility did not contain evidence of annual educations done after 9/26/2024 which was one year after the last documented educations. Licensed Practical Nurse #12's education file from the facility did not contain documentation that Licensed Practical Nurse #12 received annual educations after 3/10/2024. Registered Nurse #4's education file from the facility revealed that the Code of Conduct was never signed by the Registered Nurse, and there was no name or date on the Posttest for Abuse Prevention. Additionally, there was no documented evidence that Registered Nurse #4 received annual educations or competencies after 8/22/2024. During an interview on 2/27/2025 at 9:03 AM, Registered Nurse #2 stated that the orientation was 2 days long and the instructors read to them. Registered Nurse #2 stated that they had told administration that the training provided was not sufficient, that the staff turnover rate was terrible, and the staff was made up of mostly new people. When discussing updating care plans as a part of the job of the Registered Nurses in the building, Registered Nurse #2 stated that they had to do all the care plans for Unit A and sometimes some of the care plans on Unit B. Registered Nurse #2 stated it was very hard for them to run two units. Registered Nurse #2 stated that they were not proficient in updating care plans. Additionally, Registered Nurse #2 asked what the rules were regarding hand washing before giving resident care and after. After the surveyor stated the expectation of washing one's hands both before and after giving resident care, Registered Nurse #2 put their head down and stated that the staff were not washing their hands and that they had seen it happen. During an interview on 3/06/2025 at 3:45 PM, Licensed Practical Nurse #13 stated that they had been the facility educator for 2 weeks but used to be the person responsible for educating the staff on the Point Click Care program (electronic record system used in the facility). Additionally, they were just getting settled into their position. Licensed Practical Nurse #13 stated that competencies were done with shadowing and in a classroom. They had not yet had to orient any floor staff in their position. Licensed Practical Nurse #13 stated that competencies would be reviewed annually and that focused competencies were done a few times a year based on what happened in the building and what was apparent that the staff required education on. Licensed Practical Nurse #13 stated that orientation was on average around 4 days in the classroom and then 10 days on the floor, depending on the performance of the new hire. Licensed Practical Nurse #13 stated that they were planning to do a Point Click Care training when the survey started. When asked to describe how staff were tested for competency, Licensed Practical Nurse #13 stated that there was a group discussion with posttests or visual competencies if the education was skill-based. Additionally, there would be a review of skills if it was reported that staff did not know how to perform functions of their jobs. When asked if a staff member would be allowed to work on the floor and with residents without completing their orientation educations and competencies, Licensed Practical Nurse #13 stated that they would not let anyone loose without being signed off and could not account for why there would be holes in orientation paperwork. During an interview on 3/07/2025 at 2:00 PM, Regional Director of Nursing #1 stated that it was their expectation that the staff would be fully trained before working on the units, that education should be continuous and as often as possible for important topics like infection control. Regional Director of Nursing #1 stated that they were looking to improve and was able to speak to policies of the facility but not the specifics of residents or staff because they just changed from another corporate facility to this one 5 days prior. During an interview on 3/07/2025 at 2:30 PM, Administrator #1 stated that they were not aware of the multitude of issues brought up by the survey team. Administrator #1 stated that they intended to improve on their processes and with guidance from corporate and other resources, they would be more active in the day-to-day operations of the facility and audit the staff for compliance. 10 New York Code of Rules and Regulations 415.26(c)(1)(iv)
CONCERN (D)

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

Unnecessary Medications (Tag F0759)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, record review, and interviews conducted during a recertification survey, the facility did not ensure that ...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, record review, and interviews conducted during a recertification survey, the facility did not ensure that its medication error rate did not exceed 5% for two (2) (Resident #s 47, and 67) of 11 residents observed during a medication pass for a total of 30 observations. This resulted in a medication error rate of 6.87 percent. This is evidenced by: The Facility's Policy and Procedure titled, Administering Medication, effective date: 10/1997 and revised 1/2025, documented medications shall be administered in a safe and timely manner, and as prescribed. Additionally, it documented medications must be administered in accordance with the orders, including any required time frame; the individual administering medication must check the label three (3) times to verify the right resident, right medication, right dosage, right time and right method (route) of administration before giving the medication; the following information must be checked/verified for each resident prior to administering medications: (a.) allergies to medications; and (b.) vital signs, if necessary. Resident #47 Resident #47 was admitted to the facility with diagnoses of metabolic encephalopathy (a condition in which brain function is disturbed due to underlying diseases or toxins in the body), type 2 diabetes mellitus without complications (a chronic condition characterized by insulin resistance and high blood sugars levels), and malignant neoplasm of upper-outer quadrant of right female breast (cancerous tumor in that specific location of breast). The Minimum Data Set (an assessment tool) dated 1/30/2025, documented that the resident was able to be understood, understand others, and was minimally cognitively compromised. During a medication observation on 2/28/2025 at 1:27 PM, Licensed Practical Nurse #9 attempted to give Resident #47 their Tylenol. Licensed Practical Nurse #9 poured Tylenol 650 milligrams, 2 tablets. Surveyor reviewed the order and told Licensed Practical Nurse #9 the order was for 500 milligrams, 2 tablets. Licensed Practical Nurse #9 acknowledged the error and apologized. Licensed Practical Nurse #9 stated the reason the error occurred was there were a lot of people who came to the cart and distracted them. Resident #67 Resident #67 was admitted with the diagnoses of diabetes (a disease that affects how the body uses blood sugar), stroke (a medical emergency that occurs when blood flow to the brain is interrupted, and hyperlipidemia (abnormally high levels of fat in the blood). The Minimum Data Set, dated [DATE], documented that the resident was usually able to be understood, usually able to understand others, and had significant cognitive impairments. During a medication observation conducted on 2/28/2025 at 1:46 PM, Licensed Practical Nurse #9 administered Resident #67's medications, which included Tylenol Extra Strength give 2 tablets by mouth three times a day for pain, no milligrams were noted to be on the order. Licensed Practical Nurse #9 crushed 2 extra strength Tylenol, mixed it with applesauce, and gave it to resident. The current physician orders on the Medication Administration Record dated 2/2025 revealed that the resident should have received Acetaminophen Extra Strength Tablet 500 milligrams. Give 2 tablet by mouth three times a day for pain. There was no documented order to crush medications for Resident #67. During an interview on 2/28/2025 at 1:46 PM, Licensed Practical Nurse #9 stated that they knew it was 500 milligrams of Tylenol that was ordered, because the previous order was to give 1000 milligrams by mouth every 8 hours as needed for pain. That order was discontinued. Licensed Practical Nurse #9 stated that there were several orders that were not specific and needed to be clarified. Licensed Practical Nurse #9 stated they had brought their concerns to the nurse manager. During an interview on 3/02/2025 at 2:00 PM, Administrator #1 stated that they have reached out to providers themselves to help figure out issues with medications. Administrator #1 stated they would expect that staff would call the pharmacy for missing doses and to find out when they can be delivered. Additionally, Administrator #1 would expect staff to call the medical provider to see if something else could be given and expect staff to monitor the resident and document whatever direction was given by provider. Administrator #1 stated that there was a medication error/missed dose sheet that should have been filled out for missing medications, however they had not received any in January or February. Administrator #1 stated that they did not run reports specific to medication issues but would expect that the nurses write a progress note that would be on the 24-hour report that gets reviewed daily. 10 New York Codes, Rules, and Regulations 415.12 (m)(1)
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0761 (Tag F0761)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on observation, record review, and interviews, conducted during the recertification survey, the facility did not ensure drugs and biologicals were stored in accordance with professional standard...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, record review, and interviews, conducted during the recertification survey, the facility did not ensure drugs and biologicals were stored in accordance with professional standards of practice. This was evident for 3 (Unit A cart 2, Unit B cart 2, and Unit C cart 1) of 6 carts reviewed and 5 of 6 narcotic logbooks. Specifically, (1) medication cart on Unit A cart 2 contained multiple stock medications that were not dated, 2 bottles of resident specific eye drops that were not dated, a bottle of insulin with no label indicating resident ownership or date opened, and a bottle of mediation which required a biohazard bag that was open loose in the cart; (2) the medication cart on Unit B cart 2 contained a stock medication that was not dated; (3) the medication cart on Unit C cart 1, contained an insulin pen for a resident that should have been in Unit C cart 2; and 5 of 6 Units Narcotic Count books did not have two licensed nurses signatures consistently between shifts. This is evidenced by: The Policy and Procedure titled, Administering Medications, last revised 1/2025, documented that medications should be administered in a safe and timely manner, and as prescribed. The Policy Interpretation and Implementation documented the following: (3) Medications must be administered in accordance with the orders, including any required time frame; (9) The expiration/beyond use date on the medication label must be checked prior to administering. When opening a multi-dose container, the date opened should be recorded on the container; (10) Vials labeled as single dose, or single use will not be used on multiple residents. Such vials would be used only for one resident in a single procedure; (13) Insulin pens containing multiple doses of insulin are for single-resident use only; (14) Insulin pens would be clearly labeled with the resident's name or other identifying information. Prior to administering insulin with an insulin pen, the Nurse will verify that the correct pen is used for that resident. During an observation on 2/28/2024 at 10:24 AM, Unit A cart 2 contained multiple bottles of floor stock medications that were not labeled with dates that indicated when they were opened, mixed in with floor stock medication bottles that had been labeled with dates that indicated when they were opened. Additionally, 2 bottles of eye drops for one resident were in a bag labeled with the resident's name. There was no date on the bottles, the boxes the bottles were in, or the bag that both boxes were contained in. There was a sticker on the bag that indicated there should have been a date written down when the bottles were opened. There was also one bottle of Lispro insulin loose in the medication drawer that did not have a label on it indicating which resident the bottle belonged to, or when the bottle was opened. Additionally, there was an opened bottle of Valproic Liquid that was not contained in a biohazard bag next to another biohazard bag containing two bottles of the same liquid medication. During an observation on 2/28/2025 at 1:12 PM, Unit B cart 2 contained a bottle of floor stock Bisacodyl that was not dated. During an observation on 2/28/2025 at 11:30 AM, Unit C cart 1 contained a Lantus insulin pen for Resident #11. Per Licensed Practical Nurse #9, Resident #11's medications belonged in the Unit C cart 2. Licensed Practical Nurse #9 stated that the resident's insulin should have been moved to the other cart when the resident changed rooms. During medication cart observations on 2/28/2025, Narcotic Count Logbooks from carts on Units A, B and C were noted to not have two licensed nurse signatures to document a two-person narcotic count had been done on every shift consistently as required by law. The following dates provided were some examples of how the narcotic counts were not being signed off as done from shift to shift: For Unit A cart 1, (a) there was no signature for the on-coming nurse on 2/04/2025 at 3 PM; (b) there was no signature for the off-going nurse on 2/04/2025 at 11 PM; (c) there was no signature for the on-coming nurse on 2/07/2025 at 11 PM; and (d) there was no signature for the off-going nurse on 2/10/2025 at 7 AM. For Unit A cart 2, (a) there was no signature for the on-coming nurse on 2/18/2025 at 11 PM; (b) there was no signature for the on-coming nurse on 2/19/2025 at 11 PM; (c) there was no signature for the off-going nurse on 2/21/202 at 7 AM; and (d) there was no signature for the on-coming nurse on 2/22/2025 at 3 PM. For Unit B cart 1, (a) there was no signature for the on-coming nurse on 3/01/2025 at 3 PM; (b) there was no signature for the off-going nurse or on-coming nurse on 3/01/2025 at 11 PM; and (c) there was no signature for the off-going nurse or on-coming nurse on 3/02/2025 at 7 AM. For Unit B cart 2, (a) there was no signature for the off-going nurse on 2/15/2025 at 7 AM; (b) there was no signature for the on-coming nurse on 2/17/2025 at 7 AM; and (c) there was no signature for the on-coming nurse on 3/01/2025 at 1 PM. For Unit C, there was one book reviewed that (a) did not have a signature for the off-going nurse on 2/28/2024 at 11 PM; (b) there was no signature for the on-coming or off-going nurse on 2/29/2025 for any shift; and (c) there was no signature for the on-coming nurse on 3/01/2025 at 7 AM. During an interview on 2/28/2024 at 10:26 AM, Registered Nurse #2 stated that they did not know why the medications were not labeled with dates, why there was no label on the bottle of insulin, or why the one bottle of Valproic Medication did not require a biohazard bag if the other bottles did. Registered Nurse #2 stated that there were only 2 diabetics on the unit, so they knew who the insulin belonged to. Licensed Practical Nurse #9 (who was sitting nearby during the interview) stated that they also knew who the insulin belonged to but did not know why there was no date on the bottle. Additionally, Practical Nurse #9 stated that the facility pharmacist told them they did not need to label floor stock medications when they were opened anymore, only insulin and the rules had changed. Neither Registered Nurse #2 nor Licensed Practical Nurse #9 could state why the narcotic sheets were not signed consistently. It was noted that Licensed Practical Nurse #9 had signed for the end of their shift at the time of the interview. Licensed Practical Nurse #9 stated that they did that to ensure they did not forget to do the count. During an interview on 3/07/2025 at 02:00 PM, Regional Director of Nursing #1 stated that over the counter stock medications should have been dated when they were opened, and bottles of insulin should have been dated when they were opened with the expiration date. If a nurse were to pick up a bottle of opened medication that did not have a date on it, they would retrieve a new bottle and not use the bottle without a date on it. Regional Director of Nursing #1 also stated that narcotic count should be done shift to shift with two licensed nurses and they should have signed the narcotic count log sheet at the time of the count. There should never be missing signatures or just one signature. During an interview on 3/07/2025 at 2:15 PM. Administer #1 stated that issues regarding medication storage and nurses not signing narcotic count sheets were not on the list of concerns discussed during the Quality Assurance meetings. These issues were brought to light through the survey process and going forward would be a part of the meetings with unit managers. 10 New York Code of Rules and Regulations 415.18(d)
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

Laboratory Services (Tag F0770)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on record review and interview during the recertification and abbreviated survey (Case #NY00363829), the facility did not ensure laboratory services were provided timely to meet the needs of the...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on record review and interview during the recertification and abbreviated survey (Case #NY00363829), the facility did not ensure laboratory services were provided timely to meet the needs of the resident for 1 (Resident #77) of 3 residents reviewed. Specifically, Resident #77 [a.] provider ordered to have laboratory tests completed on 11/27/2024. The tests were not completed, and the provider was not notified; [b.] provider reordered the tests again on 12/03/2024. The tests were not completed, and the provider was not notified; and [c.] provider reordered the tests again on 12/06/2024 and the specimen was collected and resulted on 12/09/2024. This is evidenced by: Resident #77 Resident #77 was admitted to the facility with diagnoses of chronic kidney disease (longstanding disease of the kidneys leading to renal failure), cerebral infarction (stroke), and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (a lung disease characterized by chronic respiratory symptoms). The Minimum Data Set (an assessment tool) dated 2/6/2025, documented the resident was cognitively intact, could be understood and understand others. Physician Progress Note dated 11/25/2024 at 1:31 PM by Nurse Practitioner #2, documented the resident was seen that day for review of a chest x-ray that was done on 11/22/2024. Plan documented questionable pneumonia. Furosemide (diuretic - water pill) 20 milligrams for 5 days and laboratory tests: complete blood count, procalcitonin (a protein that is produced in the body in response to inflammation, particularly bacterial infections), and B-type natriuretic peptide (a hormone secreted by the heart ventricles in response to increased blood volume or pressure) to be done on the next laboratory draw date, 11/27/2024 were ordered. Provider to follow up after laboratory tests. If the B-type natriuretic peptide was elevated, Furosemide was to be continued daily. Order Audit Report dated 11/25/2024 at 1:29 PM, documented an order for laboratory tests: complete blood count, B-type natriuretic peptide, and procalcitonin one time only for 1 day. The order was entered and signed by Nurse Practitioner #2 on 11/25/2024 at 1:30 PM and was confirmed by Registered Nurse #2 on 11/25/2024 at 11:04 PM. The order was reviewed and signed by Nurse Practitioner #2 on 11/27/2024 at 2:44 PM. There were no documented laboratory results for November 2024 and there was no documented evidence in Nursing Notes that the provider was notified that the laboratory tests were not completed as ordered. Physician Progress Note dated 12/03/2024 at 4:21 PM by Physician #2, documented the resident was seen that day for laboratory review related to chronic illness. Resident #77 was on Furosemide 20 milligram for 5 days. Repeat chest x-ray still shows pulmonary edema (a condition caused by too much fluid in the lungs). Plan documented Furosemide 20 milligrams once daily and laboratory tests: complete blood count, comprehensive metabolic profile, B-type natriuretic peptide, and procalcitonin. Order Audit Report dated 12/03/2024 at 4:35 PM, documented an order for laboratory tests: complete blood count, comprehensive metabolic profile, B-type natriuretic peptide, and procalcitonin one time only for 1 day. The order was entered and signed by Physician #2 on 12/03/2024 at 4:37 PM and was confirmed by the Registered Nurse on 12/04/2024 at 9:28 PM. There was no documented evidence of laboratory test results dated 12/03/2024 to 12/6/2024 and there was no documentation in Nursing Notes the provider was notified that the laboratory tests were not completed as ordered. Physician Progress Note dated 12/06/2024 at 9:32 AM by Nurse Practitioner #2, documented the resident was seen that day for medical follow up. Resident #77 had an abnormal chest x-ray on 11/25/2024 with questionable findings given the resident's symptoms and laboratory tests were ordered for confirmation. The resident was started on Furosemide. The laboratory tests had never resulted to the chart. Resident #77 had a repeat chest x-ray on 12/03/2024 with similar findings and laboratory tests were reordered again for confirmation and to assess kidney function and electrolytes given the new diuretic. Laboratory tests again had not resulted to the chart. Plan documented follow up after laboratory tests back for review. Notified Director of Nursing of laboratory issue. Order Audit Report dated 12/06/2024 at 9:31 AM, documented an order for complete blood count, comprehensive metabolic profile, B-type natriuretic peptide, and procalcitonin one time only for 1 day. The order was entered and signed by Nurse Practitioner #2 on 12/6/2024 at 9:31 AM and was confirmed by Registered Nurse #2 on 12/06/2024 at 4:01 PM. Laboratory Report dated 12/09/2024, documented the results of a complete blood count, comprehensive metabolic profile, B-type natriuretic peptide, and procalcitonin that were collected on 12/9/2024 at 4:40 AM and reported on 12/09/2024 at 6:05 PM. During an interview on 3/02/2025 at 12:12 PM, Nurse Practitioner #2 stated there were several residents who had orders for laboratory tests that were not done on the day they were ordered. They stated they did not recall who the residents were. They stated they talked to the former Director of Nursing about the issues. During an interview on 3/07/2025 at 12:38 PM, Registered Nurse #2 stated if Nurse Practitioner #2 entered an order for labs, they (Registered Nurse #2) would have to confirm the order. Once confirmed, it went right to the lab and then the lab comes and draws. They stated if the provider did not enter the order correctly or if they did not sign it, the order would just sit there pending signature. They stated they could not confirm an order that was not signed. During an interview on 3/07/2025 at 2:02 PM, Registered Nurse Regional Clinical Director #1 stated labs were done Monday, Wednesday, and Friday unless they were stat orders. 10 New York Codes Rules and Regulations 415.20
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 F0773 (Tag F0773)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on record review and interview during the recertification survey, the facility did not promptly notify the ordering nurse practitioner of laboratory results that fall outside of clinical referen...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on record review and interview during the recertification survey, the facility did not promptly notify the ordering nurse practitioner of laboratory results that fall outside of clinical reference ranges for 1 (Resident #77) of 3 residents reviewed. Specifically, the facility did not promptly notify Nurse Practitioner #2 or the on-call provider of an abnormal laboratory result for Resident #77 on 12/17/2024 at 3:05 AM. This is evidenced by: Cross-referenced to F711: Physician Visits - Review Care/Notes/Order Resident #77 Resident #77 was admitted to the facility with diagnoses of chronic kidney disease, cerebral infarction (stroke), and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (a lung disease characterized by chronic respiratory symptoms). The Minimum Data Set (an assessment tool) dated 2/06/2025, documented the resident was cognitively intact, could be understood, and understand others Physician Progress Note dated 12/13/2024 at 9:10 PM by Nurse Practitioner #4, documented they were notified by the facility to review laboratory results. Labs collected on 12/12/2024 had notable results for the resident's kidney function and the plan was for a repeat basic metabolic profile laboratory test to be done on 12/16/2024. Laboratory Results Report for a basic metabolic profile collected on 12/16/2024 and reported on 12/17/2024 at 3:05 AM, documented critical/abnormal test list: b-type natriuretic peptide (a hormone secreted by the heart ventricles in response to increased blood volume or pressure), Creatinine (a measure of how well the kidneys are filtering waste from the blood), Chloride (helps maintain proper balance of fluids inside and outside of cells), Calculated Osmolality (checks the fluid-to-particle balance in the blood), and estimated Glomerular Filtration Rate (measures level of kidney funaction and determines stage of kidney disease) , as was previously noted on results reported on 12/13/2024. - In addition, a potassium level of 5.2 was documented as high and was in the list of critical/abnormal tests (potassium helps nerves and muscles work properly and too much can be dangerous and cause serious heart problems). There was no documented evidence in the Nursing Notes that the provider was notified of the critical/abnormal results on 12/17/2024. During an interview on 3/2/2025 at 12:12 PM, Nurse Practitioner #2 stated there was a problem with getting the laboratory tests done as ordered. They stated they would put laboratory orders in for residents and the tests would not get done. They stated they would put the orders in again when they did not get done. They stated they spoke to the former Director of Nursing about the problem. They could not recall the names of the residents that had the laboratory issues. During an interview on 3/3/2025 at 11:46 AM, Medical Director #1 stated that 90% of the orders were entered by the provider. They stated when the provider evaluated a resident, they should be looking at the resident's clinical picture, meaning the lab results, orders, and progress notes. During an interview on 3/07/2025 at 12:38 PM, Registered Nurse #2 stated laboratory results were accessible on the provider's dashboard. They stated if the potassium resulted 5.2 on 12/17/2024, then the provider would have been in the facility and would have seen it. They stated it was not up to the nurse to watch for results because providers could look it up themselves. They stated the providers should be watching for the results because they ordered the test. They stated the provider should have ordered something for the potassium level of 5.2 on 12/17/2024. Registered Nurse #2 reviewed the progress note dated 12/18/2024 by Nurse Practitioner #2 and stated there was nothing ordered for the high potassium. They stated there was another result on 12/21/2024 that the potassium was 5.2. During an interview on 3/07/2025 at 2:02 PM, Registered Nurse Regional Clinical Director #1 stated labs were done Monday, Wednesday, and Friday unless they were stat orders. They stated the laboratory results were automatically uploaded into the electronic medical record and in the provider was able to see the results on the dashboard. Administrator #1 was present and stated the nurse would see the results and notify the provider. 10 New York Codes Rules and Regulations 415.20
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 F0808 (Tag F0808)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on observation, interview, and record review during the recertification survey, the facility did not ensure residents were provided a therapeutic diet as prescribed by a physician for one (1) (R...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, interview, and record review during the recertification survey, the facility did not ensure residents were provided a therapeutic diet as prescribed by a physician for one (1) (Resident #103) of 2 reviewed for diet consistencies. Specifically, Resident 103 did not receive the correct diet consistency per the physician order for meat during a lunch observation. The Policy and Procedure, Food Consistencies and Definitions, revised 3/2022, documented all diet modifications would print on the meal tickets. A regular diet was unrestricted. A chopped diet was foods that were nearly regular' textures, not including hard or crunchy foods. A chopped diet texture required the ability to chew and have tongue control. Foods should be softer and easy to break into pieces with a fork. Foods should be chopped, including tender vegetables such as broccoli and cauliflower. A ground diet consisted of foods that are moist and soft textured. Meats needed to be ground. On a pureed diet, food would be pureed to a cohesive, smooth texture without lumps. No bread products were included in this diet. Resident #103 Resident #103 was admitted to the facility with diagnoses of cerebral infarction (a condition where blood flow to the brain is interrupted, causing brain tissue to die), dysphagia (difficulty swallowing), and malnutrition (a serious health condition that develops when someone doesn't have enough nutrients to meet their body's needs). The Minimum Data Set (an assessment tool) dated 11/29/2024, documented that Resident #103 was usually able to be understood, usually able to understand others, and was significantly cognitively compromised. The Comprehensive Care plan titled, At Risk for Malnutrition' revised 2/24/2025, documented Resident #103 was at risk for malnutrition related to need for mechanically altered diet due to history of stroke. Interventions included provide diet and consistency per physician order: regular diet, chopped texture, thin consistency, and ground meat. During a lunch observation on 2/27/2025 at 12:15pm, Resident #103's meal ticket read: regular, chopped; ground meats with chopped sides. On Resident #103's plate, whole portions of chicken parmesan were observed. The meat was not ground. When asked, Resident #103 was unsure if the meat should have been ground. They were attempting to cut the meat with a fork. Resident 103's roommate was also seated at the table. The roommate explained that staff had cut up the meat, so that Resident #103 would not choke. The roommate stated that trays served to Resident #103 in their room, usually consisted of pureed foods. During an interview on 2/27/2025 at 12:28 PM, Nurse Educator #1 stated, oh and removed Resident #103's plate when asked to review their meal ticket and the food that was served to the resident. During an interview 2/27/2025 at 12:34PM, Director of Food Service #1 stated, Resident #103 was seen by speech therapy, and it was determined they should have ground meats. When they looked at the whole portions of chicken served to Resident #103, they stated the meat should have been ground and a mistake was made. The person who passed the tray to the resident was responsible for reviewing the ticket with the meal for accuracy. During an interview on 3/07/2025 at 2:00 PM, Regional Director of Nursing #1 stated that they could speak to general facility policies, but not specific resident issues as they had just been transferred from another facility 5 days prior. Regional Director of Nursing #1 stated that nurses and Certified Nurse Aides should have checked the trays prior to giving them to the residents. 10 New York Code of Rules and Regulations 415.14(e)
CONCERN (D)

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

Food Safety (Tag F0812)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on observation, record review, and interviews during the recertification survey, the facility did not store, prepare, distribute and serve food in accordance with professional standards for food...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, record review, and interviews during the recertification survey, the facility did not store, prepare, distribute and serve food in accordance with professional standards for food service safety. Specifically, food was not cooled properly, the automatic dishwashing machine was not functioning, a test kit for checking sanitizing solution was not available, and food temperature thermometer were not in calibration. This is evidenced by: During observations of the main kitchen on 02/23/2025 at 12:48 PM: • Purred vegetables stored in the walk-in refrigerator were 52 degrees Fahrenheit. During an interview on 2/23/2025 at 1:25 PM, cook #1 stated that they had prepared the purred vegetables yesterday (2/22/2025). • The final rinse of the automatic dishwashing machine was 150 degrees Fahrenheit, and the water pressure gauge was not functioning (water was steaming while the automatic dishwashing machine was in operation). The information placard attached to the dishwashing machine stated that the final rinse is to be 180 degrees Fahrenheit at 15 to 25 pounds per square inch water pressure. • The manufacture label directions on the concentrate of the quaternary ammonium compound used to manually sanitize food contact equipment state that the concentration is to be between 150 parts per million and 400 parts per million. The facility did not have test papers to check the concentration with graduations at 150 parts per million and greater than 400 parts per million. • Two of 4 food temperature thermometers were found not in calibration when tested in a standard ice-bath method as follows: 27 degrees Fahrenheit and 25 degrees Fahrenheit. The document titled Cooling In-Service and dated 12/20/2024 documented that the dietary cooks received training on 1/15/2025 to cool foods to 41 degrees Fahrenheit within 6 hours. There was no documented evidence that dietary staff were trained on how to adjust/calibrate food temperature thermometers using the standard ice bath method. During an interview on 2/24/2025 at 11:16 AM, Administrator #1 stated that a corporate maintenance person would check the dishwashing machine, they would speak with the Food Service Director on the proper cooling of food, on the correct test papers to use for the sanitizing solution, and the calibration of thermometers, and the facility would order new test papers for the chemical sanitizing solution. 10 New York Codes, Rules, and Regulations 415.14(h) Chapter 1 State Sanitary Code Subpart 14-1
CONCERN (D)

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

Garbage Disposal (Tag F0814)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on observation and interview during the recertification survey, the facility did not dispose of garbage and refuse properly. Specifically, dumpsters were not kept closed to prevent the harborage...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation and interview during the recertification survey, the facility did not dispose of garbage and refuse properly. Specifically, dumpsters were not kept closed to prevent the harborage and feeding of pests. This is evidenced by: During observations on 2/23/2025 at 1:58 PM, the lid to the garbage dumpster was propped open with a broom handle; kitchen and housekeeping waste was found inside the dumpster. During an interview on 2/24/2025 at 11:13 AM, Administrator #1 stated that the dumpster should be kept closed and that they would review keeping the dumpster closed with their staff. 10 New York Codes, Rules, and Regulations 415.14(h)
CONCERN (E)

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

Resident Rights (Tag F0550)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, record review, and interview during the recertification survey, the facility did not ensure each resident ...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, record review, and interview during the recertification survey, the facility did not ensure each resident was treated with respect and dignity and cared for in a manner that promotes maintenance or enhancement of quality of life for two (2) (Resident #s 39 and 61) of 32 residents reviewed. Specifically, Resident #s 39 and 61 were not cared for in a manner that promoted maintenance or enhancement of quality of life by staff providing care. This is evidenced by: The Policy and Procedure titled, Resident Rights, reviewed 1/2025, documented employees would treat all residents with kindness, respect and dignity. Federal and state laws guaranteed certain basic rights to all residents in the facility. These rights included the resident's right to a dignified existence and be treated with respect, kindness, and dignity. The Policy and Procedure titled, Quality of Life - Dignity, reviewed 1/2025, documented each resident would be cared for in a manner that promoted and enhanced quality of life, dignity, respect, and individuality. Residents would be treated with dignity and respect all times. Treated with dignity meant the resident would be assisted in maintaining and enhancing his or her self-esteem and self-worth. Staff would speak respectfully to residents at all times. Resident #39 Resident #39 was admitted to the facility with diagnoses of congestive heart failure (a chronic condition in which the heart does not pump blood as well as it should), hypertension, and Parkinson's disease (a disorder of the central nervous system that affects movement, often including tremors). The Minimum Data Set (an assessment tool) dated 12/10/2024, documented the resident was cognitively intact., could be understood, and understand others. During an interview on 2/23/2025 at 2:45 PM, Resident #39 stated they had to wait for an hour or 2 hours for personal care. They stated that when the call light was answered some Certified Nurse Aides were rough. Resident #39 stated some Certified Nurse Aides would push and shove them when providing care to get them to turn over. Resident #39 stated, That to me is rough. Resident #39 stated one of the aides was ignoring their request for help one evening and threw a night gown on the side of the bed and then left the room. Resident #39 could not recall who the aide was. Resident #61 Resident #61 was admitted to the facility with diagnoses of fusion of spinal bones (a surgical procedure that permanently joins two or more vertebrae (bones) in the spine) , diabetes mellitus, and hypertension. The Minimum Data Set, dated [DATE], documented the resident was cognitively intact, could be understood, and understand others. During an observation and interview on 2/24/2025 at 3:59 PM, Resident #61 stated some of the staff would answer their call light and just turn off the light and not do anything to help them. The staff member would tell them they had to wait. Resident #61 stated their arms and legs were partially paralyzed, and they were totally dependent on staff for eating, drinking and all care. Resident #61 was noted to have a call bell device that they had to blow in to activate the call light. They stated they put their call light on, and staff would come into the room and ask them if they needed water. The resident was noted to have 2 cups of water with a straw in each cup on the over the bed table that was next to the bed. Resident #61 stated that although they needed help with drinking, that was not their only need and staff would tell them in a harsh tone they had to wait. Resident #61 stated the only bed available to them was in this facility and they came here expecting to get the help they needed. During an interview on 3/07/2025 at 2:02 PM, the Registered Nurse Regional Clinical Director #1 stated they expected staff to treat residents with dignity and respect. When staff answered call bells, they expected staff to go into the room and greet the resident, ask them how they could assist them, and then turn the call light off. They would not expect staff to go in and turn the call light off without assisting the resident. 10 New York Codes Rules and Regulations 415.5(a)
CONCERN (E) 📢 Someone Reported This

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

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

Safe Environment (Tag F0584)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

Based on observation, record review, and interviews conducted during the recertification and abbreviated survey (Case # NY00347964), the facility did not provide effective housekeeping and maintenance...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, record review, and interviews conducted during the recertification and abbreviated survey (Case # NY00347964), the facility did not provide effective housekeeping and maintenance services on 3 (A, B, and C) of 3 resident units. Specifically, floors, walls, window blinds, ceilings, and dining tables were not clean or maintained and obnoxious odors were detected. This is evidenced by: During observations on 2/23/2025 at 1:52 PM, a urine and fecal odor was detected on the B-Wing corridor, an unwashed body odor was detected by room B13, and trash was found on the floor in room B19. During observations on 02/24/2025 from 9:45 AM through 11:39 AM: • Strong urine odors were detected in the corridor outside rooms A01 through A05 and rooms B14 through B19. • The ventilation grid by the emergency exit on the B-Wing was soiled with a heavy dust build-up. • Stained ceiling tiles were found in the corridor by the Activity Room, the C-Wing Soiled Utility room, the employee dining room, and rooms B22 and C21. • The floors were soiled with a brown build-up where the corridor door frames meet the floor, and next to the walls in the Rehabilitation room, • The nurse stations on the A-Wing, B-Wing and C-Wing were soiled with a brown dirt build-up. • One ceiling tile was missing in the C-Wing outdoor patio. • Chewing gum was found stuck to the underside of the dining tables in the main dining room, A-wing Day Room, and B-Wing Day room. • The window blinds were caked with dust in rooms A02, A04, and A08. • The lobby furniture upholstery was worn. • In room B16, the floor was heavily soiled with dust behind the beds and the room door had chipped paint. • Paint was chipped on the walls in room B13 and the B-wing soiled utility room. • The plastic edge guards on the wall in the lobby area were chipped. During an interview on 2/24/2025 at 2:02 PM, Administrator #1 stated that they would speak with the housekeeping and maintenance departments regarding the cleaning, maintenance, and ventilation (odor) issues found. 10 New York Codes, Rules, and Regulations 415.5(h)(4)
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** Based on record review and interviews during the recertification and abbreviated survey (Case #NY00363829), the facility did not...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review and interviews during the recertification and abbreviated survey (Case #NY00363829), the facility did not ensure that the development and implementation of comprehensive person-centered care plans included measurable objectives and timeframes to meet residents' medical, nursing, mental, and psychosocial needs for eight (8) (Residents #12, 20, 23, 37, 47, 53, 110, and #231) of 32 residents reviewed for comprehensive care plans. Specifically, (a.) for Resident #12, there was no care plan developed and implemented for urinary tract infection with antibiotic treatment, diagnosed on [DATE]. (b.) for Resident #20, there was no comprehensive care plan in place to address podiatry issues; (c.) for Resident #23, there was no care plan for the use of Lotrisone Cream for fungal skin rash; (d.) for Resident #37, the comprehensive care plan did not include cultural information and interventions for the resident; (e.) for Resident #47, the comprehensive care plan for antibiotics was initiated after antibiotic therapy had been completed; (f.) for Resident #53, the comprehensive care plan did not address the presence of or interventions for a pressure ulcer; (g.) for Resident #110, there was no comprehensive care plan to address the presence of dentures; and (h.) for Resident #231, there was no comprehensive care plan to address the presence of a gastrostomy tube. This is evidenced by: The policy and procedure titled Care plans, Comprehensive Person-Centered, reviewed 1/2025, stated the comprehensive, person-centered would describe the services that were to be furnished to attain or maintain the resident's highest practicable physical, mental, and psychosocial well-being. Resident #12 Cross-referenced to F711: Physician Visits - Review Care/Notes/Order Cross-referenced to: F760: Residents are Free of Significant Medication Errors Resident #12 was admitted to the facility with diagnoses of severe intellectual disabilities (a developmental delay that limits a person's ability to function in social and practical ways), chronic kidney disease stage 3 (a moderate level of kidney damage that makes it harder for kidneys to filter waste and fluid from the blood), and type 2 diabetes mellitus without complications (a chronic condition where the body does not use insulin properly or does not produce enough insulin to regulate blood sugar levels). The Minimum Data Set (an assessment tool) dated 12/09/2024, documented the resident had severe cognitive impairment, could be understood, and sometimes understand others. Physician Progress Note dated 1/02/2025 at 12:28 PM, documented urinary tract infection results on 12/19/2024 showed Enterococcus faecalis in critically high amounts. The resident was prescribed Amoxicillin 500 milligrams by mouth; however, the resident had been spitting out the pills and refusing to take them, according to nursing staff. Based on the resident's behavior, the oral antibiotic was being changed to intravenous antibiotic. The resident was prescribed Ampicillin 2 grams intravenously every 6 hours x 7 days. Review of the comprehensive care plan did not document a care plan for the urinary tract infection with antibiotic treatment, diagnosed on [DATE]. Resident #23 Resident #23 was admitted to the facility with diagnoses of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (a chronic lung disease that cause progressive and irreversible damage to the airways in the lungs), acute on chronic systolic congestive heart failure (a sudden worsening of symptoms of a pre-existing condition of weakened heart muscles), and type 2 diabetes mellitus (a chronic condition where the body does not use insulin properly or does not produce enough insulin to regulate blood sugar levels). The Minimum Data Set, dated [DATE], documented the resident was cognitively intact, could be understood, and understand others. Physician's Progress Note dated 2/04/2025 at 10:49 AM by Physician #1, documented the resident was seen today for rash. The rash was a fungal infection that frequently comes and goes, which previously responded to clotrimazole-betamethasone (Lotrisone Cream). Rash on the bilateral face. Plan: fungal skin rash; take regular shower, clotrimazole-betamethasone 1-0.05% ointment on the lesion twice daily. Medication Administration Record dated February 2025, documented Lotrisone Cream 1-0.05% (clotrimazole-betamethasone) apply to per additional directions topically two times a day for fungal skin rash. There were no instructions for where the medication was to be applied. Start date 2/04/2025 at 5:00 PM. Discontinued on 2/26/2025 at 8:57 PM. The medication was administered several times from 2/04/2025 to 2/26/2025. Review of the comprehensive care plan did not document a care plan for the use of Lotrisone Cream for fungal skin rash. Resident #231 Resident #231 was admitted to the facility with the diagnoses of dysphagia (difficulty swallowing), chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (a type of progressive lung disease characterized by chronic respiratory symptoms and airflow limitation), and gastro-esophageal reflux disease. The Minimum Data Set, dated [DATE] documented the resident could be understood, could understand others, and was moderately cognitively impaired. A Dietary Note dated 2/20/2025 at 12:03 PM documented the presence of a surgical gastrostomy site placed on 2/07/2025. A Physician's Progress Note dated 3/02/2025 at 10:01 AM documented the presence of a gastrostomy tube. A review of the resident's comprehensive care plan did not document a care plan to address the presence and use of a gastrostomy tube. During an interview on 2/27/2025 at 9:03 AM, Registered Nurse #2 stated that they have had to do the care plans for their unit, Unit A and sometimes the care plans on Unit B. They stated this could be a challenge at times for them. During an interview on 3/06/2025 at 9:56 AM, Licensed Practical Nurse #7 stated that the Director of Nursing sometimes had to update their care plans. Licensed Practical Nurse #7 stated that they could not update the care plans themselves so they did their part to update what they could and then told one of the Registered Nurses to finish it. When asked how they were assured the care plan would be completed, Licensed Practical Nurse #7 stated that once they reported to the registered nurse on duty, they moved on with their day. They stated they had too much to do to stay focused on things like that. During an interview on 3/07/2025 at 2:29 PM, Regional Director of Clinical Services #1 stated they would expect a care plan to be initiated for a gastrostomy tube. 10 New York Codes, Rules, and Regulations 415.11 (c)(1)
CONCERN (E)

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

Deficiency F0657 (Tag F0657)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record reviews and interviews during a recertification and abbreviated survey (Case #NY00363829) , the facility did not...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record reviews and interviews during a recertification and abbreviated survey (Case #NY00363829) , the facility did not ensure comprehensive care plans were reviewed after each assessment and revised based on changing goals, preferences, and needs of the resident and in response to current interventions for eight (8) (Resident #'s 20, 23, 28, 47, 51, 84, 114, and 328) of 31 residents reviewed for comprehensive care plans. Specifically, for Resident #20, the care plan was revised to remove a medication that the resident was prescribed. Additionally, Resident #23's care plan for bladder incontinence with an intervention to monitor for signs and symptoms of urinary tract infection was not revised to include an infection diagnosed on [DATE]; Resident #28, the discharge planning care plan was not revised to reflect the resident's current status and goals; Resident #84, the impaired skin integrity care plan was not resolved after the wound was documented as healed in January 2025; Resident #114, the care plan was not updated to reflect the resident's falls; Residents #47, #51, and #328, medications that the residents were no longer prescribed were care planned for. This is evidenced by: The policy and procedure titled Care Plans, Comprehensive Person-Centered, reviewed 1/2025, stated care plans were to be revised as information about the residents and the residents' conditions change and must be reviewed and updated for a significant change in the resident's condition, when the desired outcome was not met, when the resident has been readmitted to the facility from a hospital stay, and/or at least quarterly. Cross-referenced to: F760: Residents are Free of Significant Medication Errors Resident #23 Resident #23 was admitted with the diagnoses of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (a chronic lung disease that cause progressive and irreversible damage to the airways in the lungs), acute on chronic systolic congestive heart failure (a sudden worsening of symptoms of a pre-existing condition of weakened heart muscles), and type 2 diabetes mellitus (a chronic condition where the body does not use insulin properly or does not produce enough insulin to regulate blood sugar levels). The Minimum Data Set, dated [DATE] documented the resident was cognitively intact. The resident made themselves understood and was able to understand others. The Care Plan for Resident has Bladder Incontinence related to disease process, revised 2/12/2025, documented the resident had bladder spasms and was on medication to help control signs and symptoms and maintain optimal bladder function. Interventions included to monitor and document signs and symptoms of urinary tract infection. Thesigns and symptoms were documented. A Nursing Progress Note dated 2/22/2025 at 5:22 PM by Registered Nurse #4 documented Resident #23's urine result came back positive for urinary tract infection. The Nurse Practitioner was aware and gave a new order for Augmentin (antibiotic) 875 milligrams twice daily for seven (7) days. A Physician Progress Note dated 2/22/2025 at 6:00 PM by Nurse Practitioner #3, On-call provider note documented a call from nursing staff reporting the resident's urinalysis and culture results that returned positive for a urinary tract infection that was sensitive to Augmentin. Resident #23 was prescribed Augmentin 875 milligrams twice daily. The resident's care plan was not revised to include the urinary tract infection diagnosed on [DATE]. Resident #28 Resident #28 was admitted to the facility with the diagnoses of dementia (a group of conditions characterized by impairment of at least two brain functions, such as memory loss and judgment), atrial fibrillation (an irregular, often rapid heart rate that commonly causes poor blood flow), and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (a group of lung diseases that block airflow and make it difficult to breathe). The Minimum Data Set (an assessment tool) dated 12/26/2024 documented the resident was usually understood, could usually understand others, and was cognitively intact. The comprehensive care plan titled Discharge Planning stated the goal as long-term care placement. The interventions, including applications for community resources and durable medical equipment, were dated 8/2020 and were aimed at community discharge. During an interview on 3/7/2025 at 10:30 AM, Social Work #1 stated the resident's care plan for discharge to the community should have been resolved as the resident was long-term care. Resident #84 Resident #84 was admitted to the facility with the diagnoses of hyperlipidemia (high level of cholesterol in the blood), peripheral vascular disease (a circulatory condition in which narrowed blood vessels reduce blood flow to the limbs), and major depressive disorder (a mental health disorder characterized by persistently depressed mood or loss of interest in activities, causing significant impairment in daily life). The Minimum Data Set, dated [DATE] documented the resident was able to be understood, was able to understand others and was cognitively intact. A Physician's Order dated 1/21/2025 documented wound care to be provided to right above knee amputation site every Tuesday, Thursday, and Saturday. The comprehensive care plan for impaired skin integrity was revised on 2/23/2025 and documented the presence of a surgical wound. During an observation on 2/24/2025 at 10:48 AM, Resident #84 was wearing shorts and their amputation sites were easily visible. The amputation sites had no dressings on them and did not appear to have open areas. Well healed surgical scars were observed. During an interview on 2/24/2025 at 10:48 AM, Resident #84 denied they had need of any wound care. During an interview on 2/26/2025 at 3:00 PM, Director of Nursing #1 stated the area could be observed due to the resident's clothing choice and it was resolved. The Director of Nursing #1 stated they did not know why the care plan was updated to include a wound that was not there. During an interview on 2/27/2025 at 9:03 AM, Registered Nurse #1 stated they had to do all the care plans on their unit and sometimes the care plans on another unit and it was hard for them. Registered Nurse #1 stated the facility had a staff member to handle care plans a month ago, but they did not know who they were or where they went. During an interview on 3/7/2025 at 2:00 PM, Regional Director of Nursing #1 stated they would expect care plans to reflect the resident and their needs. The care plans should be updated to include falls, wounds, behaviors, any or all medications, and any new concerns for the residents. 10 New York Codes, Rules, and Regulations 415.11(c)(2)(i-iii)
CONCERN (E) 📢 Someone Reported This

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

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

Quality of Care (Tag F0684)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review, observations, and interviews during the recertification survey and an abbreviated survey (Case #s NY0036...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review, observations, and interviews during the recertification survey and an abbreviated survey (Case #s NY00369042 and NY00363829), the facility did not ensure residents received treatment and care in accordance with professional standards of practice for five (5) (Resident #s 6, 14, 20, 23, and 77) of 32 residents reviewed. Specifically, [a.] Resident #6 who was newly admitted on [DATE] with diagnoses of diabetes, was to have blood sugar checks 3 times a day, per discharge paperwork. The facility did not check the resident's blood sugar until 1/11/2025 at 4:55 PM; [b.] Resident #14's clothes and bedding were not changed effectively; [c.] Resident #20 did not receive proper footcare; and [d.] for Resident #s 23 and 77, vital signs ordered daily and for changes in condition were not obtained, and did not monitor the resident's condition. This is evidenced by: Cross-referenced to F635: admission Physician Orders for Immediate Care. The facility Policy and Procedure titled, Change in a Resident's Condition or Status, reviewed 1/2025, documented the nurse would record in the resident's medical record information relative to changes in the resident's medical/mental condition or status. Resident #6 Resident #6 was admitted to the facility with the diagnoses of acute respiratory failure (lungs cannot release enough oxygen into the blood), type 2 diabetes (an endocrine system dysfunction when the body cannot use insulin correctly and sugar builds up in the blood), and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (lung disease causing restricted airflow and breathing problems). The Minimum Data Set, dated [DATE], documented the resident was able to be understood, understand others, with minimal cognitive deficits. The Licensed Nurse: Admission/readmission Evaluation dated 1/10/2025 at 9:48 PM, documented the most recent admission was 1/10/2025 at 9:40 PM. Reason for admission was acute hypoxic respiratory failure due to pneumonia and hyperglycemia (high blood sugar). Discharge paperwork from hospital documented need to check finger sticks 3 times a day daily. The resident was an insulin dependent diabetic who required Insulin Degludec daily and Insulin Lispro before meals.????? Physician Progress Note dated 1/11/2025 at 12:09 PM by the Nurse Practitioner, documented the resident was seen and evaluated that morning for medical follow-up, given they were a new admission to the facility. The resident arrived yesterday evening. The resident had poorly controlled diabetes. The medication regimen that was available was reviewed, which they believed was the most accurate documentation that they were able to obtain at the moment. Plan included monitor blood glucose levels, avoid hyperglycemia. Would adjust therapy if needed. Medication Administration Record dated January 2025, documented an order to monitor blood sugar before meals and at bedtime for diabetes. The order was to start on 1/11/2025 at 4:30 PM. The Blood Sugar Summary Report printed 3/01/2025 at 10:46 AM, documented the resident's blood sugar was 286 on 1/11/2025 at 4:55 PM. The report did not have documented evidence of blood sugar levels prior to that date/time. During an interview on 3/02/205 at 11:55 AM, Director of Nursing #1 stated for admissions that were off shift admissions, staff would follow the admission check list which included things like diets, advanced directives, and medication orders. Director of Nursing #1 stated staff would need to verify the physician orders in order to treat the resident, but there was always a physician on call 24 hours a day. When asked if the staff would be expected to assess the resident upon arrival, Director of Nursing #1 stated that they did not know if the Registered Nurse assessment had to be done within a certain time limit, but it would be expected to be done during the shift that the resident was admitted . Vital signs and a finger sticks would be a part of that assessment. Doing the assessment 12 hours later would not be acceptable. Resident #14 Resident #14 was admitted to the facility with diagnoses of dementia (a group of conditions that cause a progressive decline in cognitive abilities), iron deficiency (a state where the body's iron stores are depleted), and diverticulitis (inflammation of irregular bulging in the large intestine). The Minimum Data Set, dated [DATE], documented the resident was usually able to understand and be understood by others, with significant cognitive impairment. Resident #14's Comprehensive Care Plan for Assistance with Self-care and mobility, dated 10/2023, documented that the resident required supervision or touching assistance for all personal care. Resident #14's Comprehensive Care Plan for Impaired Skin Integrity, dated 1/06/2023 and revised 1/09/2023, listed the interventions of applying moisturizer as needed to skin, apply protective/preventative skin care, keep skin dry, clean, and well lubricated, and monitor skin condition daily during care and report changes. During an observation on 2/24/2025 at 11:30 AM, Resident #14's bed clothes had not been changed effectively and when the sheets were removed the mattress was covered with dead skin. Resident #20 Resident #20 was admitted to the facility with the diagnoses of schizoaffective disorder (mental health condition that combines symptoms of schizophrenia with mood disorders such as depression), chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, and generalized anxiety order (excessive, frequent, and unrealistic worry about everyday things). The Minimum Data Set, dated [DATE], documented the resident was usually able to understand others, usually able to be understood, and was cognitively intact. Resident #20's comprehensive care plan for being at risk of being a victim due to inability to understand their surroundings related to dependence on others for activities of daily living, documented interventions to assess the resident for signs and symptoms of abuse and/or neglect and provide assistance with activities of daily living as needed. During an observation on 2/24/2025 at 9:30 AM, Resident #20 showed surveyor that their toenails were so long they wrapped around the resident's toes and the resident had blisters on multiple toes. There was no documented evidence of care plan related to foot care. A podiatry note dated 11/09/2024 documented all of Resident #20's toenails were elongated and there were no open areas noted. During an interview on 2/28/2025 at 2:28 PM, Licensed Practical Nurse #17 was made aware of Resident #20's feet. Licensed Practical Nurse #17 stated that they did not know about the resident's feet. Resident #20 stated they had told staff and named Registered Nurse #2 as the person they told. Licensed Practical Nurse #17 stated to the resident, Next time tell me. You know I'll get something done. Licensed Practical Nurse #17 thanked surveyor for showing Resident #20's feet to them. During an interview on 3/07/2025 at 2:00 PM, Regional Director of Nursing #1 stated that care plans needed to reflect the resident. It should have been updated for falls, wounds, behavior, something new for the resident and any or all medications. Resident #23 Resident #23 was admitted to the facility with diagnoses of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, acute on chronic systolic congestive heart failure (a sudden worsening of symptoms of a pre-existing condition of weakened heart muscles), and type 2 diabetes mellitus. The Minimum Data Set, dated [DATE], documented the resident was cognitively intact, could be understood, and understand others. Physicians Progress Note, dated 1/26/2025 at 11:01 AM by Nurse Practitioner #1, documented a lab review for Resident #23 with urinary symptoms. Results were completed and showed positive for urinary tract infection. Would order Levaquin 250 milligrams daily for 5 days. There was no documented evidence in Nursing Notes that the resident's condition was monitored until 1/30/2025. The Infection/Antibiotic Note dated 1/30/2025 at 11:38 AM by Licensed Practical Nurse #9, documented the resident started Levaquin today and was tolerating well with no signs and symptoms of discomfort, upset stomach or nausea. No signs and symptoms of allergy. There were no documented evidence in the Nursing Notes about the resident's condition. Treatment Administration Record dated January and February 2025, documented a physician's order for vital signs daily and to report any findings outside of the resident's baseline to the medical provider. Start date 4/06/2024 at 9:00 AM. There was no end date. The resident's vital signs: blood pressure, temperature, pulse, respiration, and oxygen saturation level documented: - 1/26/2025, blood pressure 132/68, temperature 97.4, pulse 68, respirations 17, oxygen saturation level 96. - 1/27/2025 and 1/28/2025, Licensed Practical Nurse #5 documented the same values for all vital signs as was documented on 1/26/2025. - 1/29/2025, Licensed Practical Nurse #8 documented NA for all vital sign values and there was no documented evidence in the nursing note that the medical provider was notified. - 1/30/2025 and 1/31/2025, Licensed Practical Nurse #9 documented the same values for all vital signs as was documented on 1/26/2025, 1/27/2025, and 1/28/2025. - 2/01/2025, vital signs were not documented. All values were blank. There was no documented evidence in the nursing note that the medical provider was notified. - 2/02/2025, vital signs were not documented. Licensed Practical Nurse #4 documented 5 (hold/see nurses notes) and in a medication administration note dated 1/4/2025 at 11:37 AM, documented one time a day. Physician Progress Note, dated 2/04/2025 at 10:49 AM by Physician #1, documented Resident #23 had a cold and a moderate, non-productive cough. Plan was to complete vitals every shift for 3 days. Monitor and notify provider. There was no documented evidence in the in Nursing Notes that the resident's condition was monitored. Medication Administration Record dated February 2025, documented a physician's order for vital signs every shift for CIC (change in condition) monitoring for 3 days. Start date 2/04/2025 at 3:00 PM. Blood pressure, temperature, pulse, respiration, and oxygen saturation level documented: - 2/04/2025 11:00 PM, Licensed Practical Nurse #11 documented NA for all vital sign values and there was no documented evidence in the nursing note that the medical provider was notified. - 2/05/2025 11:00 PM, Licensed Practical Nurse #18 documented NA for blood pressure and there was no documented evidence in the nursing note that the medical provider was notified. Physician Progress Note, dated 2/24/2025 at 4:45 PM by Physician #1, documented the resident was seen that day for a persistent cough and an abnormal chest x-ray finding that was highly suggestive of pneumonia. Plan included to give oxygen at 3 liters/minute, antibiotics, closely monitor the resident and notify the provider. There was no documentation in Nursing Notes that the resident's condition was monitored. Medication Administration Record dated February 2025, documented a physician order for vital signs every shift for 3 days to start 2/25/2025 at 3:00 PM. Blood pressure, temperature, pulse, respiration, and oxygen saturation level documented: - 2/25/2025 11:00 PM, Licensed Practical Nurse #11 documented NA for blood pressure, pulse, and respiration and there was no nursing note that the medical provider was notified. - 2/26/2025 11:00 PM, Licensed Practical Nurse #11 documented NA for all vital signs and there was no nursing note that the medical provider was notified. Progress Note dated 2/26/2025 at 9:08 AM by Nurse Practitioner #2, documented acute care visit for pneumonia follow up. Resident #23 has not had much improvement in their symptoms. The resident had poor appetite, general malaise (a feeling of weakness, overall discomfort, illness, or simply not feeling well), cough, congestion and profound fatigue. The resident continued to require supplemental oxygen. Plan included vitals every shift for 3 days, monitor for changes, and notify provider. Medication Administration Record dated February 2025, documented a physician order for vital signs every shift for pneumonia monitoring for 3 days, to start 2/26/2025 at 7:00 AM. Blood pressure, temperature, pulse, respiration, and oxygen saturation level documented: - 2/26/2025 11:00 PM, Licensed Practical Nurse #11 documented NA for all vital sign values and there was no documented evidence in the nursing note that the medical provider was notified. Resident #77 Resident #77 was admitted to the facility with diagnoses of chronic kidney disease (a condition where the kidneys are damaged and cannot filter blood effectively), cerebral infarction (stroke), and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. The Minimum Data Set, dated [DATE], documented the resident was cognitively intact. The resident made themselves understood and was able to understand others. Physician Progress Note, dated 11/18/2024 at 12:40 PM by Nurse Practitioner #2, documented the resident was seen that day for constipation. There was no bowel movement x5 days per documentation. The resident reported they had a large bowel movement last evening. Plan: upon chart review, the resident's blood pressures were noted to be soft. The resident has had no symptoms. Would discontinue Amlodipine 5 milligrams (lowers blood pressure). Continue to monitor blood pressure daily - current order for daily vitals. Notify provider of abnormal values. Medication Administration Record dated 11/18/2024, documented the resident's blood pressure was 105/51 (normal is between 90/60 and 120/80 mmHg). Nursing Note dated 11/19/2024 at 10:15 AM by Registered Nurse #7, documented they obtained an order for the resident to receive intravenous fluids for decreased oral intake and the fluids were infusing at that time. Physician Progress Note dated 11/19/2024 at 12:15 PM by Physician #2, documented the resident was seen that day for decreased meal and fluid intake for the past 3 days. Plan included, intravenous fluid x1 liter, monitor for changes, and notify the provider. There was no documented evidence in the in Nursing Notes that the resident's condition was monitored. Physician Progress Note dated 11/22/2024 at 12:12 PM by Nurse Practitioner #2, documented the resident was seen that day for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (a group of lung diseases that block airflow and make it difficult to breathe). The resident wanted to resume their Spiriva inhaler instead of Advair, since they had less chronic obstructive pulmonary disease exacerbations and less shortness of breath. Resident #77 reported they had been laying in bed more as of late and reported their shortness of breath made it hard for them to ambulate or participate in activities and caused extreme fatigue. Plan included monitor for changes and notify the provider. There was no documented evidence in the Nursing Notes that the resident's condition was monitored. Medication Administration Record dated November and December 2024, documented a physician's order for vital signs every dayshift to start 1/30/2024 at 7:00 AM. There was no end date on the order. The resident's vital signs: blood pressure, temperature, pulse, respiration, oxygen saturation level, and pain level documented: - 11/23/2024, Licensed Practical Nurse #16 documented NA for all vital sign values and there was no nursing note that the medical provider was notified. - 11/24/2024, blood pressure 124/60, temperature 97.8, pulse 60, respiration 18, oxygen saturation level 97, and pain level was 0. - 11/25/2024 and 11/26/2024, Licensed Practical Nurse #17 documented the same values for the blood pressure, temperature, and pulse as were documented on 11/24/2024. - 11/27/2024, vital signs were not documented. Licensed Practical Nurse #18 documented 5 (hold/see nurses notes) and in a medication administration note dated 11/27/2024 at 2:31 PM, documented not able to complete, only nurse on unit. There was no documentation the medical provider was notified. - 11/28/2024, 11/29/2024, and 11/30/2024, Licensed Practical Nurse #17 documented the same values for the blood pressure, temperature, and pulse as was documented on 11/24/2024, 11/25/2024, and 11/26/2024. - 12/01/2024, blood pressure 115/56, temperature 97.4, pulse 94, respiration 17, oxygen saturation level 97, and pain level was 0. - 12/2/2024, vital signs were not documented. Licensed Practical Nurse #16 documented NA for all vital sign values and there was no nursing note that the medical provider was notified. - 12/3/2024, Licensed Practical Nurse #17 documented NA for blood pressure, temperature, pulse, and respirations. A Medication Administration Note dated 12/3/2024 at 10:50 AM, documented did not get full vital signs due to being the only nurse on floor. There was no documentation the medical provider was made aware. Physician Progress Note dated 12/3/2024 at 4:21 PM by Physician #2, documented the resident was seen that day for laboratory review related to chronic illness. Repeat chest x-ray still showed pulmonary edema). Plan included, monitor for changes and notify provider. There was no documented evidence in the Nursing Notes that the resident's condition was monitored. Medication Administration Record dated 12/04/2024, Licensed Practical Nurse #17 documented NA for blood pressure and temperature. There was no nursing note that the medical provider was notified. Physician Progress Note dated 12/6/2024 at 9:32 AM by Nurse Practitioner #2, documented the resident was seen that day for medical follow up. The chest x-ray showed prominent lung markings that may be due to pulmonary edema or atypical pneumonia. Continue daily vitals. Medication Administration Record dated December 2024, documented a physician's order for vital signs every dayshift to start 1/30/2024 at 7:00 AM. There was no end date on the order. The resident's vital signs: blood pressure, temperature, pulse, respiration, oxygen saturation level, and pain level documented: - 12/06/2024, no vitals were documented. Licensed Practical Nurse #18 documented 5 (hold/see nurses notes) and in a Medication Administration Note dated 12/06/2024 at 1:49 PM, documented unit short. - 12/07/2024, blood pressure 122/68, temperature 97.9, pulse 60, respiration 18, oxygen saturation level 96, and pain level was 0. - 12/08/2024, Licensed Practical Nurse #3 documented the same values for the blood pressure, temperature, and pulse, as were documented on 12/7/2024. - 12/09/2024, blood pressure 130/66, temperature 97.9, pulse 66, respiration 18, oxygen saturation level 97, and pain level was 0. - 12/10/2024, Licensed Practical Nurse #3, documented the same values for the blood pressure, temperature, and pulse, as were documented on 12/9/2024. During an observation on 2/24/2025 at 10:05 AM, Licensed Practical Nurse #19 was standing in the hall at the medication cart with a resident and placed the blood pressure cuff on the resident in front of surveyor. The blood pressure cuff was on backwards with the bladder of the cuff filling outwardly. Licensed Practical Nurse #19 told the resident they could not understand why the blood pressure cuff was not reading. Licensed Practical Nurse #19 again pushed the button on the blood pressure machine to inflate the cuff. Surveyor asked Licensed Practical Nurse #19 why they thought the cuff was not reading properly. Licensed Practical Nurse #19 stated, I don't know, these don't read right sometimes. Surveyor explained that the cuff was on incorrectly. Licensed Practical Nurse #19 stared at the inflated bladder on the outside and then deflated the cuff and turned the cuff around. Licensed Practical Nurse #19 reapplied the cuff to the same arm they had been using and re-inflated the cuff again. The blood pressure reading was obtained. During an interview on 3/02/2025 at 11:15 AM, Director of Nursing #1 stated they had never been told something could not be done because there was a staffing problem. They stated it would be expected that basic care including vital signs, skin assessments, and finger sticks would be done on the shift that the resident arrived. During an interview on 3/07/2025 at 12:38 PM, Registered Nurse #2 reviewed Resident #77's electronic medical record. They stated they saw the documentation about the vitals not being completely done due to staffing issues and immediately called Licensed Practical Nurse #17 into the room. At 12:43 PM, Surveyor asked Licensed Practical Nurse #17 about their documentation of the resident's vital signs, and they stated, I have done that. They stated they made sure the oxygen and blood pressure were ok and stated they were not able to get the full set of vitals because they were the only nurse on the unit. They stated they notified the Registered Nurse supervisor and the provider. License Practical Nurse #17 stated they had to provide care to both sides of the unit and had both medication carts and were unable to get the full set of vital signs. During an interview on 3/07/2025 at 2:02 PM, Regional Clinical Director #1 was asked why nurses were documenting vital signs the same as was documented the previous day(s). They stated the surveyor would have to ask the nurse. 10 New York Codes Rules and Regulations 415.12
CONCERN (E) 📢 Someone Reported This

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

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

Deficiency F0711 (Tag F0711)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review and interviews during the recertification and abbreviated survey (Case # NY00363829), the facility did no...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review and interviews during the recertification and abbreviated survey (Case # NY00363829), the facility did not ensure the physician reviewed the resident's total program of care, including medications and treatments, at each visit for 2 (Resident #s 23 and 77) of 3 residents reviewed. Specifically, Resident #23 was ordered a topical medication for fungal infection that did not indicate where the medication was to be applied and/or the duration of use. For Resident #77, the provider did not evaluate a high potassium level on 12/17/2024, when the result was reported, and on 12/18/2024, when the provider saw the resident. This is evidenced by: Cross-referenced to F554: Resident Self-Administer Medications - Clinically Appropriate Cross-referenced to F760: Residents are Free of Significant Medication Errors Cross-referenced to F773: Laboratory Services Physician Order/Notify of Results Resident #23 Resident #23 was admitted to the facility with diagnoses of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (a chronic lung disease that causes progressive and irreversible damage to the airways in the lungs), acute on chronic systolic congestive heart failure (a sudden worsening of symptoms of a pre-existing condition of weakened heart muscles), and type 2 diabetes mellitus (a chronic condition where the body does not use insulin properly or does not produce enough insulin to regulate blood sugar levels). The Minimum Data Set (an assessment tool) dated 1/24/2025, documented the resident was cognitively intact, could be understood, and understand others. Order Audit Report dated 2/04/2025 at 11:50 AM, documented an order for Lotrisone Cream 1-0.05% (clotrimazole-betamethasone), apply to per additional directions topically two times a day for fungal skin rash. The order was entered and signed by Physician #1 on 2/04/2025 at 11:52 AM and was confirmed by Licensed Practical Nurse #7 on 2/04/2025 at 4:33 PM. - There were no instructions on where the medication was to be applied and/or the duration of use. Medication Administration Record dated February 2025, documented Lotrisone Cream 1-0.05% (clotrimazole-betamethasone) apply to per additional directions topically two times a day for fungal skin rash. Start date 2/4/2025 at 5:00 PM and was discontinued following interview with Physician #1 on 2/26/2025 at 3:48 PM. - Lotrisone Cream was administered several times from 2/4/2025 to 2/26/2025. During observation and interview on 2/26/2025 at 12:40 PM, Resident #23 stated they were a Registered Nurse. When asked about the fungal skin rash, the resident stated they had a rash under their right breast that was caused from not having a proper fitting bra and from sweat under the breasts. The resident picked up a bottle of antifungal powder that was on their nightstand and stated they had been using it regularly for the rash under their breast. The surveyor asked about the rash that was observed on the resident's face which was red and blotchy across the forehead, nose, and cheeks. Resident #23 reached in a bag and handed the surveyor a tube of cream that was in a clear plastic bag with a pharmacy label on it. The facility pharmacy label documented Clotrim/Beta cream 1-0-0.5 % generic for Lotrisone. Apply to per directions topically every day shift for 14 days. Apply under the breast. Resident #23 stated the nurse left it for them (the resident) to apply themselves. The resident stated they had applied it to the rash on their face as instructed by the nurse. The surveyor told the resident that the directions on the cream stated to apply it under the breast. The resident was not aware it was for the breast and stated they had applied the cream once yesterday afternoon to their face and the rash was gone. There was a red label on the prescription bag that read, for external use only: keep out of the eyes, inside of nose or mouth. Resident #23 stated they read the label and thought it said apply to affected area only. They stated they were normally good at reading labels but do not always wear their glasses. They reported they had no formal assessment to self-administer the medication. During an interview on 2/26/2025 at 3:48 PM, Physician #1 stated they saw Resident #23 on 2/04/2025 because of a rash on their face, nose, and forehead. Lotrisone cream was prescribed for the resident's face. They stated the rash would come and go because the resident was not following proper hygiene. When they saw the resident, they told the resident the plan was for the resident to shower every day and for the Lotrisone cream to be applied to the face on the affected skin. They stated the order for the Lortisone had detailed instructions on where the nurse should apply it. Physician #1 stated they would not expect the patient to use it themselves. They stated, the instructions were for the nurse, not the patient. They stated they were not aware the resident had a fungal infection under their breast and could not explain why the prescription from the pharmacy documented to apply under the breast. The resident only complained about the rash on their face when they saw them on 2/04/2025. Physician #1 stated a fungal infection on the forehead could spread to the rest of the body. Resident #77 Resident #77 was admitted to the facility with diagnoses of chronic kidney disease (a long-term condition where the kidneys gradually lose their ability to filter waste products and excess fluid from the blood), cerebral infarction (stroke), and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. The Minimum Data Set, dated [DATE], documented the resident was cognitively intact. The resident made themselves understood and was able to understand others. Laboratory Results Report for a basic metabolic profile collected on 12/12/2024 and reported on 12/13/2024 at 2:36 AM, documented critical/abnormal test list: Glucose, B-type natriuretic peptide, Creatinine, Chloride, Calcium, Calculated Osmolality, and estimated Glomerular Filtration Rate. Physician Progress Note dated 12/13/2024 at 9:10 PM by Nurse Practitioner #4, documented they were notified by the facility to review laboratory results. Labs collected on 12/12/2024 had notable results for the resident's kidney function and the plan was for a repeat basic metabolic profile laboratory test to be done on 12/16/2024. Laboratory Results Report for a basic metabolic profile collected on 12/16/2024 and reported on 12/17/2024 at 3:05 AM, documented critical/abnormal test list: b-type natriuretic peptide, Creatinine, Chloride, Calculated Osmolality, and estimated Glomerular Filtration Rate, as was previously noted on results reported on 12/13/2024. - In addition, a potassium level of 5.2 was documented as high and was in the list of critical/abnormal tests (potassium helps nerves and muscles work properly and too much can be dangerous and cause serious heart problems). The resident's high potassium level was not evaluated by a provider until 12/21/2024 at 10:20 PM: - There was no documentation in Nursing Notes that the provider was notified of the critical/abnormal results on 12/17/2024. - Physician Progress Note dated 12/18/2024 at 9:09 AM by Nurse Practitioner #2, documented the resident was seen for follow up. The resident's basic metabolic profile lab test dated 12/16/2024 was reviewed. The providers had been following the resident's kidney function following acute kidney injury and estimated Glomerular Filtration Rate was slowly improving. Labs were discussed with the resident that day. Plan documented to repeat the basic metabolic profile on 12/30/2024. There was no documentation Nurse Practitioner #2 evaluated the high potassium level. - Laboratory Results Report for a basic metabolic profile collected on 12/20/2024 and reported on 12/21/2024 at 6:39 AM, the potassium level was 5.2, high. - Physician Progress Note dated 12/21/2024 at 10:20 PM by Nurse Practitioner #5, documented the resident was seen by the provider on 12/18/2024 and ordered a repeat basic metabolic profile. Nurse Practitioner #5 ordered Lokelma 10 grams x1 for hyperkalemia (too much potassium in the blood). During an interview on 3/07/2025 at 12:38 PM, Registered Nurse #2 stated laboratory results were accessible on the provider's dashboard. They stated if the potassium result was 5.2 on 12/17/2024, the provider would have been in the facility and would have seen it. Registered Nurse #2 stated nurses were not responsible for monitoring test results because providers could look up results themselves. They stated the providers should watch for the results because they ordered the tests. They stated the provider should have ordered something for the potassium level of 5.2 on 12/17/2024. Registered Nurse #2 reviewed the progress note dated 12/18/2024 by Nurse Practitioner #2 and stated there was nothing ordered for the high potassium. They stated there was another result on 12/21/2024 that the potassium was 5.2. During an interview on 3/03/2025 at 11:46 AM, Medical Director #1 stated that 90% of the orders were entered by the provider. They stated that when the provider evaluated a resident, they should be looking at the resident's clinical picture, meaning the lab results, orders, and progress notes. During an interview on 3/07/2025 at 2:02 PM, Registered Nurse Regional Clinical Director #1 stated labs were done Monday, Wednesday, and Friday unless they were stat orders. They stated the laboratory results were automatically uploaded into the electronic medical record and the provider was able to see the results on the dashboard. Administrator #1 was present and stated the nurse would see the results and notify the provider. 10 New York Codes Rules and Regulations 415.15(b)(2)(iii)
CONCERN (E) 📢 Someone Reported This

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

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

Pharmacy Services (Tag F0755)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review and interview during the recertification survey and abbreviated survey (Case # NY00363829), the facility ...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review and interview during the recertification survey and abbreviated survey (Case # NY00363829), the facility did not ensure that it provided pharmaceutical services (including procedures that assure the accurate acquiring, receiving, dispensing, and administering of all drugs and biologicals) to meet the needs of the residents for two (2) (Resident #s 47 and 77) of 5 residents reviewed. Specifically, [a.] for Resident #47 with diagnoses of schizophrenia, the facility did not ensure Clozapine (atypical antipsychotic) was available to administer on 11/25/2024 to 12/26/2024 and, [b.] for Resident #47, the facility did not ensure Lokelma was available on 12/21/2024, when ordered for a high potassium level. The resident did not receive the medication until 12/25/2024. This is evidenced by: Cross-referenced to F760: Residents are Free of Significant Medication Errors Resident #47 Resident #47 was admitted to the facility with diagnoses of schizophrenia (a mental condition characterized by thoughts or experiences that seem out of touch with reality), chronic obstructive pulmonary disease with acute exacerbation (a chronic lung disease that cause progressive and irreversible damage to the airways in the lungs), and type 2 diabetes mellitus without complications (a chronic condition where the body does not use insulin properly or does not produce enough insulin to regulate blood sugar levels). The Minimum Data Set, dated [DATE] documented the resident was cognitively intact. The resident made themselves understood and was able to understand others. Order Summary Report for order date range 11/01/2024 to 3/07/2025, documented an order dated 11/25/2024 for Clozapine oral tablet give 375 milligrams by mouth at bedtime for schizophrenia. Medication Administration Record dated November 2024 documented Clozapine 375 milligrams was to start on 11/25/2024 at 9:00 PM and documented: - 11/25/2024 was not given and documented awaiting pharmacy delivery. - 11/26/2024 was not given and documented medication enroute from pharmacy, will administer upon arrival. Physician notified. - 11/27/2024 was documented as given. - 11/28/2024 was not given and documented the medication was on order and awaiting arrival from the pharmacy. Skilled nursing would follow up. Pharmacy report for Clozapine, dispense date range 2/01/2024 to 3/03/2025, did not document Clozapine was dispensed in November 2024 for Resident #47. The report documented the medication was dispensed on 12/6/2024. Pharmacy Packing Slip Proof of Delivery documented Clozapine was delivered to the facility for Resident #47 on 12/06/2024 at 9:49 PM. Resident #77 Resident #77 was admitted to the facility with diagnoses of chronic kidney disease (chronic kidney damage that makes it harder for kidneys to filter waste and fluid from the blood), cerebral infarction (a medical condition where the blood flow to the brain is interrupted, leading to the death of brain cells), and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (a chronic lung disease that cause progressive and irreversible damage to the airways in the lungs). The Minimum Data Set, dated [DATE], documented the resident was cognitively intact. The resident made themselves understood and was able to understand others. Laboratory Report dated 12/21/2024, documented the results of a basic metabolic panel that was collected on 12/20/2024. The potassium result was 5.2 (reference range 3.5 - 5.1) and was flagged as being high. Order Summary Report for order date range 11/1/2024 to 3/31/2025, documented an order dated 12/21/2024 for Lokelma oral packet 10 grams (sodium zirconium cyclosilicate), give 1 packet by mouth for hyperkalemia (high level of potassium in the blood often caused by kidney disease). Nursing Note dated 12/21/2024 at 10:54 PM by the Registered Nurse documented they received a call from the provider regarding Resident #77 having a potassium level of 5.2. The provider placed a new order for Lokelma. The Registered Nurse contacted the pharmacy, and they reported they would not be able to get the medication in the facility until the following afternoon. The provider was made aware and confirmed it was ok that the medication would not be available until the following afternoon. Medication Administration Record dated December 2024, did not have documented evidence that Lokelma was given on 12/22/2024 and there was no documented evidence in a Nursing Progress Note that the provider was notified. There was no documented evidence the resident received Lokelma on 12/21/2024, 12/22/2024, 12/23/2024, or 12/24/2024. There was no documented evidence in Nursing Notes that the medical provider was notified. Physician Progress Note dated 12/24/2024 at 3:45 PM by Physician #2, documented the resident's potassium level had increased, and the resident had received 1 dose of Lokelma on 12/21/2024. Plan documented to give Lokelma 2 times a day for 1 day. Order Summary Report for order date range 11/1/2024 to 3/31/2025, documented an order dated 12/24/2024 for Lokelma oral packet 10 grams (sodium zirconium cyclosilicate), give 1 packet by mouth two times a day for hyperkalemia. Order Note dated 12/25/2024 at 2:16 AM by Registered Nurse, documented the order for Lokelma oral packet 10 grams, give 1 packet two times a day for hyperkalemia was outside of the recommended dose or frequency. The frequency of 2 times a day exceeded the usual frequency of every 2 days to daily. It documented the provider was aware. Medication Administration Record dated December 2024 documented Lokelma oral packet 10 grams was given on 12/25/2024 at 9:00 AM. During an interview on 3/02/2025 at 1:48 PM, Director of Nursing #1 stated that they were aware that there were medications missing from pharmacy. They have been looking into it. Haven't run into any reports of missing medications or medication errors, had just been told by staff that pharmacy didn't send medications. Director of Nursing #1 stated they would expect that staff who discovered medications weren't in house would check the PYXIS to see if there was any here already, get vitals, contact Medical Doctor to tell them what was available for substitution, document in the Electronic Medical Record that the medication was not available and that the dose was missed, and call pharmacy to make sure that medication would come on next run. Missed medications should be reported to the supervisor. Director of Nursing #1 stated they were unaware that there was a medication error form and stated that documentation of missed medications should be in the shift to shift 24-hour report that was they reviewed every day. Director of Nursing #1 stated Nurse Managers were also supposed to check. Quality Assurance Plan Initiative had met once with them as a Director of Nursing, and they were having night nurses review carts and medications to ensure that everything was where it needed to be. Pharmacy made 3 deliveries a day early in the morning on the overnight shift, afternoon on day shift, and on the evening shift around 8-9 PM. During an interview on 3/02/2025 2:00 PM, Administrator #1 stated in the past they had reached out to providers themself to help figure out issues. They stated they would expect that staff would call pharmacy for missing doses and to find out when they could be delivered. The Administrator stated they would expect that staff would call Medical Director to see if something else could be given. They stated they would expect staff to monitor the resident and document whatever direction was given by provider. They stated the medication issues in the building just came to light over the last week. During an interview on 3/02/2025 at 3:11 PM, Administrator #1 stated they had started a house wide education regarding what was available in the Pyxis ( and what to do when something was not available. Supervisors and unit managers had been reeducated on the policy of checking their reports, checking the clinical dashboard for late and/or missing medications. Daily reports would be run regarding medication errors and missed doses and if the providers were notified. Administrator #1 stated they would be checking reports for yellow and red colors (indicated late or missed doses) daily and try to correct inconsistencies in real time. During an interview on 3/07/2025 at 12:38 PM, Registered Nurse #2 stated Resident #77 had a result on 12/21/2024 that the potassium was 5.2. When asked about the Lokelma ordered on 12/21/2024 for the high potassium, they stated they had lots of problems with the pharmacy that was located out-of-state. They stated they had issues with medications received in the facility because of the pharmacy location. They stated the facility did not utilize a local pharmacy. During an interview on 3/07/2025 at 2:02 PM, Registered Nurse Regional Clinical Director #1 stated that recently during the survey, they came across the problem with receiving medications from the pharmacy. Administrator #1 was present and stated they reached out to the pharmacy representative and now had access to a pharmacy dashboard. 10 New York Codes Rules and Regulations 415.18(a)
CONCERN (E) 📢 Someone Reported This

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

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

Deficiency F0837 (Tag F0837)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

Based on observation, record review, and interviews during the recertification and abbreviated survey (Case #s NY00343930, NY00347964, NY00354057, NY00363829, NY00364424, NY00364701, and NY00369042) ,...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, record review, and interviews during the recertification and abbreviated survey (Case #s NY00343930, NY00347964, NY00354057, NY00363829, NY00364424, NY00364701, and NY00369042) , it was determined the facility and governing body failed to ensure that residents received appropriate quality of care by allowing the following deficient practices to exist, placing residents at risk for serious injury, serious harm, serious impairment, or death: F760: Residents are Free of Significant Medication Errors and F684 Quality of Care. Specifically, the facility's governing body did not ensure established policies regarding the management and operation of the facility were implemented. Subsequently, resident care was compromised. This is evidenced by: Facility was cited F760: Residents are Free of Significant Medication Errors Cross-referenced to F684: Quality of Care The undated document titled, Quality Assurance Performance Improvement Plan, documented the purpose of the Quality Assurance Performance Improvement Plan was to evaluate residents' experience of the services provided to determine how the experience could be improved, to realize the facility's vision of innovation and continuous improvement in the delivery of care. To accomplish that purpose, the facility engaged all members of each service to evaluate the quality of care provided to residents and held themselves to the highest standard by continually improving the care on the resident's behalf. Guiding Principles documented Quality Assurance Performance Improvement guided the facility's daily operation, included all members of each service, was encouraged by holding each individual accountable for their performance (professional or otherwise), and the facility was committed to encouraging all members on any level of the organization to identify system breakdowns/deficits in an effort to improve performance. Element II: Governance and Leadership documented the Governing Body and Administration potentiated high quality resident care by developing and leading the Quality Assurance Performance Improvement program. Quality Assurance Performance Improvement would be adequately resourced and promote an atmosphere that encouraged the reporting of quality problems as well as opportunities for improvement. The Quality Assurance Performance Improvement coordinator would utilize systems thinking and assist departments in the methodology and selection of priority concerns impacting resident care safety. The facility would provide in house training/in-service for all employees on Quality Assurance Performance Improvement as well as posters with information specific to Quality Assurance Performance Improvement. The training would be provided by members of the Steering Committee. The facility would designate members of the steering committee to attend training programs/seminars specific to Quality Assurance Performance Improvement. Technical training would be provided by the Nursing Department. Element III: Feedback, Data Systems, and Monitoring documented (1) pertinent resident care information would be reviewed daily by the Interdisciplinary Team, (2) daily morning minutes (running log or needed follow up for each unit) would be reviewed and revised on an ongoing basis by the Interdisciplinary Team, (3) any areas that needed immediate Process Improvement would be identified and followed up by Quality Assurance Steering Committee as indicated, (4) the facility would utilize multiple data sources to monitor performance including Quality Measures, State and National benchmarks as well as tracking and investigating any adverse events affecting residents, (5) feedback from staff would be encouraged and welcomed via Unit Quality Improvement rounds, regular meetings and open door policy by Department Heads and administration, and (6) Quality Improvement alert would be distributed to each Department Head for staff education as indicated. Element IV: Performance Improvement Projects documented (1) focus areas of Performance improvement would be identified by Administration based upon input from staff, residents, and families, (2) for each focus area Root Cause analysis would be used to identify systems, processes and procedures that need revision; (3) for each area a Performance Improvement team would be identified, (4) performance improvement teams would meet weekly, (5) the team was responsible to educate, monitor, and collect data and plan improvement as indicated, (6) the data collection would be reviewed monthly by team members and quarterly by the Quality Assurance Performance Improvement Steering Committee, (7) compliance with Performance Improvement established goals would be evaluated against a benchmark and decision to continue, revise or close Performance Improvement area would be made by Steering Committee, (8) all staff members, residents, and families would be educated regarding performance improvement areas on a regular basis to include but not limited to unit conferences, resident council meetings and comprehensive care plan meetings as indicated, (9) visible signage would be posted to alert all resident, staff, and families of facility progress with Performance Improvement Areas. Element V: Systemic Analysis and Systemic Action documented (1) actions taken would be linked to the root cause and lead to a system or process change, (2) all staff members would receive ongoing education regarding systemic changes, (3) feedback from all staff as well as residents and families would be welcomed and encouraged, (4) residents and families would be educated regarding systemic changes, (5) the Quality Assurance Steering Committee would monitor sustainability of systemic changes on a quarterly basis or more frequently as indicated. Resident #47 did not receive prescribed psychiatric medication to be given at bedtime at 9:00 PM from 11/25/2024 to 12/6/2024 (12 days). On 11/29/2024 at 9:00 AM, the resident decompensated and was sent to the hospital upon their request. Resident #12 received only 10 of 20 doses of antibiotics prescribed. Resident #23 received only 4 of 8 doses of antibiotics prescribed. Resident #77 was prescribed medication to lower their potassium level on 12/21/2024 and did not receive the medication until 12/25/2024. Resident #327 did not receive antibiotics for 2 days after prescribed. Resident #6 did not receive finger sticks to check the blood sugar level for over 12 hours after admission. Resident #14 was not offered personal care assistance. Resident #20's feet were not assessed regularly. Resident #23 and Resident #77 did not have vital signs as ordered and were not monitored for changes of condition. During an interview on 3/2/2025 at 1:48 PM, Director of Nursing #1 stated they were aware that there were medications missing from pharmacy and had been looking into it. Director of Nursing #1 stated they would expect staff who discovered a medication was not in-house, would check the Pyxis to see if the medication was available, obtain vital signs, and contact the Medical Director to inform them of an available substitution. They would expect staff to document in the Electronic Medical Record that the medication was not available, and the dose was missed. They would expect staff to call the pharmacy to ensure the medication would come on next pharmacy delivery. They stated missed medications should have been reported to the supervisor. Director of Nursing #1 stated there was no missed medication form, but it would be documented in the shift to shift 24-hour report that they reviewed every day. They stated nurse managers were responsible for checking the report. They stated Quality Assurance Performance Improvement had met once since their promotion to Director of Nursing and one of the things they were doing was having night nurses review carts and medications to ensure that everything was where it needed to be. During an interview on 3/2/2025 at 2:00 PM, Administrator #1 stated they have reached out to providers to help to determine and resolve issues. They would expect that staff would call the pharmacy for missing doses and to find out when they could be delivered. They would expect that staff would call the Medical Director to see if something else could be given. They would expect staff to monitor the resident and document directions given by the provider. Administrator #1 stated the medication issues in the building just came to light over the last week during survey. They stated there were medication error/missed dose sheets, but the Administrator had not received any in January or February 2025. Administrator #1 stated they would expect the nurses to write a progress note about the missed doses that would be included on the 24-hour report that was reviewed daily. Administrator #1 stated that they had never heard there were not enough staff to get medications administered or resident care done. During an interview on 3/02/2025 at 3:11 PM, Administrator #1 stated they started house- wide education regarding what was available in the Pyxis and what to do when medications were not available. Supervisors and unit managers were reeducated on the policy of checking their reports and checking the clinical dashboard for late and/or missing medications. Daily reports would be run regarding medication errors and missed doses and to if the providers were notified. Administrator stated they would be checking reports for yellow and red colors (indicated late or missed doses) daily and would try to correct inconsistencies in real time. During an interview on 3/03/2025 at 11:22 AM, Medical Director #1 stated they were only here to monitor the physicians. Medical Director #1 stated they attended all Quality Assurance Performance Improvement meetings. They stated communication breakdown was a big part of the problems seen during survey. They stated they were only notified of significant problems. Medical Director #1 stated they became aware of the facility's issues this week and going forward it would be discussed every day. When asked if they would be present in the facility more often to ensure provider and staff compliance, Medical Director #1 stated they believed that because they had talked to the girls they would be compliant, and did not intend to increase visits unless it was needed. During an interview on 3/07/2025 at 2:00 PM, Registered Nurse Regional Clinical Director #1 stated they were able to speak to the general facility and corporate policies, but not resident specific issues. They stated they had just transferred from another facility 5 days prior. They stated they were looking to make immediate improvements. During an interview on 3/07/2025 at 2:30 PM, Administrator #1 stated that they meet with the department heads daily during morning meeting and monthly with the Quality Assurance committee. Administrator #1 stated they were unaware of the multitude of problems that had come to light during the survey. They stated they became the administrator of the facility in the summer of 2024. Administrator #1 stated they intended to be more present on the units and more closely manage the day-to-day operations of the facility. 10 New York Code of Rules and Regulations 415.26(b)(3)(1)
CONCERN (E)

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

Medical Records (Tag F0842)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review and interviews conducted during a recertification survey, the facility did not ensure medical records wer...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review and interviews conducted during a recertification survey, the facility did not ensure medical records were kept in accordance with accepted professional standards. Medical records were not complete and accurate for three of three units and two (2 ) (Resident #'s 23 and 53) of 31 residents. Specifically, (a.) narcotic count record books for 3 of 3 units were incomplete; (b.) Resident #23's documentation of vital signs was either incomplete or duplicated; and (c.) for Resident #53, wound care documentation was inaccurate. This is evidenced by: A review of the narcotic count record book for Unit A, there were no documented evidence of Nurses signatures for the following: - On-coming nurse on 2/04/2025 at 3:00 PM - Off-going nurse on 2/04/2025 at 11:00 PM - On-coming nurse on 2/07/2025 at 11:00 PM - Off-going nurse on 2/08/2025 at 7:00 AM - On-coming nurse on undated at 11:00 PM - Off-going nurse on 2/10/2025 at 7:00 AM - Off-going nurse on 2/11/2025 at 7:00 AM - On-coming nurse on 2/12/2025 at 11:00 PM - Off-going nurse on 2/13/2025 at 7:00 AM - On-coming nurse on 2/13/2025 at 11:00 PM - Off-going nurse on 2/14/2025 at 7:00 AM - Off-going nurse on 2/15/2025 at 3:00 PM - On-coming nurse on 2/17/2025 at 11:00 PM - Off-going nurse on 2/18/2025 at 7:00 AM - On-coming nurse on 2/19/2025 at 11:00 PM - Off-going nurse on 2/20/2025 at 7:00 AM - On-coming nurse on 2/20/2025 at 11:00 PM - Off-going nurse on 2/21/2025 at 7:00 AM - On-coming nurse on an unreadable date at 7:00 AM - Off-going nurse on 2/22/2025 at 3:00 PM A review of the narcotic count record book for Unit B Team 1 there were no documented evidence of Nurses signatures for the following: - On-coming nurse on 1/12/2025 at 11:00 PM - Off-going nurse on 1/13/2025 at 7:00 AM - On-coming nurse on 1/14/2025 at 11:00 PM - Off-going nurse on 1/15/2025 at 7:00 AM - Off-going nurse on 1/16/2025 at 3:00 PM - On-coming nurse on 1/17/2025 at 11:00 AM - Off-going nurse on 1/18/2025 at 7:00 AM - On-coming nurse on 1/31/2025 at 11:00 PM - Off-going nurse on 2/01/2025 at 7:00 AM - Off-going nurse on 2/03/2025 at 3:00 PM - On-coming nurse on 2/04/2025 at 7:00 AM - Off-going nurse on 2/04/2025 at 3:00 PM - On-coming nurse on 2/05/2025 at 7:00 AM - Off-going nurse on 2/05/2025 at 3:00 PM - On-coming nurse on 2/07/2025 at 7:00 AM - Off-going nurse on 2/07/2025 at 3:00 PM - On-coming nurse on 2/08/2025 at 7:00 AM - Off-going nurse on 2/08/2025 at 3:00 PM - On-coming nurse on 2/09/2025 at 7:00 AM - Off-going nurse on 2/09/2025 at 3:00 PM - On-coming nurse on 2/10/2025 at 7:00 AM - Off-going nurse on 2/10/2025 at 3:00 PM -On-coming nurse on 2/12/2025 at 7:00 AM - Off-going nurse on 2/12/2025 at 3:00 PM - On-coming nurse on 2/13/2025 at 7:00 AM - Off-going nurse on 2/13/2025 at 3:00 PM - On-coming nurse on 2/14/2025 at 7:00 AM - Off-going nurse on 2/14/2025 at 3:00 PM - On-coming nurse on 2/14/2025 at 11:00 AM - Off-going nurse on 2/15/2025 at 7:00 AM - On-coming nurse on 2/15/2025 at 7:00 AM - Off-going nurse on 2/15/2025 at 3:30 PM - On-coming nurse on 2/16/2025 at 7:00 AM - Off-going nurse on 2/16/2025 at 3:00 PM - On-coming nurse on an undated date and time - Off-going nurse on 2/17/2025 at 3:00 PM - On-coming nurse on 2/18/2025 at 7:00 AM - Off-going nurse on 2/18/2025 at 3:00 PM - On-coming nurse on 2/19/2025 at 7:00 AM - Off-going nurse on 2/19/2025 at 3:00 PM - On-coming nurse on 2/20/2025 at 7:00 AM - Off-going nurse on 2/20/2025 at 3:00 PM - On-coming nurse on 2/21/2025 at 7:00 AM - Off-going nurse on 2/21/2025 at 3:00 PM - Off-going nurse on 2/23/2025 at an unknown time - On-coming nurse on 2/26/2025 at 7:00 AM Photocopies of the narcotic count record book for Unit B Team 2 were provided to the surveyor on 2/28/2025. Review of the photocopies documented blank spaces for the following dates: - On-coming nurse on 1/20/2025 at 7:00 AM - Off-going nurse on 1/20/2025 at 3:00 PM - On-coming nurse on 1/21/2025 at 7:00 AM - Off-going nurse on 1/21/2025 at 3:00 PM - On-coming nurse on 1/24/2025 at 7:00 AM - Off-going nurse on 1/24/2025 at 3:00 PM - On-coming nurse on 1/25/2025 at 7:00 AM - Off-going nurse on 1/25/2025 at 3:00 PM - On-coming nurse on 1/26/2025 at 7:00 AM - Off-going nurse on 1/26/2025 at 3:00 PM - On-coming nurse on 1/29/2025 at 7:00 AM - Off-going nurse on 1/29/2025 at 3:00 PM - On-coming nurse on 1/30/2025 at 7:00 AM - Off-going nurse on 1/30/2025 at 3:00 PM - On-coming nurse on 1/31/2025 at 7:00 AM - On-coming nurse on 1/31/2025 at 11:00 PM - Off-going nurse on 2/01/2025 at 7:00 AM - On-coming nurse on 2/09/2025 at 7:00 AM - Off-going nurse on 2/09/2025 at 3:00 PM - On-coming nurse on 2/10/2025 at 7:00 AM - Off-going nurse on 2/10/2025 at 3:00 PM - On-coming nurse on 2/14/2025 at 11:00 PM - Off-going nurse on 2/15/2025 at 7:00 AM - On-coming nurse on 2/17/2025 at 7:00 AM - Off-going nurse on 2/17/2025 at 3:00 PM - On-coming nurse on an unknown date at 3:00 PM - Off-going nurse on 2/20/2025 at 11:00 PM - On-coming nurse on 2/24/2025 at 11:00 AM - Off-going nurse on 2/24/2025 at 3:00 PM - On-coming nurse on 2/25/2025 at 7:00 AM - Off-going nurse on 2/25/2025 at 3:00 PM In addition, review of the provided photocopies of the narcotic count record book documented a crossed out signature without a corresponding signature for the off-going nurse on 1/31/2025 at 3:00 PM. An additional copy of Unit B Team 2 narcotic count record book was provided to the surveyor via secure file transfer on 3/02/2025. The following discrepancies were noted: Dates that were previously blank on copies provided on 2/28/2025 were now signed on 3/2/2025: - On-coming nurse on 1/20/2025 at 7:00 AM - Off-going nurse on 1/20/2025 at 3:00 PM - On-coming nurse on 1/21/2025 at 7:00 AM - Off-going nurse on 1/21/2025 at 3:00 PM - On-coming nurse on 1/24/2025 at 7:00 AM - Off-going nurse on 1/24/2025 at 3:00 PM - On-coming nurse on 1/25/2025 at 7:00 AM - Off-going nurse on 1/25/2025 at 3:00 PM - On-coming nurse on 1/26/2025 at 7:00 AM - Off-going nurse on 1/26/2025 at 3:00 PM - On-coming nurse on 1/29/2025 at 7:00 AM - Off-going nurse on 1/29/2025 at 3:00 PM - On-coming nurse on 1/30/2025 at 7:00 AM - Off-going nurse on 1/30/2025 at 3:00 PM - On-coming nurse on 2/09/2025 at 7:00 AM - Off-going nurse on 2/09/2025 at 3:00 PM - On-coming nurse on 2/10/2025 at 7:00 AM - Off-going nurse on 2/10/2025 at 3:00 PM - On-coming nurse on 2/25/2025 at 7:00 AM - Off-going nurse on 2/25/2025 at 3:00 PM A review of the narcotic count record book for Unit C documented blank spaces for: - On-coming nurse on an unknown date at 11:00 PM - Off-going nurse on 2/2/2025 at 7:00 AM - Off-going nurse on 2/4/2025 at 7:00 AM - On-coming nurse on an unknown date at 11:00 PM - Off-going nurse on 2/6/2025 at 7:00 AM - On-coming nurse on 2/11/2025 at 11:00 AM - Off-going nurse on 2/12/2025 at 7:00 AM - On-coming nurse on 2/23/2025 at 11:00 PM - Off-going nurse on 2/24/2025 at 7:00 AM - On-coming nurse on 2/25/2025 at 7:00 AM - Off-going nurse on an unknown date at 3:00 PM - On-coming nurse on 2/27/2025 at 11:00 PM In addition, review of the narcotic count record book for Unit C documented the following dates with signatures crossed out and no corresponding signature in its place: - On-coming nurse on 2/2/2025 at 3:00 PM - Off-going nurse on 2/3/2025 at 7:00 AM - On-coming nurse on 2/3/2025 at 11:00 PM - On-coming nurse on an unknown date at 11:00 PM - On-coming nurse on an unknown date at 7:00 AM - On-coming nurse on 2/15/2025 at 11:00 PM During an interview on 3/03/2025 at 10:36 AM, Director of Nursing #1 stated that staff should not back sign any documentation. The narcotic count record book should be signed when the nurses are performing the count and there should not be any blanks on the signature page. During an interview on 3/03/2025 at 10:46 AM, Licensed Practical Nurse #2 stated if they saw a blank signature space in the book and knew they worked that shift, they would sign it, even if it were days later. They acknowledged the book should be signed by both the on-coming and off-going nurses at the time of the narcotic count. During an interview on 3/7/2025 at 2:02 PM, Regional Clinical Director #1 stated that narcotic counts required 2 nurses, the on-coming and the off-going nurse, to count the narcotics and sign the narcotic count book at the time of the count. Resident #23 Resident #23 was admitted to the facility with the diagnoses of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (a group of lung diseases that block airflow and make it difficult to breathe), pneumonia (an infection that inflames air sacs in one or both lungs, which may fill with fluid), and chronic respiratory failure (a condition that occurs when the lungs cannot get enough oxygen into the blood or eliminate enough carbon dioxide from the body). The Minimum Data Set, dated [DATE], documented the resident was understood, able to understand others, and was cognitively intact. The Treatment Administration Record for January 2025 documented the following repeated vital signs: - 1/06/2025 and 1/07/2025: Blood pressure 122/70, Temperature 97.7, Pulse 80, Respirations 17, Oxygen saturation 99% - 1/16/2025, 1/17/2025, and 1/18/2025: Blood pressure 139/78, Temperature 97.9, Pulse 71, Respirations 17, Oxygen saturation 99% - 1/20/2025 and 1/21/2025: Blood pressure 132/66, Temperature 97.9, Pulse 78, Respirations 18, Oxygen saturation 96% - 1/22/2025, 1/23/2025, 1/25/2025, 1/26/2025, 1/27/2025, 1/28/2025, 1/30/2025, and 1/31/2025: Blood pressure 132/68, Temperature 97.4, Pulse 68, Respirations 17, Oxygen saturation 96% There were no vital signs documented for the following dates: 1/08/2025, 1/13/2025, and 1/24/2025. The Treatment Administration Record for February 2025 documented the following repeated vital signs: - 2/03/2025 and 2/04/2025: Blood pressure 144/81, Temperature 97.4, Pulse 95, Respirations 17, Oxygen saturation 92% - 2/06/2025, 2/08/2025, 2/10/25, and 2/12/2025: Blood pressure 130/68, Temperature 97.9, Pulse 77, Respirations 18, Oxygen saturation 95% - 2/13/2025 and 2/16/2025: Blood pressure 137/76, Temperature 98.2, Pulse 71, Respirations 16, Oxygen saturation 97% - 2/22/2025 and 2/23/225: Blood pressure 127/73, Temperature 97.7, Pulse 100, Respirations 21, Oxygen saturation 93% - 2/24/2025 and 2/25/2025: Blood pressure 139/78, Temperature 98.1, Pulse 86, Respirations 18, Oxygen saturation 98% There were no vital signs documented for the following dates: 2/01/2025, 2/05/2025, 2/07/2025, 2/11/2025, 2/14/2025, 2/15/2025, 2/18/2025, 2/19/2025, 2/20/2025, and 2/21/2025 The Treatment Administration Record for March 2025 documented the following repeated vital signs: - 3/01/2025 and 3/02/2025: Blood pressure 127/71, Temperature 97.8, Pulse 71, Respirations 15, Oxygen saturation 96%. There were no vital signs documented for 3/04/2025. During an interview on 3/06/2025 at 2:39 PM, Licensed Practical Nurse #5 stated they would not expect a resident to have the same vital signs multiple days in a row. They could not explain the duplicate vital signs multiple days in a row for Resident # 23. During an interview on 3/06/2025 at 3:05 PM, Nurse Practitioner #1 stated that duplicate vital signs over several days would be highly unusual. During an interview on 3/7/2025 at 2:02 PM, Regional Clinical Director #1 stated staff should not be documenting that care was provided when it was not, and documentation should not be falsified. Resident #53 Resident #53 was admitted to the facility with the diagnoses of polyosteoarthritis (a condition where pain and inflammation occur in multiple joints at once), obstructive sleep apnea (a condition that occurs when airflow is intermittently blocked during sleep), and hypertension (high blood pressure). The Minimum Data Set (an assessment tool) dated 12/29/2024, documented the resident was understood, able to understand others, and was cognitively intact. A physician's order dated 12/27/2024, documented to apply collagen into wound on left buttocks, cover with foam dressing every Monday, Wednesday, and Friday. A wound assessment note dated 1/14/2025, documented the wound on the left buttocks was healed. A physician's progress note dated 2/11/2025, documented there were no rashes or lesion noted. The March 2025 Treatment Administration Record documented the dressing was completed on 3/05/2025. A provider's note dated 3/05/2025, documented the resident's skin was dry and intact. During an interview on 3/06/2025 at 2:30 PM, Resident #53 denied they had any open areas requiring a dressing. During an interview on 3/06/2025 at 2:39 PM, Licensed Practical Nurse #5 stated there were no open areas on the Resident #53's skin that required a dressing. They were unable to state why they had documented they completed the dressing in the Treatment Administration Record During an interview on 3/07/2025 at 2:02 PM, Regional Clinical Director #1 stated staff should not be documenting that care was provided when it was not, and documentation should not be falsified. 10 New York Codes, Rules, and Regulations 415.22(a)(1-4)
CONCERN (E)

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

Infection Control (Tag F0880)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observations, record reviews, and staff interviews during the recertification survey, the facility did not ensure infec...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observations, record reviews, and staff interviews during the recertification survey, the facility did not ensure infection prevention control practices were followed to help prevent the spread, development, and transmission of communicable diseases and infections for three (3) (Residents #s 110, 115, and 231) of 31 residents reviewed for infection control. Specifically for Residents #s 110, 115, and 231, the facility did not implement and maintain enhanced barrier precautions for residents with indwelling medical devices. This is evidenced by: The policy and procedure titled Barrier Enhanced Precautions reviewed 1/2025 documented nursing home resident with wounds and indwelling medical devices were at especially high risk for multi drug resistant organisms and the use of gown and gloves for high contact resident care activities was indicated. Resident #110 Resident #110 was admitted to the facility with the diagnoses of osteoarthritis (degenerative disease that worsens over time, often resulting in chronic pain in the joints), end stage renal disease (a severe and irreversible condition where the kidneys lose their ability to function adequately), and gastro-esophageal reflux disease (a condition in which stomach acid repeatedly flows back up into the tube connecting the mouth and the stomach called the esophagus). The Minimum Data Set (an assessment tool) dated 1/24/2025 documented the resident was usually understood, could usually understand others, and was cognitively intact. During an observation on 3/6/2025 at 10:29 AM, Resident #110's room did not have signage or set up for enhanced barrier precautions. A record review of physician's orders did not have documented evidence of orders for enhanced barrier precautions. The comprehensive care plan for hemodialysis revised 11/20/2024 documented the presence of a hemodialysis catheter (an indwelling medical device used for hemodialysis services). Resident #115 Resident #115 was admitted to the facility with the diagnoses of gastro-esophageal reflux disease, hypertension (high blood pressure), and hyperlipidemia (high level of cholesterol in the blood). The Minimum Data Set, dated [DATE] documented the resident was understood, was understood by others, and was moderately cognitively impaired. During an observation on 3/06/2025 at 10:25 AM, Resident #115's room did not have signage or set up for enhanced barrier precautions. A Physician's Order dated 2/27/2025 documented the presence of an indwelling urinary catheter with orders to change the catheter monthly and as needed. A Physician's Order dated 3/01/2025 documented treatment orders for a wound on the right lateral ankle daily. A record review of physician's orders had no documented evidence of orders for enhanced barrier precautions. Resident #231 Resident #231 was admitted to the facility with the diagnoses of dysphagia (difficulty swallowing foods and liquids), chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (a group of lung diseases that block airflow and make it difficult to breath), and gastro-esophageal reflux disease. The Minimum Data Set, dated [DATE] documented the resident could be understood, could understand others, and was moderately cognitively impaired. During an observation on 3/06/2025 at 10:25 AM, Resident #231's room did not have signage or set up for enhanced barrier precautions. A Dietary Note dated 2/20/2025 at 12:03 noted the presence of a surgical gastrostomy site placed on 2/7/2025. A Physician's Progress Note dated 3/02/2025 at 10:01 AM noted the presence of a gastrostomy tube. A record review of physician's orders had no documented evidence of orders for enhanced barrier precautions. During an interview on 3/06/2025 at 10:01 AM, Registered Nurse # 2 stated enhanced barrier precautions should be initiated when the resident had an organism that required infection control. They stated that an indwelling medical device such as a urinary catheter or gastrostomy tube would not need to be on enhanced barrier precautions. They stated that a hemodialysis catheter would not require enhanced barrier precautions because the dressing would be changed at the hemodialysis center and not at the facility. During an interview on 3/06/2025 at 10:10 AM, Licensed Practical Nurse #7 stated enhanced barrier precautions should be initiated when a resident had a wound or external medical devices such as urinary catheters, intravenous access, or gastrostomy tubes. They stated a nurse could initiate the precautions if needed but would require a doctor's order. During an interview on 3/06/2025 at 3:30 PM, Registered Nurse #1 stated they would expect any residents with indwelling device like a urinary catheter, hemodialysis catheter, or gastrostomy tube to also be on enhanced barrier precautions. During an interview on 3/07/2025 at 2:29 PM, Regional Clinical Director #1 stated they would expect residents with indwelling medical devices and wounds to be placed on enhanced barrier precautions. New York Codes, Rules, and Regulation 415.19(a)(1-3)
CONCERN (F) 📢 Someone Reported This

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

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

Deficiency F0725 (Tag F0725)

Could have caused harm · This affected most or all residents

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, record review, and interviews during a recertification and abbreviated survey (Case #NY00347964), the faci...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, record review, and interviews during a recertification and abbreviated survey (Case #NY00347964), the facility did not ensure the provision of sufficient nursing staff to assure resident safety and attain or maintain the highest practicable physical, mental, and psychosocial well-being of each resident throughout the facility. Specifically, the facility's minimum staffing levels were not met each day from 2/22/2025 through 3/06/2025 per facility assessment and New York State Nursing Home Minimum Staffing and Direct Resident Care. This is evidenced by: Upon entrance to the facility on 2/22/2025 there were 123 residents residing on 3 units. Nursing Homes are required by New York State Public Health Law and Regulations to meet minimum staffing standards. These minimum standards required every nursing home to maintain daily staffing hours equal to 3.5 hours of care per resident per day by a certified nurse aide, licensed practical nurse, or registered nurse. Of the 3.5 hours required, at least 2.2 hours of care per resident per day must be provided by a certified nurse aide and at least 1.1 hours of care per resident per day must be provided by a licensed nurse. The Facility assessment dated [DATE] documented, under Part 3 listed Facility Resources Needed to Provide Competent Support and Care for our Resident Population Every Day and During Emergencies. Licensed nurses providing direct care: Average Days 3-6; Evenings 3-6; Nights 3. Nurse aides: Average Days 3-12; Evenings 3-9; Nights 3-6. Other nursing personnel (e.g., those with administrative duties) Director of Nursing, Assistant Director of Nursing, Nurse Manager, Nurses (Licensed Practical Nurses, Minimum Data Set, Quality Assurance Performance Initiative, Education). Other nursing personnel did not account for the Director of Nursing as a licensed nurse on any unit. Additionally, there was no Assistant Director of Nursing in the facility at the time of the survey. Nurse Managers were counted as being floor staff for the purposes of counting staff working on the units. All Licensed Practical Nurses were counted as working staff on the units; however, the Minimum Data Set, Quality Assurance and Education positions were not counted as working staff unless they were documented as working on as assigned unit per the staffing sheets provided by the facility. A review of staffing sheets provided by the facility from 2/22/2025 through 3/06/2025 documented the following: Based on facility census, there were not the required number of Registered Nurses or Licensed Practical Nurses on 2/22/2025, 2/23/2025, 2/28/2025, 3/03/2025, and 3/06/2025. On 2/22/2025, the facility census was 123. There were 16 licensed nurses (Licensed Practical Nurses and Registered Nurses) scheduled to work on that day. The required hours of licensed care for the facility were 135.3 hours based on the census. The licensed staff scheduled accounted for 128 hours of care. On 2/23/2025, the facility census was 122. There were 14 licensed nurses scheduled to work on that day. The required hours of licensed care for the facility were 134.2 hours based on the census. The licensed staff scheduled accounted for 112 hours of care. On 2/28/2025, the facility census was 124. There were 16 licensed nurses scheduled to work on that day. The required hours of licensed care for the facility were 136.4 hours based on the census. The licensed staff scheduled accounted for 128 hours of care. On 3/03/2025, the facility census was 125. There were 16.5 licensed nurses scheduled to work on that day. The required hours of licensed care for the facility were 137.5 hours based on the census. The licensed staff scheduled accounted for 132 hours of care. On 3/06/2025, the facility census was 125. There were 15 licensed nurses scheduled to work on that day. The required hours of licensed care for the facility were 137.5 hours based on the census. The licensed staff scheduled accounted for 120 hours of care. A review of staffing sheets provided by the facility from 2/22/2025 through 3/06/2025 documented the following: Based on facility census, there were not the required number of Certified Nurse Aides any day between 2/22/2025 through 3/06/2025. On 2/22/2025, the facility census was 123. There were 23 Certified Nurse Aides scheduled to work on that day. The required hours of Certified Nurse Aide care for the facility were 301.35 hours based on the census. The Certified Nurse Aide staff scheduled accounted for 184 hours of care. On 2/23/2025, the facility census was 122. There were 22 Certified Nurse Aides scheduled to work on that day. The required hours of Certified Nurse Aide care for the facility were 298.9 hours based on the census. The Certified Nurse Aide staff scheduled accounted for 176 hours of care. On 2/24/2025, the facility census was 121. There were 22 Certified Nurse Aides scheduled to work on that day. The required hours of Certified Nurse Aide care for the facility were 296.45 hours based on the census. The Certified Nurse Aide staff scheduled accounted for 176 hours of care. On 2/25/2025, the facility census was 120. There were 24 Certified Nurse Aides scheduled to work on that day. The required hours of Certified Nurse Aide care for the facility were 294 hours based on the census. The Certified Nurse Aide staff scheduled accounted for 192 hours of care. On 2/26/2025, the facility census was 121. There were 21 Certified Nurse Aides scheduled to work on that day. The required hours of Certified Nurse Aide care for the facility were 296.45 hours based on the census. The Certified Nurse Aide staff scheduled accounted for 168 hours of care. On 2/27/2025, the facility census was 123. There were 21 Certified Nurse Aides scheduled to work on that day. The required hours of Certified Nurse Aide care for the facility were 301.35 hours based on the census. The Certified Nurse Aide staff scheduled accounted for 168 hours of care. On 2/28/2025, the facility census was 124. There were 21 Certified Nurse Aides scheduled to work on that day. The required hours of Certified Nurse Aide care for the facility were 303.8 hours based on the census. The Certified Nurse Aide staff scheduled accounted for 168 hours of care. On 3/01/2025, the facility census was 125. There were 28 Certified Nurse Aides scheduled to work on that day. The required hours of Certified Nurse Aide care for the facility were 306.25 hours based on the census. The Certified Nurse Aide staff scheduled accounted for 224 hours of care. On 3/02/2025, the facility census was 125. There were 21 Certified Nurse Aides scheduled to work on that day. The required hours of Certified Nurse Aide care for the facility were 306.25 hours based on the census. The Certified Nurse Aide staff scheduled accounted for 168 hours of care. On 3/03/2025, the facility census was 125. There were 22 Certified Nurse Aides scheduled to work on that day. The required hours of Certified Nurse Aide care for the facility were 306.25 hours based on the census. The licensed staff scheduled accounted for 176 hours of care. On 3/04/2025, the facility census was 125. There were 20 Certified Nurse Aides scheduled to work on that day. The required hours of Certified Nurse Aide care for the facility were 306.25 hours based on the census. The Certified Nurse Aide staff scheduled accounted for 160 hours of care. On 3/05/2025, the facility census was 125. There were 21 Certified Nurse Aides scheduled to work on that day. The required hours of Certified Nurse Aide care for the facility were 306.25 hours based on the census. The Certified Nurse Aide staff scheduled accounted for 168 hours of care. On 3/06/2025, the facility census was 125. There were 23 Certified Nurse Aides scheduled to work on that day. The required hours of Certified Nurse Aide care for the facility were 306.25 hours based on the census. The Certified Nurse Aide staff scheduled accounted for 184 hours of care. During the resident council meeting on 2/24/2025 at 11:38 AM, residents present stated that there were not enough staff members. During an interview on 2/24/2025 at 3:59 PM, Resident #61 stated that they had been at the facility since January, 2025. Resident #61 stated that they had 2 showers since they arrived but were supposed to have at least 1 per week, on Fridays on the 3-11 PM shift. Staff had told Resident #61 they were short staffed, and the resident had to wait. During an interview on 2/27/2025 at 9:03 AM, Registered Nurse #2 stated that the unit was short staffed, and they had never worked with such low staffing numbers. There was no real effective staff appreciation. The facility had monthly staff appreciation days but there's no bonuses for people that pick-up shifts, there's no app to communicate where the staffing holes were in case someone wanted to pick up or trade shifts. Registered Nurse #2 additionally stated that they have had to do all the care plans for unit A and sometimes some of the care plans on unit B. It was very hard to run two units. During an interview on 3/02/2025 at 11:54 AM, Administrator #1 stated that the facility did have agency staff but not a lot. Administrator #1 stated that they did not think that they were significantly understaffed. During an interview on 3/02/2025 at 1:48 PM, Director of Nursing #1 stated that they had never been told something could not be done because of no staff. During a subsequent interview on 3/02/2025 at 2:00 PM, Administrator #1 stated that they had never heard that there were not enough staff at the facility to administer medications or resident care done. 10 New York Code Rules and Regulations 415.13(a)(1)(i-iii)
Jan 2024 9 deficiencies
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0577 (Tag F0577)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on observation and interview during the recertification survey from 1/22/2024 to 1/30/2024, the facility did not ensure that (1) the results of the most recent survey report and plan of correcti...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation and interview during the recertification survey from 1/22/2024 to 1/30/2024, the facility did not ensure that (1) the results of the most recent survey report and plan of correction of the facility was posted in a place readily accessible to residents, family members, and legal representatives of residents; and (2) did not ensure to post notice of the availability of such reports in areas of the facility that are prominent and accessible to the public. Specifically, the facility did not ensure that the residents and staff knew what the survey reports were and where they were located. This is evidenced by: During an observation on 1/22/2024 at 9:14 AM upon entrance to conference room, the survey team noted the Survey Results Binder on the conference room table. During a meeting with a group of 11 residents on 1/22/2024 at 2:30 PM, residents stated they did not know where State and/or Federal survey reports were located. During an observation on 1/22/2024 at 3:30 PM, surveyors were not able to locate State survey results on the units or at the front desk. During an interview on 1/22/2024 at 3:30 PM, the front desk receptionist stated that they were not aware of what survey results were, was unable to find State Agency survey results, and provided a census sheet when asked for survey results. During an observation on 1/23/2024 at 12:30 PM, it was noted that the Survey Results Binder had been removed from the conference room table and was placed on a credenza in the reception area. During an interview on 1/29/2024 at 12:14 PM, Director of Nursing #1 stated the Survey Results Binder was always kept in the reception area, and that it may had been reviewed by family and left behind in the conference room. 10 New York Codes, Rules and Regulations 415.3(c)(1)(v)
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

Transfer Notice (Tag F0623)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review and interview during the recertification and abbreviated survey (Case #NY00329958) from 1/22/2024 to 01/3...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review and interview during the recertification and abbreviated survey (Case #NY00329958) from 1/22/2024 to 01/30/2024, the facility did not ensure a copy of discharge notice was sent to a representative of the Office of the State Long-Term Care Ombudsman for 1 (Resident # 52) of 1 resident reviewed. Specifically, Resident #52 received a 30-day discharge termination notice on 11/7/2023, and a copy of the notice to a representative of the Office of the State Long-Term Care Ombudsman was not sent until 12/4/2023. This is evidenced by: Resident #52 was admitted on [DATE] with diagnoses of diabetes mellitus type 2, depression, and bladder cancer. The Minimum Data Set (an assessment tool), dated 11/2023, documented that the resident was able to understand, be understood by others, and was cognitively intact. The facility Notice of Transfer/Discharge policy dated 3/2018 documented the facility provided residents with a thirty (30) day written notice of an impending transfer or discharge. A representative of the administration would provide resident and family member (representative/sponsor) with a written 30-day advance notice of transfer or discharge. Facility would provide the Ombudsman a copy of the notice at the time of the discharge. Review of Resident #52's 30-day transfer/discharge termination notice documented the resident received notification on 11/7/2023, and the Ombudsman was notified on 12/04/2023. During a record review of facility-initiated discharges from 9/1/2023 to 1/30/2024, there was only one 30-day notice of discharge issued. During an interview on 1/25/2024 at 9:31 AM, Director of Social Work #1 stated the resident owed the facility a significant amount of money and refused to relinquish any social security benefits and or pension funds. They stated a 30-day notice of discharge was issued to Resident #52 on 11/07/2023. The Ombudsman Office was notified of the discharge on [DATE]. The Director of Social Work stated it was the Social Work Department's responsibility to send out discharge notification letters. Director of Social Work #1 stated it was an oversight that the Ombudsman's office did not receive the notification on the same day as the resident. Director of Social Work #1 stated they had a policy in place which included same day notification and would adhere to their policy going forward. 10 New York Codes, Rules and Regulations 415.3(h)(1)(iii)(a-c)
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, record review, and interviews conducted during the recertification survey from 1/22/2024 to 1/30/2024, th...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observations, record review, and interviews conducted during the recertification survey from 1/22/2024 to 1/30/2024, the facility did not ensure that each resident received the necessary respiratory care and services that are in accordance with professional standards of practice, the resident's care plan and the resident's choice, for 1 (Resident #63) of 3 residents reviewed for oxygen administration. Specifically, for Resident #63, the facility did not ensure supplemental Oxygen was provided as ordered by the physician on 01/23/2024, 1/24/2023, 1/25/2023, and 1/29/2024. This is evidenced by: Resident #63 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses including heart failure, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, and anemia. The Minimum Data Set (an assessment tool), dated 11/14/2023, assessed the resident as severely impaired cognitively and required assistance to complete activities of daily living. During observations on 01/23/2024 at 11:17 AM, the resident's oxygen concentrator was set at 3.5 liters per minute, and the resident's oxygen tubing was labeled with a date of 1/22/2024. During observations on 1/24/2024 at 9:47 AM, the resident's oxygen concentrator was noted to be set at 3.5 liters per minute. During observations on 01/25/2024 at 12:10 PM, the resident's oxygen concentrator was noted to be set to 3.5 liters per minute. During observations on 01/29/24 at 12:20 PM, the resident's oxygen concentrator was noted to be set to 3.5 liters per minute. The Treatment Administration Record dated 11/1/2023 to 1/22/2024 documented the resident had an active oxygen therapy order for continuous Oxygen at two (2) liters per minute via nasal cannula and was to be checked every shift. The Treatment Administration Record from 1/22/2024 to 1/25/2024 documented staff checking the resident's Oxygen administration every shift and confirming the resident received the ordered 2 liters via nasal cannula. The Comprehensive Care Plan date initiated 2/4/2023 documented that the resident had an alteration in their respiratory system related to chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. The resident was to be provided Oxygen at 2 liters via a nasal canulae oxygen delivery device per the Medical Doctor's orders. During an interview on 1/26/2024 at 10:35 AM, Certified Nursing Assistant # 1 stated that the resident was on Oxygen and had no issues regarding the Oxygen or oxygen tubing. They stated they were not supposed to adjust or set the machines for the residents as they were not licensed providers. During an interview on 1/26/2024 at 11:40 AM, Licensed Practical Nurse #4 stated that the resident was on Oxygen via nasal cannula but was unsure of the exact amount and would have to look it up in the electronic record system. They stated that they verify the oxygen saturation each day and the resident's oxygen level that was administered. They further stated that they made sure the oxygen level matched the Medication Administration Record and Treatment Administration Record, and they document in the electronic records system that it had been done. They would notify the supervisor if the oxygen administration level did not match what is in the system or if the saturation level was lower than the order. They stated that Oxygen was a nursing order, and no one should touch the administration level other than nursing staff. During an interview on 1/26/2024 at 12:25 PM, Licensed Practical Nurse #3 stated they were the charge nurse for the resident's unit. They indicated that the nursing staff monitored resident oxygen levels by monitoring their saturation and oxygen administration levels and changing tubing every week as ordered. Licensed Practical Nurse # 3 looked up the resident's Treatment Administration Record and stated the resident should continuously be on 2 liters via nasal cannula. They stated that residents, family members, or unlicensed staff were not allowed to adjust or change the liter flow of the oxygen concentrator. They stated nursing staff were to check the levels each shift when they are doing their assessment and vitals for the resident and document in the electronic record system that the orders match what was observed. Licensed Practical Nurse # 3 accompanied the surveyor to the resident's room and was asked to recite the oxygen level on the resident's device. Licensed Practical Nurse # 3 stated the level was incorrect at 3.5 liters and modified the amount to the correct ordered level of 2 liters. When surveyor stated to Licensed Practical Nurse #3 that the Treatment Administration Records observed during the survey documented nursing staff verifying that the oxygen delivery device was set at 2 liters, Licensed Practical Nurse #3 stated that the staff should have documented it as incorrect and notified them that the liter flow needed to be corrected. They further stated that they had yet had any staff inform them of the discrepancy. During an interview on 1/30/2024 at 12:35 PM, Director of Nursing #1 stated that only nursing staff were to change the flow on the oxygen delivery device. They stated that the resident's family sometimes changed the flow rate, which they should not do. They stated that staff should verify the flow on the device with what was in the Medication Administration or Treatment Administration Records; staff should document in the electronic records system that they confirmed the flow rate was what was in the medical orders for oxygen administration. Director of Nursing #1 further stated that staff should only document if they had verified the actual flow rates of administration. 10 New York Codes, Rules and Regulations 415.12(k)(3)
CONCERN (D)

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

Dental Services (Tag F0791)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on interviews and record review during the recertification survey from 1/22/2024 to 1/30/2024, the facility did not ensure that residents requiring dental care were promptly referred for dental ...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on interviews and record review during the recertification survey from 1/22/2024 to 1/30/2024, the facility did not ensure that residents requiring dental care were promptly referred for dental evaluation and care for 1 (Resident #65) of 3 residents reviewed for dental services. Specifically, for Resident #65, the facility did not assist the resident to make an appointment for emergency dental services as requested. This is evidenced by: A facility policy and procedure for Dental Services, with a revision date of 1/2024, documented that routine and emergency dental services were available to meet the resident's oral health services in accordance with the resident's assessment and plan of care. Social services representatives would assist residents with appointments, transportation arrangements, and for reimbursement of dental services under the state plan, if eligible. All dental services provided were recorded in the resident's medical record. Resident #65: Resident #65 was admitted to the facility with diagnoses of metabolic encephalopathy (a series of brain disorders not caused by primary structural abnormalities), dental carries (tooth decay), and pulmonary embolism (a sudden blockage in pulmonary arteries, the blood vessels that send blood to lungs). The Minimum Data Set (an assessment tool) dated 12/1/2023 documented that the resident was cognitively intact, could understand others, and could be understood. The comprehensive care plan for Dental Care documented the resident had potential for oral/dental health problems related to loose teeth. Interventions did not include dental services. A progress note signed by the Nurse Practitioner on 12/12/2023 documented the resident complained of toothache, and the nurse would administer acetaminophen and place a dental consult. A Physician's Order dated 12/13/2023 documented a dental consult for the resident's toothache. During a resident interview on 1/22/2024 at 11:21 AM, Resident #65 stated they had occasional tooth pain and requested a dental appointment a few weeks ago, but had not heard anything about it since. During an interview on 1/30/2024 at 1:10 PM, Licensed Practical Nurse #1 stated the facility Dentist did not take the resident's insurance and an outside appointment would be needed. They were unable to provide a scheduled appointment date. 10 New York Codes, Rules and Regulations 415.17(c)
CONCERN (D)

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

Food Safety (Tag F0812)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on observation and interviews during the recertification survey from 1/22/2024 to 1/30/2024, the facility did not ensure food was stored, prepared, distributed, or served in accordance with prof...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation and interviews during the recertification survey from 1/22/2024 to 1/30/2024, the facility did not ensure food was stored, prepared, distributed, or served in accordance with professional standards for food service safety for the main kitchen. Specifically, infection control procedures were not followed in which facility staff did not wear hair restraints in the kitchen, no hairnets were available at the entrance to the kitchen, and three (3) of 3 refrigerators were not properly cleaned with dirt around the top seal of the appliance. This is evidenced by: During an observation on 1/22/2024 at 10:33 AM upon entrance to the main kitchen area, Food Service Manager #1 was not wearing any hair restraints. When the surveyor requested a hairnet, they stated that they needed to return to their office and retrieve some because there were no hairnets at the kitchen entrance. During an observation on 1/23/2024 at 10:39 AM, Food Service Manager #1 was in the kitchen area and was not wearing a hairnet. During an observation on 1/25/2024 at 10:35 AM, three (3) refrigerators had layers of dirt on the top seal of the appliance. During an interview on 1/30/2024 at 1:00 PM, the Nurse Educator, RN #1 stated new orientees were trained on the proper infection control procedures and staff are reeducated throughout the year. They stated that once a person had gone through the orientation process, they shadow a staff person for several days to make sure they are doing all aspects of the position hired. 10 New York Codes, Rules and Regulations 415.14(h)
CONCERN (E) 📢 Someone Reported This

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

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

Deficiency F0725 (Tag F0725)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

Based on observations, record review, and interviews conducted during the recertification survey from 1/22/2024 to 1/30/2024, the facility did not ensure the facility had sufficient nursing staff with...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observations, record review, and interviews conducted during the recertification survey from 1/22/2024 to 1/30/2024, the facility did not ensure the facility had sufficient nursing staff with the appropriate competencies and skills sets to provide nursing and related services to assure resident safety and attain or maintain the highest practicable physical, mental, and psychosocial well-being of each resident. Specifically, there was not sufficient staff to meet the needs of residents at any given time. This is evidenced by: The Facility Assessment, dated 7/27/2023, documented the facility capacity was 127 and the average daily census was 123-125. The Facility Assessment documented that based on the resident population and their needs for care and support, the facility's general approach to staffing to ensure there was sufficient staff to meet the needs of the residents at any given time were the following by position and ranges based on shift needs: -Nurse Aides- Day shift: 3-12; Evening shift: 3-9; Night shift: 3-6 -Licensed Nurses providing direct care- Day shift: 3-6; Evening shift: 3-6; Night shift: 2 -Other nursing personnel (e.g., those with administrative duties)- 4-5 During Resident council meeting on 1/22/2024 at 2:03 PM, Resident #'s 43 and 70 stated that they had not been provided a shower in four weeks due to low staffing levels. During an interview on 1/22/2024 at 10:45 AM, Licensed Practical Nurse #3 stated that staffing had always been an issue since they had been employed at the facility now for 2 years. They stated that they were told that there were no ratios of staff to residents but felt that they had a need for additional staff. They stated that on their unit, there were 43 residents and only 2 aides and 1 nurse not including them. Licensed Practical Nurse #3 further stated that they only very rarely had 3 aides and 2 nurses on the unit, and sometimes only had one aide and one nurse. During an interview on 1/23/2024 at 10:48 AM, Certified Nursing Aide #1 stated staffing was a problem at the facility, that they had too many residents to care for and not enough staff to accomplish everything they needed to do. They stated that they could remember when they had 4 to 5 aides on their unit and all activities of daily livings for the residents were accomplished with residents and staff happier. They stated that they needed more staff and there were times when residents did not get out bed and did not receive showers since staff could only do so much with the amount of residents. During an interview on 1/24/2024 at 12:39 PM, Certified Nursing Aide #2 stated that mostly there were only two aides working on the unit, which meant they could not usually provide showers to the residents. Certified Nursing Aide #2 stated that if there were three aides working, then the residents would be able to receive showers. They stated that if showers were not provided then they would inform the nurse, document it, provide a bed bath to the resident, and hoped that staff working the next shift would be able to provide the shower. During an interview on 1/26/2024 at 10:40 AM, Certified Nursing Aide #1 stated that every 2 hours for care was impossible with the current staffing they had. They stated that with two aides working on a unit, it was very hard to get everything needed done. They stated that sometimes residents were dressed, bed bathed and gotten up for the day. They stated that sometimes residents were not gotten out of bed because of the limited staff in the facility. Certified Nursing Aide #1 stated that Residents who require 2-staff person assists for care take away the time that was available for aides to complete all tasks. They stated that resident care would be delayed because if one aide was taking care of another resident, they may have to ask the nurse to assist which may or not be available since much of the time there was only one nurse on the unit and they would be busy, too. They stated that for most of the time, they would stay extra on days to make sure residents received showers, but that not everyone in the facility would do this. They stated that there were more agency staff then facility staff providing aide care so there was no consistency in resident care. During an interview on 1/29/2024 at 2:25 PM, Licensed Practical Nurse #1 stated three residents did not receive their shower that day because these residents were all 2-staff person assists and the staffing level did not allow staff to provide the showers to the residents at their time. During an interview on 1/29/2024 at 2:26 PM, Certified Nursing Aide #3 stated they were supposed to give two residents showers that day but were unable to because they only had two aides on duty at that time. During an interview on 1/29/2024 at 3:08 PM, Certified Nursing Aide #4 stated they did not give resident #27 their shower because there were only two aides on the unit and the resident was a 2-staff person assist. During an interview on 1/30/2024 at 12:27 PM, Certified Nursing Aide #5 stated the documentation in the electronic medical record was changed a few months ago and there was no differentiation between a bed bath and a shower. They stated that there was no way to look at the documentation and determine if the resident had been showered or given a bed bath. During an interview on 1/30/2024 at 1:00 PM, Staffing Coordinator #1 stated they, along with the Director of Nursing, Assistant Director of Nursing, and Administrator determined what the minimum and maximums in staffing levels should be based on census. They stated that since being employed, the staffing level had not changed for the facility. They stated that the minimum level of staffing for each unit was 1 nurse and 2 aides during the day, 1 nurse and 2 aides on the evening shifts, and 1 aide on the night shift. They stated that the units should have more staff and they should have at least three staffers. They stated if staffing levels dropped below minimums, there were several staff individuals who were cross trained as aides to fill spots when needed. Staffing Coordinator #1 state that this had not happened since they had been employed at the facility. During an interview on 1/30/2024 at 1:30 PM, Registered Nurse #1 stated that the facility had just recently updated their pay rates for aide staff and were getting more individuals. They stated that they had to compete with a lot of agencies in the area, and the facility was a not on a major roadway, which would possibly decrease the number of individuals being employed. They stated that they were recently approved by New York State to have their own in-house Nurse Aide Training Program, which may boost the number of employees. During an interview on 1/30/2024 at 4:00 PM, Administrator #1 stated they were not currently doing staffing audits but followed the weekly hiring and staff schedules. They stated the facility offered open shifts with bonuses to staff but it was too costly and had to stop, which resulted in less staff. Administrator #1 stated they had identified staffing issues and were now offering increased pay rates, so it was getting better. 10 New York Codes, Rules and Regulations 415.13(a)(1)(i-iii)
CONCERN (E)

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

Garbage Disposal (Tag F0814)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

Based on observation during the recertification survey from 1/22/2024 to 1/30/2024, the facility did not dispose of garbage and refuse properly. Specifically, the facility did not ensure 2 of 3 trash ...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation during the recertification survey from 1/22/2024 to 1/30/2024, the facility did not dispose of garbage and refuse properly. Specifically, the facility did not ensure 2 of 3 trash bins were pest and rodent-proof by not fully closing trash bin lids and having damaged/broken lids, and garbage receptacles were not covered when being removed from the kitchen area to the dumpster by staff. This is evidenced by: During an observation on 1/25/2024 at 10:35 AM, the trash collection area was inspected. One of the trash bins, used for cardboard, had a damaged, broken lid and could not be closed entirely. One of the two trash bins used for refuse and garbage was left open, and the lid was flipped open to the back of the dumpster. At the time of observation, kitchen staff were removing a garbage receptacle from the kitchen to the dumpster. The kitchen staff did not cover the garbage receptacle and the receptacle was noted to be overflowing with garbage. Upon leaving the dumpster area, the opened bin was not closed by staff. 10 New York Codes, Rules and Regulations 415.14(h)
CONCERN (E)

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

QAPI Program (Tag F0867)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, record review and interviews during the recertification survey from 1/22/2024 to 1/30/2024, the facility d...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, record review and interviews during the recertification survey from 1/22/2024 to 1/30/2024, the facility did not ensure the Quality Assurance Performance Improvement Program developed and implemented appropriate plans of action to correct identified quality deficiencies, or regularly reviewed, analyzed, and acted on available data to make improvements. Specifically, the facility did not ensure that previously approved Plans of Correction for F-725, F-812, and F-880 cited during Recertification Surveys completed on 2/22/2018, 8/27/2019, and 8/23/2021 were implemented as indicated by the same deficiencies being issued on the current survey. This is evidenced by: The facility document titled, The Grand Rehabilitation and Nursing QAPI Plan, documented the Quality Assurance Steering Committee would monitor sustainability of systemic changes on a quarterly basis or more frequently as indicated. Compliance with established goals would be evaluated and the decision to continue, revise, or close the performance improvement area would be made by the Steering Committee. Record review of previous Recertification Survey Statement of Deficiencies issued by the New York State Department of Health revealed the facility received deficient practice statements for F Tags F-584 (provide a clean, comfortable, homelike environment), F-725 (ensure sufficient nurse staffing), F-812 (ensure food was prepared, stored and served in accordance with professional standards for food safety), and F-880 (maintain an infection control program). Specifically: - F Tags 725, 812, and 880 were cited on the Recertification Survey completed on 8/23/2021. ----- The approved Plan of Correction identified a Credible Allegation Date of 10/8/2021. - F Tags 725, 812, and 880 were cited on the Recertification Survey completed on 8/27/2019. ----- The approved Plan of Correction identified a Credible Allegation Date of 10/22/2019. - F Tags 725, 812, and 880 were cited on the Recertification Survey completed on 2/22/2018. ----- The approved Plan of Correction identified a Credible Allegation Date of 4/6/2018. Record review of the facility-provided Plan of Correction for the 8/23/2021 Recertification Survey documented the facility would: For F584 - A weekly audit of 5 rooms will be initiated to inspect and schedule repairs. A daily checklist of the housekeeping routine will be given to each housekeeper to ensure all areas of the room will be covered. The checklist will be monitored by the housekeeping director and maintenance inspection will be monitored by the maintenance director. The Plant Operations Director will conduct hallway and 40 room inspections daily for non-compliance and will document on the daily walk-through form. This audit will be conducted x 3 months. All findings will be reported to the Quality Assurance committee during the Quality Assurance Performance Improvement monthly meeting. Administrator to do three random room inspections monthly. For F725 - Audit of [NAME] to ensure completion and compliance. In-service all clinical staff on providing and documenting activities of daily living care, incontinence care, weekly showers and providing assistance with eating. 15 audits will be conducted weekly x 4 weeks and monthly x 6 months until 100% compliance. Audits will review actual staff number versus minimum staffing policy to ensure adequate staffing. For F812 - Audits of the surfaces in the kitchen and unit nourishment stations for environmental issues were conducted with immediate corrections completed. An audit of the kitchen and nourishment stations will be conducted daily for 14 days, then monthly x 2 months to ensure all surfaces are clean and all items noted are properly stored. Results of the audits will be reported to and reviewed by the Quality Assurance Performance Improvement (QAPI) Committee monthly. Modification, discontinuation, or continuation of audits will be based on Quality Assurance Performance Improvement Committee recommendations. For F880 - All staff will be re-in-service on proper use of personal protective equipment related to wearing masks. Disciplinary action will be taken for employees noted with continued non-compliance. An audit of all staff will be conducted to monitor appropriate mask use. 3 weekly audits will be conducted across all shifts x 4 weeks then monthly x 4 months or until 100% compliance is reached. Quality assurance committee to monitor auditing. During an interview on 1/30/2024 at 4:00 PM, Administrator #1 stated they did not recall doing staffing audits recently, but they followed the weekly hiring and staff schedules. They further stated that they had identified issues and were now offering increased pay rates, so staffing was getting better. They stated the Director of Housekeeping completed audits on three rooms per week and would correct identified issues. Administrator #1 also stated Nursing Supervisors were completing mask audits, but the audits were stopped when masks were no longer required. They stated that audits did not resume when mask wearing was again mandatory. Administrator #1 stated they were not aware of continued issues in the kitchen because the Food Service Director had continued audits and reported no issues and may need to assign the task to someone else. 10 New York Codes, Rules and Regulations 415.27(c)(3)(v)
CONCERN (E)

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

Infection Control (Tag F0880)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

Based on observation, record review, and staff interviews during the recertification survey from 01/22/2024 to 01/30/2024, the facility did not ensure infection control practices and procedures were m...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, record review, and staff interviews during the recertification survey from 01/22/2024 to 01/30/2024, the facility did not ensure infection control practices and procedures were maintained to provide a safe and sanitary environment to help prevent the development and transmission of communicable diseases and infections. Specifically, (1.) a Certified Nursing Assistant and Licensed Practical Nurse did not perform hand hygiene between assisting residents with care; (2.) a Resident Assistant did not put on personal protective equipment when entering a transmission-based precaution room; (3.) soiled laundry was not removed and kept separate from clean laundry. Additionally, a resident's urinal was not emptied and soiled laundry was not removed from resident room. This is evidenced by: 1.) Hand Hygiene During an observation of Unit B on 1/22/2024 at 12:22 PM, a Licensed Practical Nurse was observed during medication administration coming out of a room wearing gloves, and once outside of the room, took their gloves off and did not sanitize hands prior to resuming medication administration. During an observation of Unit B on 1/23/2024 at 2:54 PM, a Certified Nursing Assistant attended to a resident within the bath/shower area. The Certified Nursing Assistant wore the same pair of gloves when they walked out of the bath/shower area, to the clean linen area, then back to shower room. The Certified Nursing Assistant was then observed to exit shower room with gloves while wheeling resident down to their room. After resident was placed in room, Certified Nursing Assistant removed gloves and placed them in their shirt pocket. During an interview on 1/25/2024 at 12:15 PM, Certified Nursing Assistant #1 stated gloves were not to be worn in the hallway; staff were to remove gloves and wash hands prior to leaving resident rooms or immediately after with hand sanitizer. Certified Nursing Assistant #1 stated staff were to wear masks covering both their nose and mouth. During an interview on 1/30/2024 9:08 AM, Assistant Director of Nursing #1 stated all staff were to wash hands in between glove use and after patient care. During an interview on 1/30/2024 at 9:09 AM, Infection Control Officer #1 stated staff were not to wear gloves in the hallway unless they were carrying dirty laundry with a single hand. Staff were to wear masks covering both nose and mouth. 2.) Personal Protective Equipment During an observation of Unit B on 1/25/2024 at 9:40 AM, a Certified Nursing Assistant went in and out of rooms picking up food trays with their mask underneath their chin. During an observation of Unit C on 1/25/2024 at 12:10 PM, two Certified Nursing Assistants were not wearing their personal protective equipment properly-one had their mask below the chin, the other had their mask hanging from an ear. During an observation on 1/26/2024 12:25 PM, Resident Assistant #1 was observed inside of transmission-based precaution room B13 with no gloves or gown. Resident Assistant #1 exited the room without washing hands, then re-entered room again without wearing gown and or gloves and approached the resident. During an interview on 1/26/2024 at 10:49 AM, Nurse Educator, RN #1 stated facility-wide training for blood-borne pathogens and customer service was completed in January 2024. During an interview on 1/26/2024 at 12:25 PM, Resident Assistant #1 stated they did not see sign for isolation on door. Resident Assistant #1 stated they should have washed hands upon leaving the room. During an interview on 1/30/2024 at 1:00 PM, Nurse Educator, RN #1 stated new orientees were trained on the proper infection control procedures and staff were reeducated throughout the year. They stated that once a person had gone through the orientation process, they shadow a staff person for several days to make sure they are doing all aspects of the position hired. 3.) Laundry/Environmental Infection Control During an observation in Unit A on 1/26/2024 at 11:26 AM, the clean laundry room had 2 bags of dirty towels and linen on the floor. During an observation on 1/26/2024 at 11:32 AM, a urinal 100% full was hanging on nightstand of room A5 bed by the window. During an observation on 1/26/2024 at 11:34 AM, a bag of soiled laundry was on the floor at entry of room A2. During an interview on 1/26/2024 at 11:26 AM, Director of Housekeeping #1 stated overnight staff were generally responsible to ensure clean laundry was available for next day. They further stated there were many new staff members in the training process. 10 New York Codes, Rules and Regulations 415.19(b)(4)
Aug 2021 18 deficiencies
CONCERN (D)

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

Resident Rights (Tag F0550)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview and record review during a recertification survey, the facility did not ensure 2 (Resident #'s 6...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview and record review during a recertification survey, the facility did not ensure 2 (Resident #'s 67 and #117) of 2 residents were treated in a dignified manner. Specifically, for Resident #67, the facility did not ensure to the resident's dignity was maintained when incontinence care was not provided in a timely manner and for Resident #117, did not ensure staff responded to the resident's call bell and the resident's request for assistance to use the bathroom in a timely manner resulting with the resident lying in bed in a soiled brief. This is evidenced by: The Policy and Procedure (P&P) titled Quality of Life-Dignity dated 1/2021, documented each resident shall be cared for in a manner that promoted and enhanced quality of life, dignity, respect, and individuality. Demeaning practices and standards of care that compromised dignity were prohibited. Staff shall promote dignity and assist residents as needed by promptly responding to the resident's request for toileting assistance. Resident #67: Resident #67 was admitted to the facility with the diagnoses of sepsis, atrial fibrillation and peripheral vascular disease. The Minimum Data Set (MDS - an assessment tool) dated 7/1/2021, documented the resident was cognitively intact, could understand others and could make self understood. The Care Card (resident care instructions), with a print date of 8/19/2021, documented the resident required an extensive assist of 1 staff member for toileting, and moderate assist of 1 staff member for personal hygiene. The Certified Nurse Assistant (CNA) Accountability for ADL Care documented: -8/15/2021: ADL documentation was not completed (blank) including Toileting and Personal Hygiene. -8/16/2021: Toileting was documented as performed at 1:52 AM, 11:07 AM, and 9:52 PM and Personal Hygiene was documented as provided at 1:52 AM, 11:06 AM, and 9:52 PM. During an observation and interview on 8/16/2021 at 7:29 AM, Resident #67 was sitting in a wheelchair in the doorway of the resident's room [ROOM NUMBER]-P on B Unit. Upon surveyor entrance to the room, there was a strong odor of urine. The resident was wearing a hospital gown. The resident showed the surveyor the wet hospital gown and stated the hospital gown was wet with urine. The resident's bed linen and the incontinence pad on the bed were saturated (very wet) with what appeared to be yellow urine and had the odor of urine. Resident #67 stated the nightshift CNA did not change the resident after the resident was incontinent during the night even though the resident had asked the CNA to change the bedding and the hospital gown. Resident #67 stated the call bell was put out of reach behind the nightstand by the CNA. This morning the resident was able to transfer into the wheelchair without assistance to get out of the wet bed. The call bell was observed behind the nightstand out of reach of the resident. Resident #67 stated staff had not assisted the resident this morning. At 9:19 AM, the resident was observed in room [ROOM NUMBER]-P wearing the same hospital gown. Resident #67 stated Resident #67 had not been changed yet and the gown had started to dry. The bed linen and incontinence pad remained wet with yellow urine. During an interview on 8/20/2021 at 10:34 AM, CNA #21 stated Resident #67 was incontinent of urine and needed help from staff to be changed. The CNA stated if the resident's bed was wet, it should have been changed at that time and the call bell should have been within the reach of the resident. CNA #21 stated the resident used the call appropriately and knew when to use the call bell to ask for assistance. CNA #21 stated Resident #67 did not overuse the call bell. CNA #21 stated the residents' beds should be changed when they were wet or soiled, not just left there or left for the next shift. During an interview on 8/20/2021 at 10:43 AM, Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) #6 stated Resident #67 was incontinent of urine and the call bell should be within reach. LPN #6 stated the resident required staff assistance and should have been changed out of the wet hospital gown and the wet bedding should have been changed at the time. During an interview on 08/23/2021 at 10:50 AM, the Director of Nursing (DON) stated the resident should have been changed at the time when the resident was incontinent, both the bedding and the hospital gown. The DON stated Resident #67 should not have been left to wait if the resident was wet and the bed was wet. The DON stated the call bell should be within reach of the resident. The DON stated unless there was a full-blown emergency, the residents should be cared for right then, especially if the residents were wet or soiled. Resident #117: Resident #117 was admitted to the facility with the diagnoses of diabetes, Parkinson's disease, and right humerus fracture. The Minimum Data Set (MDS - an assessment tool) dated 7/26/2021, documented the resident was cognitively intact, could usually understand others and could usually make self understood. The Care Card (resident care instructions), print date 8/19/2021, documented the resident was an extensive assist of 1 staff for toileting and personal hygiene. The Certified Nurse Assistant (CNA) Accountability for Activity of Daily Living (ADL) care documented: -8/15/2021: ADL documentation was not completed (blank) including Toileting and Personal Hygiene. -8/16/2021: Toileting was documented as performed at 12:48 AM and 2:49 PM and Personal Hygiene was documented as provided at 12:47 AM and 2:59 PM. During an observation and interview on 8/16/2021 at 7:10 AM, Resident #117 in room [ROOM NUMBER] on the C Unit was lying in bed and appeared uncomfortable, making facial grimaces. When asked if the resident was ok, Resident #117 stated Resident #117 had a bowel movement in bed. Resident #117 looked up at the clock hanging in the room and stated Resident #117 had being waiting to use the bathroom for 1 hour and 20 minutes (since 5:50 AM). Resident #117 stated Resident #117 had a bowel movement in bed in the brief because the resident could not wait any longer. Resident #117 stated the resident was not incontinent if taken to the bathroom in a timely manner. Resident #117 stated incontinence briefs were worn to bed because the resident had accidents when there was not enough staff to answer the call bell timely to take the resident to the bathroom. Resident #117 stated the resident was laying in feces and stated staff were aware because a staff member had come into the room to ask Resident #117 what the resident needed at 6:50 AM and was told staff would be in to change the resident, but no staff had come yet. During the interview, the resident's roommate also stated Resident #117 had been waiting a long time and staff had been in the room [ROOM NUMBER] minutes ago and told Resident #117 the resident would have to wait even though Resident #117 had told staff about the bowel accident in bed. Resident #117 and the roommate stated staff turned off the resident's call bell but did not provide care. Resident #117 and the roommate stated this was not the first time this had happened. Similar incidents have happened when there was not enough staff on the unit, such as this morning. At 9:08 AM, Resident #117 was lying in bed and stated staff came back to change the soiled brief at 8:05 AM. Resident #117 stated Resident #117 waited from 5:50 AM to 8:05 AM to have the soiled brief changed. During an interview on 8/16/2021 at 6:55 AM, Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) #7 on C Unit stated there were 2 LPNs working on the unit and there were no CNAs on the C Unit right now because the CNA left at 6:00 AM, leaving the 2 LPNs on the floor to provide care and pass medications. LPN #7 stated all the residents still needed to receive morning care. LPN #7 stated the next shift of staff was scheduled to come in at 7:00 AM, but there was not any day shift staff in the facility yet to relieve the LPN. LPN #7 stated LPN #7's shift was supposed to end at 7:00 AM. LPN #7 stated all the residents on C Unit still needed care from the night shift and stated the care was not done due to low staffing. During an interview on 8/19/2021 at 10:49 AM, CNA #9 stated the CNA was familiar with Resident #117's care. CNA #9 stated the CNA had not found Resident #117 to be incontinent unless the resident had to wait too long to be toileted. During an interview on 8/23/2021 at 10:50 AM, the Director of Nursing (DON) stated the resident should have been changed as soon as staff were aware the resident had a bowel movement in bed. The DON stated Resident #117 should not have been left to wait until the next shift if the resident was soiled. The DON stated unless there was a full-blown emergency, the residents should be cared for right then, especially if the residents were wet or soiled. 10NYCRR415.5(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

Based on record review, and interviews during a recertification survey the facility did not ensure that all alleged violations involving abuse, neglect, exploitation or mistreatment, including injurie...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on record review, and interviews during a recertification survey the facility did not ensure that all alleged violations involving abuse, neglect, exploitation or mistreatment, including injuries of unknown source and misappropriation of resident property, are reported immediately, but not later than 2 hours after the allegation is made, if the events that cause the allegation involve abuse or result in serious bodily injury, or not later than 24 hours if the events that cause the allegation do not involve abuse and do not result in serious bodily injury, to the administrator of the facility and to other officials (including to the State Survey Agency and adult protective services where state law provides for jurisdiction in long-term care facilities) in accordance with State law through established procedures for one (Resident #71) of twenty-four residents reviewed. Specifically, for Resident #71, the facility did not ensure that an alleged incident involving a staff member being rough with the resident during care on 8/19/21 and reported to the nursing supervisor was investiagted or reported to the Director of Nursing (DON). This is evidenced by: Resident #71: The resident was admitted to the facility with the diagnoses of Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis (a progressive nervous system disease that affects nerve cells in the brain and spinal cord, causing loss of muscle control). The Minimum Data Set (MDS- an assessment tool) dated 7/23/2021, documented the resident was without cognitive impairment and required extensive assistance with personal hygiene and toileting and was totally dependent for bathing. The Policy and Procedure titled, Abuse-Prohibition Protocol, Types of Abuse, Response /Reporting last revised 01/2021, documented all personal must promptly report any incident or suspected incident of resident abuse. The purpose of the policy was to protect resident from all forms of abused and ensure appropriate investigation and follow up of all allegations of mistreatment, neglect and abuse of residents in a timely manner. It documented employees should report to their immediate supervisor who will then report the information to the Administration, Director of Nursing or the Department of Health. An investigation is initiated immediately. Review of Resident #71's progress notes in the residents electronic medical record printed on 8/19/2021 at 9:12 AM, did not include progress notes from 8/18/2021 or 8/19/2021. During an interview on 8/19/2021 at 7:18 AM, Resident #71 stated the staff were rough with care last night and this morning. Resident #71 stated they reported this to the nurse. During an interview on 8/19/2021 at 7:23 AM, Registered Nurse Supervisor (RNS) #4 stated, Resident #71 was assigned to them from 11:00 PM- 7:00 AM from 8/18/21 to 8/19/21 and reported Certified Nurse Assistant (CNA) #11 was rough pulling them up in bed. RNS #4 stated Resident #71 received care from CNA #11 from 11:00 PM- 7:00 AM from 8/18/2021 to 8/19/2021. RNS #4 stated they did not document, or report alleged abuse, stating this was not necessary because the resident had two staff members present for all care received on their shift. During an interview on 8/19/2021 at 5:07 PM, Registered Nurse Unit Manager (RNUM) #1 stated the expectation of abuse reporting was that an investigation would be immediately started following a resident's allegation of abuse to include staff statements. RNUM #1 stated Resident #71 makes accusations against people that are unfounded and unjust, and they were keeping a record of all statements the resident made against staff and interviews the resident when an accusation of abuse was made to determine when an investigation should be initiated based on RNUM #1's sound judgement. RNUM #1 stated they were unaware Resident #71 reported a staff member being rough with them during care on the 11:00 pm - 7:00 am shift from 8/18/21 to 8/19/21. RNUM #1 stated staff usually put Resident #71's allegations in a nursing progress note, but sometimes staff forget or run out of time to do so. RNUM #1 stated RNS should have completed an incident report and documented the resident's allegation of abuse in a progress note. During an interview on 8/19/2021 at 5:16 PM, the Director of Nursing stated staff were expected to immediately report all allegations of abuse to the supervisor and an investigation would be started. The DON stated they were unaware of a report of alleged abuse reported by Resident #71. 10NYCRR 415.4
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 record review and interview during a recertification survey, the facility did not ensure that resident assessments accu...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review and interview during a recertification survey, the facility did not ensure that resident assessments accurately reflected the resident's status for 4 (Resident #'s 11, 39, 95 and #101) of 29 resident assessments reviewed. Specifically, for Resident #11, the facility did not ensure the accuracy of the Minimum Data Set (MDS) when the MDS documented the resident received an anticoagulant (blood thinner) medication when an anticoagulant had not been prescribed for the resident; for Resident #'s 39 and #95, the facility did not ensure the MDSs accurately reflected that the residents received oxygen therapy; and for Resident #101, the facility did not ensure the MDS accurately reflected that the resident's teeth had caries (decay and crumbling of teeth). This is evidenced by: The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services' Long-Term Care Facility Resident Assessment Instrument 3.0 User's Manual, Chapter 1: Resident Assessment Instrument (RAI), documented an accurate assessment requires collecting information from multiple sources, some of which are mandated by regulations. Those sources must include the resident and direct care staff on all shifts, and should also include the resident's medical record, physician, and family, guardian, or significant other as appropriate or acceptable. Resident #11: Resident #11 was admitted to the facility with diagnoses of diabetes, stroke and high blood pressure. The Minimum Data Set (MDS - an assessment tool) dated 5/20/2021, documented the resident was cognitively intact, could understand others and could make self understood. The MDS also documented (Section N) that the resident received an anticoagulant medication. Physician orders for Resident #11 did not include an order for an anticoagulant medication. During an interview on 8/23/2021 at 1:29 PM, MDS Coordinator #1 reviewed the resident's physician orders and stated the resident was not on an anticoagulant medication and it should not have been documented on the MDS. Resident #95: Resident #95 was admitted to the facility with the diagnoses of emphysema, hypothyroidism, and chronic pain. The MDS dated [DATE], documented the resident had moderately impaired cognition, could understand others and could make self understood. The MDS documented (Section O) the resident did not receive oxygen therapy. A Physician Order dated 4/17/2019, documented the resident was to receive oxygen (O2) at 2L (liters) continuously through a nasal cannula (NC). During an observation on 8/16/2021 at 9:24 AM, the resident was receiving O2 through a nasal cannula (NC). The Comprehensive Care Plan for Alteration in Respiratory System related to emphysema, last revised 7/20/2021, documented the resident was oxygen dependent. Interventions included O2 at 2L NC per physician orders and to maintain/change tubing per protocol and oxygen; routine at 2L via NC. During an interview on 8/23/2021 at 9:45 AM, MDS Coordinator #1 stated if a resident was on continuous O2, the MDS should document the resident was receiving oxygen therapy. The physician orders and the information documented in the MDS should match, therefore, if the resident was on O2 and had a physician order for O2, then the MDS should reflect that. During a subsequent interview on 8/23/2021 at 1:29 PM, MDS Coordinator #1 stated Resident #95 should have had O2 therapy documented on the MDS. Resident #101: Resident #101 was admitted to the facility on [DATE], with the diagnoses of end stage renal disease (ESRD)-Dialysis, high blood pressure, and atrial fibrillation. The MDS annual assessment dated [DATE], documented the resident had no cognitive impairment, could usually make self understood and usually understood others. Section L documented Resident #101 did not have obvious or likely cavity or broken natural teeth. During an observation on 8/16/2021 at 09:40 AM, Resident #101 pulled down their lower lip to show cavities in the teeth and stated the desire for teeth extraction and dentures. The Comprehensive Care Plan dated 3/20/2020, documented Resident #101 has potential oral/dental health problems related to intracranial injury. A Dental Consult dated 9/14/2020 documented, Resident #101 had broken, loose or carious (decayed) teeth. During an interview on 08/23/2021 at 02:47 PM, the MDS Coordinator stated when completing an assessment, they look at the resident, the nursing assessments, and documentation on consult forms. The assessment should have been marked to reflect carious teeth. 10NYCRR415.11(b)
CONCERN (D)

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

ADL Care (Tag F0677)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, record review and interview during the recertification and abbreviated survey (Case #NY00277981), the faci...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, record review and interview during the recertification and abbreviated survey (Case #NY00277981), the facility did not ensure residents who were unable to carry out activities of daily living (ADLs) received the necessary services to maintain good nutrition, grooming, and personal and oral hygiene for 4 (Resident #'s 20, 71, 94, and #95) of 4 residents reviewed for ADL's. Specifically, for Resident #71, the facility did not ensure the resident received weekly showers, did not receive incontinence care for over 6 hours and did not receive consistent assistance with eating; for Resident #'s 20, 94 and #95, did not ensure the residents, who were unable to carry out activities of daily living, received weekly showers to maintain good personal hygiene; and for Resident #95, did not ensure nail care was provided. This is evidenced by: The Policy and Procedure (P&P) titled Resident ADL Updates, last revised 8/2020, documented resident ADL function would be evaluated by nursing upon admission/re-admission, quarterly, and during any significant changes. Physical therapy would evaluate resident ADL ability upon admission/re-admission, quarterly, and during any significant changes. Therapy would evaluate residents for any durable medical equipment, adaptive devices, splints etc. Therapy would add these devices to the task tab of the resident chart for CNA instruction and documentation. The facility did not provide ADL policies related to showers, bathing, or bed baths. Resident #71: Resident #71 was admitted to the facility with diagnoses of Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis (a progressive nervous system disease that affects nerve cells in the brain and spinal cord, causing loss of muscle control). The Minimum Data Set (MDS- an assessment tool) dated 7/23/2021, documented the resident was without cognitive impairment and required extensive assistance with personal hygiene and toileting, was totally dependent for bathing and was frequently incontinent of bowel and bladder. The Comprehensive Care plan for Activities of Daily Living (ADLs), last revised 8/5/2021, documented the resident required total dependence with eating, extensive assistance with personal hygiene, and physical help with bathing. The Care Card (caregiver instructions), print date 8/30/2021, documented Resident #71 required physical help x 1 staff assist for, was totally dependent for eating, and required extensive assistance for personal hygiene. The CNA Accountability documentation survey report did not include documentation the resident was provided with a shower from 8/1/2021 through 8/19/2021. The medical record did not include documentation of the resident's refusal of a shower, assistance with eating or incontinence care between 7/30/2021 through 8/19/2021. A Therapy Recommendations Progress Note dated 8/5/2021 at 1:54 PM, documented the resident's level of assistance was changed to the need for a total assist for feeding due to declining dexterity and motor planning. A Nursing Progress Note dated 8/11/2021 at 2:41 PM, written by Registered Nurse Unit Manager (RNUM) #1, documented the resident continued with manipulative behavior and refused to feed himself and the resident wanted staff to feed the resident every meal. The facility document titled The Facility Name Meal Start Times documented the start time of breakfast on Unit B was 7:45 AM. During observations on: -8/16/2021 at 10:28 AM, the resident was sitting up in a chair with a tray in front of the resident and a breakfast meal tray in front of the resident and a spoon in the resident's hand. The resident was observed attempting to feed self without success. The resident's hair appeared oily and smelled of sweat. -8/16/2021 at 10:35 AM, Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) #9 entered Resident #71's room and the resident requested assistance with eating, LPN #9 confirmed the resident requested assistance to eat and the resident nodded yes. -8/17/2021 at 9:02 AM, the resident was sitting up in a chair being fed breakfast by CNA #10. -8/17/2021 at 10:23 AM, the resident was sitting up in a chair, the resident smelled of sweat, and had oily appearing hair. -8/18/2021 at 8:42 AM, 9:37 AM, 10:43 AM, 11:04 AM, 12:23 PM, 1:15 PM, and 2:01 PM the resident was out of bed sitting in a chair at bedside. The resident's bed did not have sheets on it. The resident continued with same odor and oily hair as previously noted. During an interview on 8/17/2021 at 10:24 AM, Resident #71 stated the resident had not been showered in over six weeks. Resident #71 reported they were often saturated in urine for over 12 hours, not provided incontinence care and not assisted with eating consistently. Resident #71 stated they were not washed last night or this morning, the staff only changed their incontinence brief this morning before 7:00 AM. During an interview on 8/18/2021 at 2:05 PM, Resident #71 stated he had not received incontinence care or personal hygiene since getting out of bed this morning before 7:00 AM. During an interview on 8/18/2021 at 10:44 AM, CNA #10 stated Resident #71 was assisted out of bed before the start of their shift at 7:00 AM. CNA #10 stated the resident should have been washed up this morning prior to getting out of bed and should be washed up before going to bed this evening. CNA #10 stated all residents were on a weekly shower schedule and Resident #71 should be showered on the 11:00 PM - 7:00 AM shift on Wednesday. During an interview on 8/18/2021 at 1:02 PM, CNA #19 stated staff were unable to consistently provide incontinence care, showers or bed baths secondary to staffing on the B Unit. CNA #19 stated staff regularly reported the inability to provide care and services to the residents due to staffing to administration. During an interview on 8/18/2021 at 2:22 PM, CNA #10 stated Resident #71 should have been changed a minimum of every 2 hours, and the resident was regularly incontinent of large amounts of urine. CNA #10 stated they were going in to change the resident and provide incontinence care at this time. CNA #10 stated they were too busy today during their shift and did not provide incontinence care to the resident since their shift started at 7:00 AM today. During an interview on 8/19/2021 at 4:16 PM, CNA #21 stated residents on Unit B did not consistently receive bed baths or showers and were not provided incontinence care more than twice per shift due to staffing. CNA #21 stated staff were not able to provide bathing or incontinence care consistently when there was less than three CNAs working on Unit B. During an interview on 8/19/2021 at 4:55 PM, RNUM #1 stated the resident was difficult and would often tell staff he could not feed himself. RNUM #1 reviewed the residents record during the interview and identified the resident should have received extensive assistance with feeding per the recommendation of therapy. RNUM #1 stated the staff on Unit B made the RNUM aware that several residents did not consistently receive incontinence care or personal hygiene and the Director of Nursing was made aware. During an interview on 8/19/2021 at 5:36 PM, the Director of Nursing stated residents' that are incontinent should be changed every 2-3 hours on every shift and residents should receive the level of assistance as noted on their care care and plan of care. The DON stated all residents should receive a weekly shower or complete bed bath. The DON stated when a resident does not receive care or the resident refused care this should be documented in the resident's medical record. The DON stated resident's should receive assistance for eating based on the recommendation of the therapy department following an evaluation. Resident #94: Resident #94 was admitted to the facility with the diagnoses of aphasia following cerebral infarction, acute respiratory failure, and vascular dementia. The Minimum Data Set (MDS - an assessment tool) dated 7/30/2021 documented the resident had severely impaired cognition, could rarely never understand others and could rarely never make self understood. The Comprehensive Care Plan for Activities of Daily Living (ADLs), last revised 7/20/2020, documented the resident required assistance with ADLs related to pain. Care plan interventions included: Personal hygiene: setup/ supervision; Bathing: Physical Assist. The Care Card (caregiver instructions), with a print date of 8/19/2021, documented the resident's shower day was Wednesday 3-11. The Certified Nurse Assistant (CNA) Accountability for ADL Care documented: -Shower day was Wednesday 3-11: It was signed as provided on 8/11/2021 at 9:44 PM by CNA #4. The shower was not signed for on 8/18/2021. The medical record did not include documentation the resident refused a shower or nail care on 8/11/2021 or 8/18/2021. During observations on: -8/16/2021 at 10:31 AM, Resident #94 was lying in bed. The resident's hair was stringy and greasy (oily). -8/17/2021 at 9:39 AM, Resident #94 was lying in bed. The resident's hair was stringy and greasy (oily). -8/18/2021 at 10:15 AM, Resident #94 was lying in bed. The resident's hair was stringy and greasy (oily). -8/19/2021 at 8:17 AM, Resident #94 was lying in bed. The resident's hair was stringy and greasy (oily). During an interview on 8/19/2021 at 8:37 AM, CNA #7 stated CNA #7 did not know Resident #94 was supposed to be out of bed and had never seen the resident out of bed. At 9:32 AM, CNA #7 stated CNA #7 did not know if Resident #94 was ever gotten out of bed for a shower. CNA #7 looked at the resident and stated the resident's hair was greasy. CNA #7 stated there was not a chair in the resident's room for the staff to get the resident up in because the resident never got out of bed. During an interview on 8/19/2021 at 2:35 PM, CNA #10 stated all residents should receive a shower or bed bath once a week. CNA #10 resident #94 was a total assist for all care and typically, the resident only got out of bed when visitors came to see the resident. CNA #10 stated CNA #10 was familiar with resident and the resident's care needs and stated, the staff did not shower Resident #94, but stated the resident should receive a bed bath once a week. During an interview on 8/19/2021 at 10:34 AM, CNA #12 stated a full bed bath was just like a shower, the resident's hair should be washed, and bed sheets changed weekly. CNA #12 stated Resident #94's hair was greasy and the resident needed a complete bed bath. During an interview on 8/19/2021 at 12:13 PM, Registered Nurse (RN) #1 stated if we have the staff, we get Resident #94 out of bed. Resident #94 should probably be out of bed every day. RN #1 stated Resident #94 was scheduled to get a shower on evenings, and it had not been reported to RN #1 that the resident had not received a shower. During an interview on 8/19/2021 at 3:51 PM, CNA #4 stated CNA #4 always worked evening shift and stated CNA #4 had never seen Resident #94 receive a shower and had never provided Resident #94 with a shower when the resident was on CNA #4's assignment. CNA #4 stated CNA #4 had washed up the resident in the past but had never provided the resident with a full bed bath or shower. During an interview on 8/19/2021 at 3:36 PM, CNA #5 stated CNA #5 worked on B Unit and was assigned room [ROOM NUMBER], Resident #94, last evening. CNA #5 stated CNA #5 did not give any showers last evening. CNA #5 did not report it to anyone that showers were not given and stated everyone knows there was not enough staff to get everything done. CNA #5 stated B Unit was heavy with care because a lot of the residents were 2 assists and there were 2.5 CNAs working last evening. CNA #5 stated CNA #5 did not give any showers last evening because it was just so busy with all the care that needed to be done. During an interview on 8/20/2021 at 10:28 AM, CNA #21 reviewed Resident #94's ADL documentation and stated CNA #21 signed a bed bath, but did not wash the resident's hair. CNA #21 washed the resident's body but not hair. CNA #21 stated a full bed bath would be given on the resident's shower day and that would include washing the resident's hair. CNA #21 stated just because the staff sign off a bed bath was provided did not mean the resident received a full bed bath, it meant the resident was washed up in bed. CNA #21 stated none of the residents really get a shower and no one gets their hair washed with bed baths due to staffing and having no time to do it. During an interview on 8/20/2021 at 10:43 AM, LPN #6 stated none of the staff have reported Resident #94 had not received a shower. If the staff had, LPN #6 would have tried to make a shower happen for the resident. LPN #6 stated Resident #94 was most likely a bed bath and the facility had waterless shampoo caps; the staff should have used. LPN #6 stated LPN #6 did not know residents were not getting showers unless LPN #6 was told by staff. LPN #6 stated the LPNs and Unit Managers would oversee that a resident's care plan was implemented by making visual rounds and when passing medications. During an interview on 8/23/2021 at 10:55 AM, the Director of Nursing (DON) stated the resident's shower day should be care planned and if the care plan or care card says shower then Resident #94 should be getting a shower, unless the shower was declined. If the shower was declined, a full bed bath would be provided. The DON stated the CNAs were able to see the care card, not the care plan, so the care card was their Bible and that was the care they were to provide to the resident. The DON stated Resident #94's hair should have been washed. The DON stated staff should not be signing for something they did not do, like a shower or bed bath. Resident #95: Resident #95 was admitted to the facility with the diagnoses of emphysema, hypothyroidism, and chronic pain. The Minimum Data Set (MDS - an assessment tool) dated 7/30/2021, documented the resident had moderately impaired cognition, could understand others and could make self understood. The Policy and Procedure (P&P) titled Care of Fingernails/Toenails, last reviewed 1/2021, documented the purpose of the procedure was to clean the nail bed, to keep nails trimmed and to prevent infections. The P&P documented nail care included daily cleaning and regular trimming and to notify the supervisor if the resident refused the care. The Comprehensive Care plan for Activities of Daily Living (ADLs), last revised 7/20/2020, documented the resident required assistance with ADLs related to pain. Care plan interventions included: Personal hygiene: setup/ supervision; Bathing: Physical Assist. The Care Card (caregiver instructions), with a print date of 8/18/2021, documented the resident's shower day was Thursday 7:00 AM-3:00 PM. The Certified Nurse Assistant (CNA) Accountability for ADL care documented: -Shower day was Thursday 7-3 PM. It was signed as provided on 8/12/2021 at 8:44 AM by CNA #17. The shower was not signed for on 8/19/2021. The medical record did not include documentation that the resident refused a shower or nail care on 8/12/2021 or 8/19/2021. During observations on: -8/18/2021 at 10:00 AM, the resident's fingernails were long and a dark colored substance was underneath the fingernails. -8/20/2021 at 10:00 AM, the resident's fingernails were long and a dark colored substance was underneath the fingernails. During an interview on 8/16/2021 at 9:27 AM, Resident #95 stated the resident had a shower 2 weeks ago and was supposed to get a shower every Thursday. Resident #95 stated Resident #95 did not get a shower this past Thursday and stated the shower was not offered by staff or refused by Resident #95. Resident #95 stated showers were not given to the residents because there was not enough staff. During a subsequent interview on 8/20/2021 at 10:00 AM, Resident #95 stated the resident did not receive a shower on Thursday, 8/19/2021. The resident stated the staff were too busy and a shower was not offered by staff or refused by the resident. The resident stated the resident did not receive a bed bath and the resident's hair had not been washed since the shower received 2 weeks ago. Resident #95 stated Resident #95 has asked the staff to cut their fingernail but was told by staff they could not do it because the staff would be liable if they cut the resident. The resident stated the resident's nail were long and needed to be cut. During an interview on 8/20/2021 at 10:39 AM, CNA #21 stated the CNAs were responsible for cutting the residents nails and nail were cut on the resident's shower day. During an interview on 08/23/2021 at 10:50 AM, the Director of Nursing (DON) stated residents received a shower a minimum of once a week or a shower was to be offered at least once a week. The DON stated it should be on the care plan and care card whether the resident was to receive a shower or bed bath, so the staff know what type of bathing to provide and when to provide it. The DON stated the staff should not be signing for something they did not do, like a shower or bed bath. During an interview on 8/23/2021 at 11:40 AM, CNA #17 stated CNA #17 worked every Thursday, so if 8/12/2021 was a Thursday, CNA #17 worked that day. CNA #17 stated CNA #17 was familiar with Resident #95 and the care Resident #95 needed. CNA #17 stated CNA #17 did not give Resident #95 a shower on Thursday 8/12/2021 because CNA #17 did not think Resident #95 was a 7:00 AM - 3:00 PM shower. CNA #17 stated Resident #95's shower day got changed a while ago, before August of 2021, to an evening shower. CNA #17 stated CNA #17 was not sure why it would be documented that CNA #17 gave Resident #95 a shower on 8/12/2021. CNA #17 stated CNA #17 had not given Resident #95 a shower recently. During an interview on 8/20/2021 at 10:43 AM, Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) #6 stated Resident #95 was to received bed baths weekly, not showers. LPN #6 stated a full bed bath would include washing the resident's hair and changing the bed linen. LPN #6 stated nail care should be provided on shower days. LPN #6 stated Resident #95 was not diabetic and the CNAs should be providing nail care weekly on the resident's shower day. If a resident was diabetic, the nurses would cut the resident's finger nails. LPN #6 stated there was not a system in place to check or monitor if residents were getting their fingernails cut. It was just assumed nail care was done weekly on shower days. During a subsequent interview on 8/20/2021 at 2:12 PM, LPN #6 stated LPN #6 went to see Resident #95's fingernails and was having a CNA take care of the resident's nails. LPN #6 stated Resident #95's fingernails were disgusting and should have been cleaned on shower days. During an interview on 8/23/2021 at 3:10 PM, the DON stated nail care was the responsibility of the CNAs and was part of providing a shower. The DON stated it was assumed nails were being done or checked with showers, and as needed if the staff noticed a resident's nails needed to be cut. 10NYCRR415.12(a)(3)
CONCERN (D)

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

Quality of Care (Tag F0684)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on record review and interview during a recertification survey on 8/16/2021, the facility did not ensure residents received treatment and care in accordance with professional standards of practi...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on record review and interview during a recertification survey on 8/16/2021, the facility did not ensure residents received treatment and care in accordance with professional standards of practice and the comprehensive person-centered care plan for 1 (Resident #124) of 1 resident reviewed for death. Specifically, the facility did not ensure Resident #124, who experienced an acute onset of gastrointestinal (GI) symptoms, including vomiting, diarrhea, abdominal pain with distention on the afternoon on 5/21/2021, was provided with treatment and care in accordance with professional standards. The resident expired in the facility on 5/22/2021 with a time of death at 8:20 AM. This was evidenced by: Resident #124: Resident #124 was admitted to the facility with the diagnoses of urinary tract infection, depression, and anxiety. The Minimum Data Set (MDS- an assessment tool) dated 3/29/2021, documented the resident had moderately impaired cognition, could understands others, and could make self-understood. The Policy & Procedure titled Change in a Resident's Condition or Status dated 1/2021, documented the nurse would notify the resident's attending physician or physician on call when there had been: a significant change in the resident's physical/emotional/mental condition; a need to alter the resident's medical treatment significantly; a need to transfer the resident to a hospital /treatment center. The Comprehensive Care Plan (CCP) for Alteration in Comfort, dated 3/17/2021, documented interventions that included: Administer medications as ordered, assess for breakthrough pain, and need for supplemental doses. Review and trend for possible changes to pain management plan and evaluate the effectiveness of pain interventions as needed. The CCP for Advance Directives, dated 3/16/2021, documented the resident had a MOLST (Medical Orders for Life-Sustaining Treatment) with orders that included to send to hospital. The CCP documented the resident's advance directives would be regarded and respected. A review of physician orders from 5/21/2021 through 5/22/2021, did not include medications or treatments for pain, vomiting, or diarrhea. The Medication Administration Record (MAR) for May 2021 documented a pain score of 6 on the 11:00 PM to 7:00 AM shift on 5/21/2021. All previous pain scores obtained from 5/1/2021 through 5/20/2021 were documented as 0. (Note: MDS instructions documented on the numeric rating scale zero (0) was no pain, and 10 was the worst pain imaginable.) A Nursing Progress Note dated 5/21/2021 at 9:22 PM, written by a Registered Nurse (RN), documented the resident was presenting with the following change in condition; diarrhea that started on 5/21/2021 in the afternoon and noted the symptoms to have gotten better. The note documented vomiting occurred x 1 episode only and this was the first time known that the resident was experiencing this condition. A history of SBO (small bowel obstruction) was noted. The changes in condition documented had been reviewed with the medical professional on 5/21/2021 at 8:00 PM, and recommendations of the primary clinician was: KUB (an x-ray of the kidney, ureter, and bladder) ordered. A Nursing Progress Note dated 5/21/2021 at 11:09 PM, written by Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) #11, documented the resident complained of lower abdominal pain. The CNA (certified nurse aide) reported multiple loose stools. The resident vomited three times, clear liquid, no undigested food. The resident refused to eat dinner; clear liquids were offered with 100cc (cubic centimeter) consumed. KUB pending. A Nursing Progress Note dated 5/22/2021 at 3:00 AM, written by an RN, documented the resident's lower abdomen remained firm to touch and distended. Bowel sounds were hypoactive, but present in all 4 quadrants. The resident was alert and easy to arouse, temperature 95.5; loose stools x 2; no vomiting. The note documented a call was placed to the x-ray associates to inquire about an estimated time of arrival for the technician to perform the KUB that was previously ordered by on-call MD. The RN documented the technician should arrive after 8:00 AM. KUB ordered STAT (an abbreviation meaning immediately). A Nursing Progress Note dated 5/22/2021 at 3:49 AM, written by LPN #12, documented the resident had several loose stools, no vomiting and the lower abdomen was firm to touch. Vital Signs (VS): blood pressure (BP) 136/66, pulse (P) 115, temperature (T) 95.5. KUB pending. The medical record did not include progress notes between 5/22/2021 at 3:49 AM and 5/22/2021 at 8:54 AM. A Nursing Progress Note dated 5/22/2021 at 8:54 AM, written by an RN, documented the RN was called to the room by an LPN who reported resident was no longer breathing and cold to the touch. Time of death 8:20 AM. During an interview on 8/23/2021 at 10:45 AM, LPN #12 stated LPN #12 did not remember Resident #124 or the resident's illness. After hearing the events of 5/21/2021 and 5/22/2021 in chronological order, LPN #12 stated the physician should have been called again after 3:00 AM. During an interview on 8/23/2021 at 11:00 AM, LPN #11 remembered Resident #124, but vaguely remembered the events of 5/21/2021. LPN #11 stated the facility Physician and Nurse Practitioner did not take on-call after 7:00 PM. The facility had Team Health which were Physicians that took emergency calls after 7:00 PM, and their response time to a call was very good. LPN #11 stated STAT means real soon in the facility and stated the physician should have been called again after 3:00 AM. During an interview on 8/23/2021 at 12:00 PM, Medical Doctor (MD) #1 stated there was no such thing as STAT in a nursing home or rehabilitation center when you had to call an outside source for tests. MD #1 stated MD #1 could not answer many of the questions of what had occurred with Resident #124 but stated MD #1 could only say what MD #1's expectations were. MD #1 stated a nurse should not have left the resident alone for four or more hours. MD #1 stated the key thing was the patient was sick, had vomiting and diarrhea, and needed IV fluids and should have been sent to the hospital. The staff should have followed the MOLST protocol and the resident's wishes. MD #1 would not have waited for the KUB to be done; the resident should have been sent to the hospital. MD #1 stated staffing was a problem here in the facility. MD #1 stated MD #1 expected a lot of things from the nurses and would have expected more for the resident. During an interview on 8/23/2021 at 2:02 PM, the LPN Nurse Manager (LPNNM) #10 remembered Resident #124 passed away. LPNNM #10 was not aware of what took place the night prior to the resident's death. In the past, the staff could get radiology in for STAT tests, but stated that was no more. Recently, it was taking 1-2 days to get STAT tests, so staff would notify the physician for direction. LPNNM #10 stated the physician should have been notified at 3:00 AM. LPNNM #10 would have sent the resident to the hospital way before then. During an interview on 8/23/2021 at 2:30 PM, the Director of Nursing (DON) stated the facility did not do record reviews following unexpected deaths. The resident should have been sent to the hospital no later than 11:00 PM. The resident should have been assessed and/or medicated for pain. The DON stated most nights the RN Supervisor had to take a cart (medication cart) because there may be only one or two LPNs working. 10NYCRR 415.12
CONCERN (D)

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

Respiratory Care (Tag F0695)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on observations, record review, and interviews during a recertification survey the facility did not ensure that a resident who needs respiratory care, including tracheostomy care and tracheal su...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observations, record review, and interviews during a recertification survey the facility did not ensure that a resident who needs respiratory care, including tracheostomy care and tracheal suctioning, is provided such care, consistent with professional standards of practice, the comprehensive person-centered care plan, and the residents' goals and preferences for 2 (Resident #39 and #95) of 2 residents reviewed for respiratory care. Specifically, for Resident #39 and Resident #95, the facility did not did not ensure physician orders for the oxygen flow rate and oxygen (O2) tubing changes were followed. This is evidenced by: The Policy and Procedure (P&P) titled Oxygen Administration dated 1/2021, documented the purpose of the procedure was to provide guidelines for safe oxygen administration. The P&P documented to verify there was a physician's order for the procedure and to review the physician's orders or facility protocol for oxygen administration, to review the resident's care plan to assess for any special needs of the resident, and to assemble the equipment and supplies as needed. The P&P documented after completing the oxygen setup or adjustment, the following information recorded in the resident's medical record should include: the rate of oxygen flow, route, and rationale, the frequency and duration of the treatment, all assessment data obtained before, during and after the procedure and how the resident tolerated the procedure. The P&P did not include the facility's protocol for changing O2 tubing or for monitoring the oxygen flow rate of a resident who received continuous oxygen. Resident #39: Resident #39 was admitted to the facility with the diagnoses of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and congestive heart failure. The Minimum Data Set (MDS -an assessment tool) dated 7/7/2021, documented the resident was without cognitive impairment. The Comprehensive Care Plan for Alteration in Respiratory System, last revised 4/2/21, documented the resident would be provided oxygen per MD orders and the oxygen tubing would be maintained and changed per protocol. Physician Orders dated: -4/21/2021, documented oxygen via nasal cannula at 2L/min continuously every shift. -4/21/2021, documented to change O2 tubing weekly and tag with initials and dated every night shift on Thursday. The August 2021 Medication Administration Record (MAR) for Oxygen via nasal cannula 2L/min continuous every shift, included staff initials to indicate the oxygen was administered between 8/16/2021 through 8/18/2021. The August 2021 Treatment Administration Record (TAR) to Change O2 tubing weekly tag with initials and date included staff initials to indicate the oxygen tubing was changed on 8/5/2021 and 8/12/2021. During observations on: -8/16/2021 at 9:31 AM AM, the resident was lying in bed receiving 4L of continuous Oxygen (O2) via nasal cannula from a concentrator. The O2 tubing was dated 7/30/2021 and initialed. -8/17/2021 at 9:16 AM, the resident was lying in bed receiving 4L of continuous O2 via nasal cannula from a concentrator. The O2 tubing was dated 7/30/2021 and initialed. -8/18/2021 a 8:42 AM, the resident was lying in bed receiving 4L of continuous O2 via nasal cannula from a concentrator. The O2 tubing was dated 7/30/2021 and initialed. During an interview on 8/18/2021 at 1:46 PM, Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) #13 stated the resident was currently receiving 4L of oxygen via nasal cannula. LPN #13 checked the resident's orders and their documentation from 8/16/21, 8/17/21 and 8/18/2021 and noted the resident was ordered to receive 2L/min of oxygen via nasal cannula, and that is what they initialed as the resident receiving. LPN #13 confirmed the label on the oxygen tubing the resident currently had on was 7/30/2021. LPN #13 stated she did not confirm the liter flow of the oxygen prior to signing off the amount the resident was receiving Resident #95: Resident #95 was admitted to the facility with the diagnoses of emphysema, hypothyroidism, and chronic pain. The Minimum Data Set (MDS - an assessment tool) dated 7/30/2021, documented the resident had moderately impaired cognition, could understand others and could make self understood. The Comprehensive Care Plan for Alteration in Respiratory System related to emphysema, last revised 7/20/2021, documented the resident was oxygen dependent. Interventions included O2 at 2 liters (L) via nasal cannula (NC) per physician orders and to maintain/change tubing per protocol and oxygen; routine at 2L via NC. Physician Orders dated: -4/17/2019, documented oxygen at 2L continuously via nasal cannula. -10/7/2020, documented to change O2 tubing every Wednesday, label with date and initial every night shift for care. The August 2021 Treatment Administration Record (TAR) included staff initials to indicate the oxygen tubing was changed on 8/4/2021 and 8/11/2021. During observations on: -8/16/2021 at 9:24 AM, the resident was lying in bed receiving 3L of continuous O2 via nasal cannula from a concentrator. The O2 tubing was dated 7/30 and initialed. -8/17/2021 at 9:37 AM, the resident was lying in bed receiving 3L of continuous O2 via nasal cannula from a concentrator. The O2 tubing was dated 7/30 and initialed. -8/18/2021 a 10:00 AM, the resident was lying in bed receiving 3L of continuous O2 via nasal cannula from a concentrator. The O2 tubing was dated 7/30 and initialed. During an interview on 8/18/2021 at 12:53 PM, Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) #13 stated if the resident's O2 order read 2L then the resident should be on 2 liters, nothing more and nothing less. LPN #13 stated the liter flow should be signed for on the Medication Administration Record (MAR). The LPN stated a nurse should not sign the order until visually seeing and checking the liter flow and after changing the O2 tubing. The LPN stated O2 tubing was changed once a week. LPN #13 went into Resident #95's room and observed the resident lying in bed receiving 3L of continuous O2 via nasal cannula from a concentrator. LPN # 13 stated the resident should not be on 3 liters of O2 and stated the resident should be on the liter flow that was in accordance with the physician order. LPN #13 observed the date on the O2 tubing and stated the date on the tubing was 7/30. LPN #13 stated the O2 tubing should be changed once a week and the resident needed a new tubing. During an interview on 8/19/2021 at 12:15 PM, Registered Nurse (RN) #1 stated the O2 flow rate on the concentrator should match the physician order and the O2 tubing should be changed once a week. The RN stated if the O2 tubing had a date on it of 7/30, it needed to be changed. During an interview on 8/20/2021 at 10:43 AM, LPN #6 stated oxygen was technically a medication/treatment and should be signed for on Treatment Administration Record (TAR). LPN #6 stated the nurse should visualize that the concentrator was set at the correct flow rate and then sign off on the TAR that the resident was receiving the correct amount of oxygen. LPN #6 stated O2 tubing was changed weekly on the night shift and the nurses should not be signing the tubing was changed without changing the tubing. LPN #6 stated the nurses should change the tubing, date it, initial it and then sign off that it was done on the TAR. During a subsequent interview 8/20/2021 on 2:12 PM, LPN #6 stated LPN #6 added the physician order with the oxygen flow rate to the TAR so the nurses could now sign off that the resident was receiving the right amount of oxygen as the physician ordered. LPN #6 stated it should have been on the TAR before today so that the nurses could sign off the resident was getting the correct amount of O2. During an interview on 8/23/2021 at 10:50 AM, the Director of Nursing (DON) stated the oxygen should be administered based on the physician order and the O2 tubing should be changed once a week. The DON stated the nurses should not sign off the O2 tubing was changed if they did not change the tubing. The DON stated staff should not sign for something they did not do. The DON stated the physician ordered O2 flow rate should have been on the TAR for the nurses to sign. The DON stated, by documenting it on the TAR, that was how the resident's oxygen would be checked/monitored. 10NYCRR415.12(k)(6)
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0757 (Tag F0757)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on record review and interviews, the facility did not ensure that each resident's drug regimen was free from unnecessary drugs, which was any drug used in excessive dose, for excessive duration,...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on record review and interviews, the facility did not ensure that each resident's drug regimen was free from unnecessary drugs, which was any drug used in excessive dose, for excessive duration, without adequate monitoring, without adequate indications for its use, or in the presence of adverse consequences which indicated the dose should be reduced or discontinued for 1 (Resident #57) of 5 resident reviewed for unnecessary medications. Specifically, the facility did not ensure a physician order for Lovenox injections (anticoagulant medication) was re-evaluated to include an intended stop date after the resident was seen by orthopedics and could weight bear as tolerated. This is evidenced by: Resident #57: Resident #57 was admitted to the facility with the diagnoses of pelvic fracture, pneumonia, and anxiety. The Minimum Data Set (MDS - an assessment tool) dated 7/12/2021 documented the resident was cognitively intact, could understand others and could make self understood. The Policy and Procedure (P&P) titled Medication Therapy/Drug Regimen Review dated 1/2021, documented upon a resident's admission/readmission and throughout the resident's stay, the staff and practitioner (assisted by the Consultant pharmacist) would review an individual's current medication regimen, to identify whether the frequency of administration and duration of use were appropriate. In the event issues were found, the physician or designee would be contacted by midnight of the next calendar day and the clinician would complete the prescribed/recommended actions by the same time frame. The physician would identify situations where medications should be tapered, discontinued, or changed. The Comprehensive Care Plan did not include a care plan to address the use of Lovenox. A Physician Order dated 7/10/2021, documented Lovenox 40 milligrams (mg) inject 0.4 milliliters (ml) QD (every day) deep vein thrombosis (DVT- a blood clot in a deep vein, usually in the legs). A Pharmacy New admission MRR (Medication Regimen Review) Recommendation dated 7/12/2021, documented the resident was currently receiving Lovenox for DVT prophylaxis without an intended stop date. The pharmacist documented to please evaluate and add stop date now, if appropriate. The facility provider checked off Agree; Will do on the recommendation and hand wrote after ortho follow up. The pharmacy recommendation was signed and dated by the facility provider on 7/15/2021. An Orthopedic Consult dated 8/11/2021, documented Resident #57 was seen for superior pubic (pelvic) ramus fracture left side that occurred after a fall in June 2021. The Ortho consult documented the resident was healed, to follow up with Ortho as needed, and documented physical therapy was indicated. Additional treatment instructions included: WBAT (weight bearing as tolerated), gait training, and left and right hip strengthening. The Ortho Consult did not address an intended stop for the Lovenox injections. A review of the medical record progress notes documented: -8/8/2021: Left message for medical doctor (MD) to call back. The resident had several small, medium, and large purpura (caused when small blood vessels burst, causing blood to pool under the skin) areas to hands, arms, chest and lower extremities. The note documented the resident was on Lovenox 40mg every day since coming to the facility from hospital in July 2021. The resident's representative stated they (the purpura) were not there before the resident went to the hospital and slowly and progressively have gotten worse. -8/12/2021: Nurse Practitioner (NP) #1 reviewed ortho recommendations. The resident was ok for PT (Physical Therapy), WBAT, gait training and to follow up with ortho as needed. -8/16/2021: NP #1 documented resident was seen by orthopedics and was given clearance to weight-bear as tolerated. NP #1 documented the NP would review the resident's general care including medication regimen. The NP's documentation included a review of the resident's psychotropic and respiratory medications for continued use. The NP note did not include documentation that addressed or re-evaluated the continued use or an intended stop date for the Lovenox injections. During an interview on 8/23/2021 at 10:55 AM, the Director of Nursing (DON) stated the Lovenox should have been stopped or re-evaluated if that was documented on the pharmacy recommendation by the facility's provider. The DON stated there was not a facility protocol for stopping or re-evaluating the continued use Lovenox, and it would be up to the physician to determine the stop date. During an interview on 8/23/2021 at 11:55 AM, Medical Doctor (MD) #1 stated there was not a normal protocol for re-evaluating the continued use of Lovenox or discontinuing the medication. The MD stated the key thing was to determine how the resident was doing. The MD stated orthopedics typically initiated the use of Lovenox but depending on how the resident was doing in the facility would determine when the Lovenox would be discontinued. The MD stated the facility providers took into consideration orthopedic consultation recommendations but did not have to follow the recommendations. The facility providers could determine to stop the Lovenox without Ortho recommending it. MD #1 stated the MD was not the facility provider who reviewed or signed the pharmacy recommendation dated 7/12/2021. The MD reviewed the signature on the recommendation and stated the signature was NP #1. The MD stated assuming the resident was up, walking, and working with therapy, it would be appropriate to discontinue the Lovenox. The MD stated the nurses on the unit would typically bring things like that to the MD's attention to be addressed or re-evaluated, but it was brought to the MD's attention today by the DON and the MD discontinued the Lovenox. When the MD was asked if the Lovenox should have been re-evaluated for a stop date after the resident's orthopedic appointment, the MD stated, as previously stated, the MD discontinued it today. 10NYCRR415.12(I)(1)
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0760 (Tag F0760)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on record review and interviews during a recertification survey and an abbreviated survey (Case # NY00279431) the facility did not ensure the residents were free from significant medication erro...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on record review and interviews during a recertification survey and an abbreviated survey (Case # NY00279431) the facility did not ensure the residents were free from significant medication errors for 1 (Resident #427) of 1 resident. Specifically the facility did not ensure Resident #427 received prescribed medications. This was evidenced by: Resident #427 Resident #427 was admitted to the facility with diagnoses of human immunodeficiency virus disease, chronic respiratory failure with hypoxia, and schizoaffective disorder bipolar type. The Minimum Data Set (MDS - an assessment tool) dated 6/25/2021 documented the resident could understand and make self understood. The resident was cognitively intact. Resident # 427 was discharged from facility prior to the recertification survey. Physician orders read emitricitabine-tenofovir 200-25 mg give 1 tablet by mouth one time a day for antiviral dated 6/23/2021 and dolutegravir sodium 50 mg give 1 tablet by mouth one time a day for antivirals dated 6/23/2021. Review of electronic Medical Administration Record (eMAR) for June 2021 and July 2021 showed emitricitabine-tenofovir AF 200-25 mg was not given as ordered on 6/8/2021, 6/11/2021, 6/24/2021, 6/25/2021, 6/29/2021 and 7/4/2021. The eMAR documented dolutegravir sodium 50 mg was not given as ordered on 6/8/2021, 6/11/2021, 6/26/2021, 6/28/2021,6/30/2021, 7/1/2021, 7/3/2021, 7/4/2021 and 7/9/2021. Progress notes for those dates do not include documentation that the medical doctor or nurse practitioner were notified of the missed doses. During an interview on 8/19/2021 at 9:15 AM, LPN #3 stated LPN #3 was familiar with Resident #427. LPN #3 stated they had good rapport and LPN #3 got along with Resident #427. LPN #3 stated Resident #427 would refuse medications at times. LPN #3 stated at times the medication was not in the cart, that at the beginning of the summer there were problems with the pharmacy not delivering medications or not completely filling the prescription. LPN #3 does not remember notifying medical providers when medication were not given for any reason. During an interview on 8/19/2021 at 9:45 AM, the Regional Administrator stated that the Regional Administrator was not aware of any issues with pharmacy resulting in a medications that were not available. During an interview on 8/19/2021 at 10:14 AM, the Administrator stated that the Administrator started in this position at the end of June and was not aware of any issues with the pharmacy. During an interview on 8/20/2021 at 11:28 AM, the Director of Nursing (DON) stated the DON was in another position during this resident's stay at facility and does not recall any issues with pharmacy. The DON stated the expectation is that the medical provider would be notified that a dose was not given and a note placed in resident's medical record to reflect the notification. The DON stated they couldn't think of any reason why a note wouldn't be written in the Electronic Medical Record (EMR). During an interview on 8/23/2021 at 12:15 PM with Medical Doctor (MD) #1, MD #1 stated MD #1 remembered Resident #427 and stated that sometimes the staff do not inform me if a medication does not arrive, it's 50/50. 10NYC415.12(m)(2)
CONCERN (D)

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

Medical Records (Tag F0842)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, record review and interviews during the recertification survey and abbreviated survey (Case #NY00280929), ...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, record review and interviews during the recertification survey and abbreviated survey (Case #NY00280929), the facility did not maintain medical records in accordance with accepted professional standards and practices that are accurately documented and complete for 6 (Resident #'s 67, 71, 95, 101, 109, and #117) of 29 residents. Specifically, Resident #'s 67, 71, 95, and #117, the facility did not ensure daily Certified Nurse Aide (CNA) documentation of Activities of Daily Living (ADLs) care was complete and accurate; for Resident #95, did not ensure that documentation on the Treatment Administration Record (TAR) was accurate for physician ordered oxygen tubing changes; for Resident #101, did not ensure physician documentation was clear and legible; and for Resident #109, the facility did not ensure documentation of a change and condition in the leg cast for a fractured leg, instructions received by the Physician and the Director of Nursing (DON) and the transfer of the Resident to an outside source. This was evidenced by: The Policy and Procedure titled Charting and Documentation dated 1/2021, documented all services provided to the resident, progress toward the care plan goals, or any changes in the resident's medical, physical, functional, or psychosocial condition, shall be documented in the resident's medical record. The medical record should facilitate communication between the interdisciplinary team regarding the resident's condition and response to care. Documentation in the medical record will be objective, complete, and accurate. Resident #101: Resident #101 was admitted to the facility with the diagnoses of end stage renal disease (ESRD)-dialysis, hypertension and atrial fibrillation. The Minimum Data Set (MDS-an assessment) Annual assessment dated [DATE] documented the resident had no cognitive impairment, could usually make self understood and usually understood others. The Dental Consult dated 9/14/2020, documented the resident had broken, loose or carious (decay) teeth. The written description of the examination was illegible. During an interview on 8/20/2021 at 10:30 AM. the Licensed Practical Nurse Manager (LPNM) stated they could not read what the dental consult documented. LPNM stated the note would be sent to the dental office for them to interpret. LPNNM also stated that a Doctor should be notified for clarification if a note is written that could not be read. Resident #109: Resident #109 was admitted to the facility with the diagnoses of osteoporosis, osteoarthritis and Alzheimer's dementia. The Minimum Data Set (MDS-an assessment) dated 7/23/2021 documented the resident usually made self understood and usually understood others. The Physician Order dated 8/2/2021 documented, Ortho Consult as needed. The Occupational Therapy Note dated 8/4/2021 documented, patient is incontinent of urine and requires total dependance for peri care and brief change. Noted soft cast has urine and feces on it. Unit manager brought in to assess and urine appears to be soaking down the cast. The Nursing Progress Note dated 8/4/2021 at 12:09 PM, written by a Registered Nurse (RN) documented, telephone call to physician and left voice mail. Requested call back regarding cast being soiled with urine, left name and number for call back. The nurse's notes did not include subsequent documentation regarding further communication with the physician or regarding the cast soaked with urine. The nurse note dated 8/7/2021 at 12:56 PM, written by an RN documented, resident returned to our facility. Per urgent care facility, resident is to go to emergency room for surgery. There was no previous note documented in regard to the resident leaving for the appointment and the reason. The nurse note dated 8/7/2021 at 1:01 PM, written by an RN documented, resident is to go to the emergency room for left tib-fib fracture repair. The nurse's note dated 8/7/2021 at 10:02 PM, written by an RN documented, call placed to the hospital, resident currently has a splint and planned to have surgery tomorrow, however, the granddaughter declined surgery. During an interview on 8/23/2021 at 11:45 AM, the Transportation Coordinator (TC) stated that on Friday 8/6/2021 the Occupational Therapist came to the TC and stated Resident #109 needed to be seen by ortho because her cast was soiled. The TC stated they were told by the Director of Nursing (DON) to have Resident #109 go to an urgent care on Saturday, so the TC made the appointment. On Saturday 8/7/2021 the Transportation Aide who went to the urgent care appointment with Resident #109 had call TC to tell them that the urgent care wanted to send the Resident #109 to the emergency room. During an interview on 08/23/2021 at 12:21 PM, Occupational Therapist (OT) #1 stated they saw Resident #109's cast was very high up on her thigh during the OT evaluation. The cast became wet and soiled, and the Registered Nurse Manager (RNM) came and saw the cast on Wednesday 8/4/2021, called Ortho and was told to use a hair dryer to dry the cast. The cast was so high up to her groin, it would have gotten wet and soiled no matter what they did. OT #1 saw the cast again on Friday and it was worse, then talked to the DON and it was decided to send Resident #109 out to Ortho. During an interview on 8/23/2021 at 03:12 PM, the DON stated the events of Resident #109's cast care and appointment should have been documented clearly. Anything that happened with the resident should be in the medical record. There should be a full picture and full story of the resident, from leaving the facility and where the resident ended up. Resident #117: Resident #117 was admitted to the facility with the diagnoses of diabetes, Parkinson's disease, and right humerus fracture. The Minimum Data Set (MDS - an assessment tool) dated 7/26/2021 documented the resident was cognitively intact, could usually understand others and could usually make self understood. The Certified Nurse Assistant (CNA) Accountability for Activities of Daily Living (ADL) Care did not include documentation of the care (blank) for 3 consecutive days: 8/13/2021, 8/14/2021, and 8/15/2021. During an interview on 8/19/2021 at 3:46 PM, CNA #5 stated the CNA's tried to complete ADL documentation but were so busy providing resident care they did have time to document. CNA #5 stated when there was not enough staff working the CNA ADL documentation was not completed. The CNA stated when there were 2 CNAs working a unit documentation did not get completed, but if there were 3 CNAs working a unit documentation was more likely to be completed. During an interview on 8/19/2021 at 3:51 PM, CNA #4 stated the staff could not get all the CNA documentation completed, especially when there were only 2 CNAs on the unit. CNA #4 stated CNA #4 tried to document all the care provided that day at the end of the shift because during the shift CNA #4 was too busy answering lights and changing residents. During an interview on 8/20/2021 at 10:43 AM, LPN #6 stated LPN #6 was not sure who was responsible for overseeing CNA documentation was complete. LPN #6 stated all nurses had access to the dashboard in the electronic medical record (EMR) that would show the nurses the incomplete CNA documentation. The LPN stated when there was low staffing, things start to fall apart and for the staff it becomes care versus paperwork. The priority was to make sure the residents were washed and fed. During an interview on 8/23/2021 at 10:50 AM, the Director of Nursing (DON) stated with minimum staffing numbers on the units, the staff should be getting all their documentation completed and all the resident care done. The DON stated the facility had identified issues with documentation and the issues when the documentation was just not being done. The DON stated it mostly CNA documentation that was not being completed. The DON stated administrative staff could check EMR documentation from home to see what documentation still needed to be done and there had been times the DON called the facility at 10:00 PM to remind staff to complete their documentation by the end of the shift. The DON stated the staff were educated and told to document the care they have provided or the care they had not provided. The DON stated the staff know they were responsible for documenting because they have been told what was not documented would not be proven later if they had to go to court. 10NYCRR415.22(c)
CONCERN (E)

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

Safe Environment (Tag F0584)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

Based on observation and staff interview during the recertification survey, the facility did not provide effective housekeeping and maintenance services. Specifically, the facility did not ensure that...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation and staff interview during the recertification survey, the facility did not provide effective housekeeping and maintenance services. Specifically, the facility did not ensure that on 3 of 3 resident units and the core area, walls, ceilings, and floors were clean and/or in good repair. This is evidenced as follows. The A-Unit, B-Unit, C-Unit, and facility core area were inspected on 08/16/2021 at 8:22 AM, 08/19/2021 at 2:00 PM and 3:20 PM, and on 08/20/2021 at 12:21 PM. The corridor floor next to walls and next to door frames were soiled with dirt or old wax on the A-Unit, B-Unit, and C-Unit. The floors next to walls were soiled with dirt, dust, or old wax in 18 resident rooms (A2, A6, A10, A14, B6, B8, B11, B12, B16, B20, B21, C5, C6, C11, C13, C14, C16, and C18). The following rooms were soiled throughout with dirt or dust: A-Unit Maintenance Storage Area and Housekeeping room, B-Unit Maintenance Storage Area, C-Unit Maintenance Storage Area and Housekeeping room, core area Housekeeping room, Physical Therapy room storage closet, and nursing supply closet. Dead flies were observed in the light fixtures in resident rooms A10, A14, B20, and C5; and the bathrooms in resident rooms A-6, B6, B1, and B16. Walls had holes or plaster repairs were not painted in resident rooms A2 and A14, resident room bathrooms A-6 and A14, and the A-Unit Shower/Tub Room. The telephone jack was pulled from the wall in resident room B12. The windows were heavily soiled with cobwebs in the A-Unit Shower/Tub Room. Ceiling tiles were soiled with water stains in 15 resident rooms (A13, A10, A14, A17, B2, B20, B21, B22, C2, C6, C16, C17, C18, C19, and C22); the A-Unit Day Room and Unit Nursing Office; the A-Unit, B-Unit, C-Unit and core area corridors; the Dining Hall; and the Physical Therapy room. Water was leaking into a corridor ceiling light on the B-Unit near resident room B21. Water was dripping from the ceiling in the Dining Hall. Black mold was found on the wall in resident room C16 behind bed A, on resident room C21 ceiling tiles, and the A-Unit Shower/Tub Room in the caulking around wall coving tiles. The Director of Plant Operations stated in an interview on 08/19/2021 at 3:32 PM and again at 3:41 PM that the floors, dead flies, and other areas found will be cleaned; the wall holes will be repaired; and the mold found will be removed. The stained ceiling tiles are from roof leaks throughout the building, roof leaks have been patched over time, and quotes of have been obtained to replace the roof in the core area. And the light on the B-Unit with water leaking into it will be relocated. The Administrator stated in an interview on 08/23/2021 at 12:49 PM, that the facility has asked for vendor bids to repair the roof leaks, but the time frame isn't known; housekeeping and maintenance will need to do a better job with cleaning and repairs. 483.10(i)(3)
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** Based on observation, record review and interview during the recertification and abbreviated survey (Case #'s NY00280730, NY0027...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, record review and interview during the recertification and abbreviated survey (Case #'s NY00280730, NY00277981, NY00277350, NY00280475) the facility did not ensure comprehensive care plans (CCP) were developed and implemented for each resident consistent with the resident rights and that included measurable objectives and timeframes to meet a resident's medical, nursing and mental and psychosocial needs for 12 (Resident #'s 7, 20, 39, 43, 44, 57, 71, 72, 94, 95, 101 and #121) of 29 residents reviewed for Comprehensive Care Plans (CCPs). Specifically, for Resident #7, the facility did not ensure a CCP was developed to address the resident's behavior of picking at their arms causing multiple bruises and breaks in the skin; for Resident #20, did not ensure the resident's care plan for Dementia Care was person-centered to include and support the dementia care needs of the resident; for Resident #39, did not ensure the intervention on the CCP for Respiratory Care for oxygen use to be administered per physician order was implemented; for Resident #43, did not ensure the CCP for Dialysis Care was individualized and person-centered; for Resident #44, did not ensure the CCP addressed the resident's risk for elopement and the resident's behavior of packing up their clothing and personal belongings; for Resident #57, did not ensure the CCP included care plans to address pain management and anticoagulation use; for Resident #71, did not ensure the CCP for Activities of Daily Living (ADLs) that documented the resident required total assistance with eating was implemented and did not ensure the CCP for ADLs was person-centered to include the care and services required to address Resident #71's incontinence; for Resident #72, did not ensure a CCP for pain management related to the resident's diagnosis of chronic pain syndrome was developed; for Resident #94, did not ensure CCPs to address the resident's increased risk for aspiration, the resident's preference for no male caregivers, and an open abscess on the resident's left hip with a physician ordered treatment were developed and implemented; for Resident #95, did not ensure the CCP for Respiratory Care for oxygen use to be administered per physician order was implemented and did not ensure the CCP for ADLs was person-centered to include the level of assistance required to shower Resident #95; for Resident #101, did not ensure a CCP for an actual oral/dental health problem was developed; and for Resident #121, did not ensure the intervention on the CCP for ADLs to apply a left-hand splint per physician order was implemented. This is evidenced by: The Policy and Procedure (P&P) titled Care plans, Comprehensive Person-Centered last reviewed 1/2021, documented a comprehensive, person-centered care plan that included measurable objectives and timetables to meet the resident's physical, psychosocial and functional needs was developed and implemented for each resident. Resident #43: Resident #43 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with the diagnoses of end stage renal disease (ESRD), metabolic encephalopathy, and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). The Minimum Data Set (MDS-an assessment) dated 7/10/2021, documented was not cognitively impaired, was able to understand others and was able to make self-understood. The MDS documented the resident received dialysis treatment. A Physician Order dated 6/30/2021, documented Resident #43 was to attend dialysis 3 times per week on Tuesday, Thursday, and Saturday at the hospital dialysis. The pickup time was at 11:00 AM for a chair time of 12:00 PM. The Comprehensive Care Plan (CCP) for Hemodialysis related to ESRD dated 6/30/2021, documented to check and change dressing daily at access site, change dressing if ordered by MD; to document the condition and any complications; to monitor/document/report to MD as needed for signs and symptoms of bleeding, hemorrhage, bacteremia, and septic shock. The CCP was not individualized and person-centered for Resident #43's dialysis treatment. During an interview on 8/23/2021 at 2:17 PM, the Director of Nursing (DON) stated they knew there was an issue with care plans. The care plan for Dialysis for Resident #43 should be more specific to the resident. During an interview on 8/23/2021 at 2:47 PM, the MDS Coordinator stated the care plan development was done by nursing, and each of the other departments. There was a library of care plans in the computer program and those care plans were supposed to be personalized and individualized to each resident. During an interview on 8/23/2021 at 3:02 PM, the Administrator stated the facility recently put together a new process with checklists for care plans. Resident #44: Resident #44 was admitted to the facility with the diagnoses of Alzheimer's disease, psychotic disorder, and dementia with behavioral disturbance. The Minimum Data Set (MDS - an assessment tool) dated 7/15/2021, documented the resident had severe cognitive impairment, could usually understand others, and could usually make self-understood. The Comprehensive Care Plan (CCP) did not include a person-centered care plan to address the resident's high risk for elopement after initiating a wander guard. The CCP did not include a care plan to address the resident's behaviors of packing up and bagging clothing or the resident's behavior of throwing bags of clothes and personal items out of the resident's bedroom window. A Physician Order dated 4/9/2021, documented to check wander bracelet placement every shift and check device for proper functioning daily located on rollator (4-wheeled walker). An Elopement Evaluation dated 4/28/2021, documented the resident was at high risk for elopement. Progress notes documented: -6/21/2021, Resident #44 broke the window screen of the resident's room and was throwing plastic bags of clothes out of the window. The window was closed, and the resident calmed down. -7/15/2021, Maintenance stated to nursing, Resident #44 bagged up the resident's belongings and threw them outside from the resident's bedroom window. -7/15/2021, Resident #44 was found to be outside the resident's bedroom window on the front lawn with bags of clothing that the resident had thrown out the window. Resident was sent to the ER for evaluation and returned on 7/15/2021. -7/19/2021, Resident #44's behaviors continue. Resident continues to pack stuff into bags and load up the resident's walker. Resident #44 attempted to leave the unit, but was redirected back. During an interview on 8/20/2021 at 10:43 AM, Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) #6 stated the Registered Nurses would initiate the pertinent care plans for a resident and then both the LPNs and Unit Managers would oversee that the staff were implementing the care plans. During an interview on 8/23/2021 at 10:50 AM, the Director of Nursing (DON) stated the resident was witnessed going out the window on 7/15/2021, but there should have been an elopement care plan developed when a wander guard was initiated and when the score on the elopement risk assessment indicated the resident was at high risk for elopement. The DON stated Resident #44's behaviors should have also been care planned and should have included the resident packs up her belongings. The DON stated the Unit Managers and/or Registered Nurses in the building were responsible for care planning and anything that was applicable to the resident should be care planned so there was a whole picture of the resident. The DON stated the staff needed to make changes the care plan to keep the care plans up to date, and not just document the CCP was reviewed without making the necessary changes. The DON stated the care plans needed to be changed and reviewed to reflect the resident's status. Resident #72: Resident #72 was admitted to facility with diagnoses of end stage renal disease, type 2 diabetes mellitus with diabetic neuropathy and chronic pain syndrome. The Minimum Data Set (MDS - an assessment tool) dated 7/29/2021, documented the resident did not have a cognitive impairment, was able to understand others and was able to make self-understood. Resident did not report pain during assessment. The Comprehensive Care Plan (CCP) did not include a care plan to address pain management related to the resident's diagnosis of chronic pain syndrome. A physician order dated 5/28/2020 documented Lyrica (a nerve pain medication) 50 milligram (mg) one tablet by mouth twice a day for pain. In February 2021, the medical record documented the Lyrica was increased from 50 mg to 100 mg one tablet by mouth three times a day for pain in 2/2021. During an interview on 8/20/2021 at 11:30 AM, the Director of Nursing (DON) stated there should be a care plan especially if the resident was taking medication for it. The DON stated the DON did not know why there was, but it should be. 10NYCRR415.11(c)(1)
CONCERN (E)

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

Deficiency F0725 (Tag F0725)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observations, interviews and record review during the recertification survey and abbreviated survey (Case #NY00273603 a...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observations, interviews and record review during the recertification survey and abbreviated survey (Case #NY00273603 and #NY00277350), the facility did not ensure provision of sufficient nursing staff with the appropriate competencies and skills sets to provide nursing and related services to assure resident safety and attain or maintain the highest practicable physical, mental, and psychosocial well-being of each resident throughout the facility. Specifically, the facility did not ensure there was sufficient staff to meet the needs of residents at any given time and did not ensure the resident dignity was maintained; did not ensure residents on the B Unit, who were unable to carry out activities of daily living, received weekly showers and incontinence care to maintain good hygiene and consistently received assistance with eating; and for Resident #'s 67, 71 and #95 on the B Unit, staff assigned to resident care did not complete ADL documentation on the day, evening and night shifts on 8/15/2021 and there were less than 3 care staff assigned to the unit. This is evidenced by: The Facility assessment dated [DATE], documented the facility capacity was 127 and the average daily census was 123-125. The Facility Assessment documented based on the resident population and their needs for care and support, the facility's general approach to staffing to ensure there was sufficient staff to meet the needs of the residents at any given time were the following by position and ranges based on shift needs: -Nurse aides- Day shift: 3-12; Evening shift: 3-9; Night shift: 3-6 -Licensed Nurses providing direct care- Day shift: 3-6; Evening shift: 3-6; Night shift: 2-3 -Other nursing personnel e.g., those with administrative duties) 1-5 The facility's Census and Condition (C&C) dated 8/16/2021, documented a resident census of 122. The C& C documented the number of residents who required the assistance of 1 or 2 staff were: 72 for dressing, 103 for bathing, 78 for transferring, 92 for toilet use, and 85 for eating. The C&C documented the number of residents who were dependent on staff were: 40 for dressing, 6 for bathing, 16 for transferring, 11 for toilet use, and 5 for eating. Finding #1: The facility did not ensure there was sufficient staff to meet the needs of residents at any given time and to ensure the dignity of residents was maintained. Refer to F Tag 550 The New York State Department of Health (NYS DOH) survey team entered the facility on 8/16/2021 at 6:00 AM, the facility had a census of 122 residents. Upon entrance, the facility's staffing level did not meet the Facility Assessment to ensure there was sufficient staff to meet the needs of the residents at any given time. During an interview on 8/16/21 at 6:05 AM, Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) #4 stated LPN #4 was running a unit and was also handed the supervisor keys when the Registered Nurse (RN) left the facility at 5:00 AM, 2 hours before the shift ended. A review of time clock punches documented the following staff were in the facility on 8/16/2021 at 6:00 AM: -2 CNAs (the 3rd CNA had left at 5:49 AM); -3 LPNs -(an RN supervisor had left the facility at 4:59 AM) B Unit: During an interview on 8/16/2021 at 6:43 AM, LPN #4 on the B Unit stated there was 1 CNA and one LPN (LPN #4) working the unit. During a subsequent interview on 8/19/2021 at 3:05 PM, LPN #4 stated most of the residents on B Unit required the assistance of 2 staff for care. LPN #4 stated the LPN was expected to pass medications and help the CNA with resident care. LPN #4 stated weekends were the worst for staffing, especially Sundays. LPN #4 stated there had been times on the night shift when the 1 CNA on the unit left at 6:00 AM, leaving LPN #4 as the only staff on the unit until day shift. LPN #4 stated the day shift staff often did not show up on time for the 7:00 AM to 3:00 PM shift. LPN #4 stated LPN #4 did not usually work a whole night shift alone, but did work alone for parts of a night shift. LPN #4 also stated 3 or 4 days out the week on the night shift there would be just LPN #4 and 1 CNA. LPN #4 stated the LPN worked hard to answer call bells and change the residents who were an assist of one, but could not change the residents that required 2 staff. LPN #4 stated the checking and changing of the residents did not always get done for all of the residents. C Unit: During an interview on 8/16/2021 at 6:55 AM, LPN #7 on the C Unit stated there were 2 LPNs working on the unit and there were no CNAs on the C Unit right now because the CNA left at 6:00 AM, leaving the 2 LPNs on the floor to provide care and pass medications. LPN #7 stated all the residents still needed to receive morning care. LPN #7 stated the next shift of staff was scheduled to come in at 7:00 AM and LPN #7's shift was supposed to end at 7:00 AM, but there was no day shift staff in the facility yet to relieve LPN #7. LPN #7 stated all the residents on C Unit still needed care from the night shift that was not done due to low staffing. Duing an interview on 8/20/2021 at 11:27 AM, the Staffing Coordinator stated when the facility was fully staffed there would be 12 CNAs on the day shift, 9 CNAs on the evening shift, and 6 CNAs on the night shift. The Staffing Coordinator stated the Staffing Coordinator tried not to staff the facility with less than 10 CNAs on days, 6 CNAs on evenings and 6 CNAs on the night shift. For LPNs, the Staffing Coordinator tried not to staff the facility below 6 LPNs on day and evening shifts and 3 LPNs on night shift. Finding #2: The facility did not ensure residents on B Unit, who were unable to carry out activities of daily living, received weekly showers and incontinence care to maintain good hygiene and consistently received assistance with eating. Refer to F Tag 677 The B Unit assignment sheet dated 8/18/2021, documented on the evening shift 3:00 PM-11:00 PM, there were 2.5 CNAs and 1 LPN to care for 43 residents. The B Unit assignment sheet dated 8/20/2021, did not document the shift on the assignment sheets. During an interview on 8/18/21 at 1:02 PM, CNA #19 stated staff were unable to consistently provide incontinence care, showers or bed baths secondary to staffing on the B Unit. CNA #19 stated staff regularly reported the inability to provide care and services to the residents due to staffing to administration. During an interview on 8/19/2021 at 3:36 PM, Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA) #5 stated CNA #5 worked on B Unit and was assigned room [ROOM NUMBER], Resident #94, on 8/18/2021 on the evening shift from 3:00 PM to 11:00 PM. CNA #5 stated CNA #5 did not give any showers last evening. CNA #5 did not report it to anyone that showers were not given and stated everyone knows there was not enough staff to get everything done. CNA #5 stated B Unit was heavy with care because a lot of the residents were 2 assists and there were 2.5 CNAs working last evening. A CNA came in halfway thru the shift. CNA #5 stated CNA #5 did not give any showers last evening because it was just so busy with all the care that needed to be done. CNA #5 stated on the evening shift the CNAs usually work with 2 or 3 CNAs and stated working with 3 CNAs was do-able to complete the care but less than 3 CNAs was not. During an interview on 8/19/21 at 4:16 PM, CNA #21 stated residents on Unit B did not consistently receive bed baths or showers and were not provided incontinence care more than twice per shift due to staffing. CNA #21 stated staff were not able to provide bathing or incontinence care consistently when there were less than 3 CNAs working on Unit B. During a subsequent interview on 8/23/2021 at 10:22 AM, CNA #19 on B Unit stated the CNAs cannot get all the care done. CNA #19 stated CNA #19 worked the weekend 8/21/2021 and 8/22/2021 on B Unit with 2 CNAs on day shift, and was working again today, 8/23/2021 with 1 other CNA. CNA #19 stated the CNAs could not possibly get all the care done and document the care given. CNA #19 stated CNA #19 had the back of the hall and the other CNA had the front of the hall. CNA #19 stated the CNA's did everything they could just to get the residents checked and changed and stated the bare minimum care was done with 2 CNAs. CNA #19 stated Administration was aware the unit was working with 2 CNAs on day shift and spoke with the Administrator about it this morning. During an interview on 8/23/2021 at 2:23 PM, CNA #10 on B Unit stated everyone in the facility was well aware staffing was low and care could not be provided according the the residents' care plans. CNA #10 stated on B Unit on Friday, Saturday, Sunday, and now today, Monday, CNA #10 worked with 1 other CNA the last 4 days (8/20/2021-8/23/2021). CNA #10 stated showers were not provided on Friday, 8/20/2021 or Monday, 8/23/2021. Showers on B Unit were not scheduled for the weekends. CNA #10 stated the 2 CNAs on the day shifts washed all of the resident's in bed and left the residents in bed for the 4 days when only 2 CNAs were working B Unit. CNA #10 stated the only residents who were out of bed were those residents who were not safe to be left in bed all day. CNA #10 stated the residents out by the nursing station right now were out of bed for safety reasons. There were 6 residents who were in close proximity to the nursing station. CNA #10 stated CNA #10 would report the Unit Manager what care had not been provided but there was not always a Unit Manager to report to. CNA #10 stated the CNAs also let the nurses on the unit know what care was not completed and the nurses will try to help. CNA #10 stated Administration knew care and tasks were not getting done because there was not enough staff to do it. During an interview 8/23/2021 at 2:25 PM, Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) #8 stated the facility was understaffed and Administration was aware there were 2 CNAs on B Unit today and stated the 2 CNAs washed the residents in bed and left the residents in bed. The staff were only able to get the residents out of bed that they needed to for safety reasons. The other residents were left in bed. During an interview on 8/23/2021 at 2:51 PM, the Administrator stated the Administrator was aware B Unit had 2 CNAs on day shift for the last 4 day shifts; Friday 8/20/2021, Saturday 8/21/2021, Sunday 8/22/2021, and Monday 8/23/2021. The Administrator stated the Administrator spoke with the B Unit staff today about the B Unit staffing. When asked about the range for CNA staffing on day shift being 3-12 documented in the Facility Assessment, the Administrator stated if staffing numbers met the Facility Assessment, that was considered sufficient staffing. The Administrator stated with low staffing numbers on a shift, the staff prioritized their tasks and stated the Administrator was aware residents were not getting out of bed as frequently as they should. The Administrator stated it depended on the day and the residents as to what care and tasks needed to be prioritized. The Administrator stated the Administrator had not heard residents were not being showered once a week, but was aware the staff were concerned about the staff numbers in the building. Finding #3: Specifically, for Resident #'s 67, 71 and #95 on B Unit, staff assigned to resident care did not complete ADL documentation on the day, evening, and night shifts on 8/15/2021 and there were less than 3 care staff assigned to the unit. Refer to F Tag 842 A review of the facility staffing sheet dated 8/15/2021 for B Unit documented: -Day Shift: 2 CNAs, 1 LPN -Evening Shift: 2 CNAs, 1 LPN -Night Shift: 1 CNA, 1 LPN For Resident #'s 67, 95, and #71, the CNA Accountability for ADL care dated 8/15/2021, was blank. There was no documentation ADL care was provided, not provided, or declined by the resident. During an interview on 8/19/2021 at 3:46 PM, Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA) #5 stated the CNAs tried to complete ADL documentation but were so busy providing resident care they did have time to document. CNA #5 stated when there was not enough staff working the CNA ADL documentation was not completed. The CNA stated when there were 2 CNAs working a unit, documentation did not get completed, but if there were 3 CNAs working a unit documentation was more likely to be completed. During an interview on 8/19/2021 at 3:51 PM, CNA #4 stated the staff could not get all the CNA documentation completed, especially when there were only 2 CNAs on the unit. CNA #4 stated CNA #4 tried to document all the care provided that day at the end of the shift because during the shift CNA #4 was too busy answering lights and changing residents During an interview 8/23/2021 at 2:25 PM, Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) #8 stated the facility was understaffed. LPN #8 stated that documentation did not get completed. LPN #8 stated Administration would ask why documentation was not done and it was because there was not enough time because of the low staffing on the unit. LPN #8 stated any care and/or documentation that was not completed on day shift would be reported to the next shift. During a subsequent interview on 8/23/2021 at 3:10 PM, the Director of Nursing (DON) stated even with 3 CNAs working on a unit, the CNAs still did not do their charting. The DON stated the CNAs did not understand the importance of charting. The DON stated, if the care was not documented, it was not done. The DON had heard staff were concerned about the number of staff working on each unit but stated, if there were 3 CNAs that was not enough, 4 was not enough, and 5 CNAs was too much because then the CNAs had too much time on their hands and things still did not get done. Additional Interviews: During an interview on 8/19/21 at 5:07 PM, Registered Nurse (RN) #1 stated 2 CNAs and 1 LPN reported residents were not provided care and services within the previous 5 weeks. CNA #10 and CNA #6 reported to RN #1 specific residents on Unit B who did not receive care and services on at least two different dates from the previous shift (11:00 PM- 7:00 AM) and provided RN #1 with visual evidence of residents left in urine-soaked beds during the CNAs' morning rounds. RN #1 stated the DON was made aware the residents on Unit B were not provided incontinence care or repositioned and documentation was not completed secondary to not having adequate staffing, and no changes to staffing have been made. During an interview on 08/23/2021 at 10:50 AM, the Director of Nursing (DON) stated as documented in the Facility Assessment, 3 CNAs and 3 LPNs working in the facility was sufficient staffing but was bare minimum staffing, essentially crisis staffing and should not be happening regularly. The DON stated the regular staffing numbers should be 2 CNAs and 2 LPNs on B unit and C unit on days and evenings and A unit was supposed to be staffed with 1 LPN and 2 CNAs on day and evening shifts. The DON stated on the night shift there should be 1 LPN and 1 or 2 CNAs for A and B units, and for C Unit should have 2 LPNs 1 or 2 CNAs. The DON stated that would be safe staffing and it was expected staff get the resident care and documentation completed. The DON stated bare minimum staffing was not happening regularly, but weekends typically were lower for staff numbers. The DON stated when staffing was down, management would be called and management would call other staff to come into the facility and management staff would also go into the facility. The DON stated the facility had safe staffing and if there was more than the minimum staffing level, that was great. During an interview on 8/23/2021 at 2:51 PM, the Administrator stated the Administrator reviewed the Facility Assessment and what was documented in the Facility Assessment was sufficient staffing for the facility. The minimum staffing would be 1 LPN and 1 CNA per unit. The Administrator stated they tried to staff 3 CNAs on days and evenings and 2 LPNs on each unit and 1 CNA and 1 LPN on each unit for night shift. The Administrator stated when the facility was running with low staffing numbers, the staff had to prioritize their care and tasks. The Administrator stated B unit had heavier care needs than A unit, but C unit (the Rehab Unit) was probably heaviest with care for staff. The Administrator stated the Administrator was aware the staff were concerned about the staffing numbers in the building. The schedule would be fully staffed and there would be call ins and no shows. The Administrator stated the staff's concerns were not being ignored and the facility was offering the staff bonuses to pick up extra shifts, were working on staff recruitment and had a staff recruiter employeed at the facility. 10NYCRR415.13(a)(1)(i-iii)
CONCERN (E)

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

Drug Regimen Review (Tag F0756)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

Based on record review and interview during the recertification survey, the facility did not ensure a policy was developed for the Monthly Medication Regimen Review (MRR) that included timeframes for ...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on record review and interview during the recertification survey, the facility did not ensure a policy was developed for the Monthly Medication Regimen Review (MRR) that included timeframes for the different steps in the process. Specifically, the facility did not ensure there were timeframes were established and documented in the policy for steps in the MRR process concerning actions the pharmacist and facility needed to take when an irregularity was identified. This is evidenced by: The Policy and Procedure titled Medication Therapy/Drug Regimen Review dated 1/2021, documented a drug regime review includes medication reconciliation, a review of all medications a resident is currently using and a review of the drug regimen to identify, and if possible, prevent potential clinically significant medication adverse consequences. The Medical Director and Consultant Pharmacist shall collaborate to address issues of medication prescribing and monitoring with the practitioners and staff. During an interview on 8/23/2021 at 2:17 PM, the Director of Nursing (DON) stated they were not sure what was required in the Medication Regimen Review Policy. The DON stated they knew if there was a recommendation from the pharmacist, they would need to get that to the physician. 10NYCRR415.18(c)(2)
CONCERN (E)

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

Deficiency F0761 (Tag F0761)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

Based on observation and interview during the recertification survey the facility did not maintain drugs and biologicals labeled in accordance with currently accepted professional standards and includ...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation and interview during the recertification survey the facility did not maintain drugs and biologicals labeled in accordance with currently accepted professional standards and include the appropriate accessory and cautionary instructions on 3 (Unit A, Unit B, Unit C) of 3 nursing units inspected. Specifically, the facility did not ensure that medications designed for multiple administrations (insulins, inhalers and eye drops) located in three (Unit A Medication Cart #2, Unit B Medication Cart #2 and Unit C Medication Cart #2) of three medication carts, were labeled with the date they were opened. This is evidenced by: Unit C Medication Cart #2: On 8/19/2021 at 7:35 AM, the inspection of Unit C Medication Cart #2 revealed the following medications that were opened and were not labeled with the date they were opened: -Basaglar vial (insulin) -Novolog vial (insulin) -Humalog vial (insulin) -Trelegy inhaler -Symbicort inhaler -Two bottles of Bimtoprost eye drops -Timolol eye drops During an interview on 8/19/21 at 7:40 AM, Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) #14 stated all medications should be dated when opened, and insulin and eye drops should be discarded within 30 days of being opened. LPN #14 confirmed all medications noted above were opened and did not include documentation of the date they were opened. Unit B Medication Cart #2: On 8/19/21 at 3:35 PM, the inspection of Unit B Medication Cart #2 revealed the following medications that were opened and were not labeled with the date they were opened: -Latanoprost eye drops -Two Breo Elipta inhaler -Calcitonin nasal spray -Trelegy inhaler -Fluticasone nasal spray -Two tubes Mupirocin ointment Unit A Medication Cart #2 On 8/19/2021 at 11:59 AM, the inspection of Unit A Medication Cart #2 revealed the following medications that were opened and were not labeled with the date they were opened: -Basaglar vial (insulin) -Breo Elipta inhaler. -Latanoprost eye drops -Trusopt Dorzolamide eye drops During an interview on 8/19/21 at 12:04 PM, LPN #15 stated all medications should be labeled with a date when opened. LPN #15 confirmed the above medications were opened and did not include documentation of the date they were opened. During an interview on 8/19/21 at 5:38 PM, the Director of Nursing (DON) stated all medications should be labeled when opened. The DON stated all medications that were opened and in the medication cart should be labeled with a date they were opened. 10NYCRR415.18(e)(1-4)
CONCERN (E)

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

Food Safety (Tag F0812)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, record review, and staff interview during the recertification survey, the facility did not store, prepare,...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, record review, and staff interview during the recertification survey, the facility did not store, prepare, distribute or serve food in accordance with professional standards for food service safety. Food preparation and serving areas and equipment are to be kept clean and in good repair, toxic materials are to be stored to preclude food contamination, and a test kit is to be provided to measure the parts per million (ppm) concentration of the solution used to sanitize equipment. Specifically, food contact equipment in the main kitchen and 3 of 3 resident unit nourishment stations were not clean and in good repair, toxic materials were not stored properly, and an accurate test kit was not provided. This is evidenced as follows. The main kitchen and the nourishment stations were inspected on 08/16/2021 at 7:23 AM. In the main kitchen, the table mixer, slicer, can opener and holder, bulk rice container, handwashing sink, ceiling lights, soiled linen receptacle, windows and heating unit behind the 3-bay sink, pipe under food prep sink, floor behind the automatic dishwashing machine and mop and bucket were soiled with food particles, dirt, or grime. Three coving tiles behind [NAME] brand reach-in refrigerator were missing, and the wall behind the 3-bay sink had peeling paint. The bottle of chemical concentrate used to sanitize food equipment in the 3-compartment sink stated the dilution is to be between 200 and 400 ppm; the chemical test kit used to measure the sanitizer did not provide color graduations within the required range. On the A-Unit nourishment station a cleaning chemical spray bottle titled Board Care was stored with plastic silverware in the same cabinet; and the refrigerator, cabinets, drawers, hot chocolate mix bin, floor, and walls were soiled with food particles or dirt. On the B-Unit nourishment station a cleaning chemical spray bottle titled Board Care was stored on top of the refrigerator, and the refrigerator and floor were soiled with food particles or dirt. On the C-Unit nourishment station the refrigerator and floor were soiled with food particles or dirt. The Food Service Director stated in an interview on 08/16/2021 at 10:10 AM and on 08/18/2021 at 2:18 PM, that the vendor will be contacted for the correct chemical test kit, maintenance requests have been put in for the coving tiles and lights, the cleaning items found are due to staffing issues but will be addressed, the items found in the nourishment stations will be cleaned, and the Unit Managers will be instructed that in the nourishment stations to store the Board Care cleaning chemical properly. The Administrator stated in an interview on 08/18/2021 at 2:38 PM, that the items found in the kitchen and nourishment stations will be addressed. 10 NYCRR 415.14(h); Chapter 1 State Sanitary Code Subpart 14-1.60, 14-1.110, 14-1.170
CONCERN (E)

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

Deficiency F0813 (Tag F0813)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

Based on observation, record review, and staff interview during the recertification survey, the facility did not ensure foods brought to residents is in accordance with adopted regulations. Specifical...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, record review, and staff interview during the recertification survey, the facility did not ensure foods brought to residents is in accordance with adopted regulations. Specifically, the facility did not adhere to its established policy on food brought to residents and did not provide information for family and other visitors on safe food handling practices of food that they bring to residents. This is evidenced is as follows. The nursing unit nourishment station refrigerators were inspected on 08/16/2021 at 7:23 AM. On the B-Unit, cold cuts and cheese brought to Resident #95 were dated 08/07/2021. On the C-Unit, two food items brought to Resident #86 were not dated, and one food item brought to Resident #65 was not dated. The B-Unit Registered Nurse (RN) #1 stated in an interview on 08/16/2021 at 8:39 AM, that the holding period for food brought to residents is 3 days, and that the food brought to Resident #95 is outdated and should have been discarded 6 days ago. Certified Nursing Assistant #2 (CNA) assigned to the C-Unit, stated in an interview on 08/16/2021 at 8:44 AM that all items brought to residents are supposed to be dated. The facility policy for foods brought in by visitors was reviewed on 08/19/2021. This policy states that safe food handling practices will be explained to family/visitors in a language they can understand, and food left for a resident to consume later will be labeled with the resident name and a use by date; this policy is silent as to what the use by date should be. The Administrator stated in an interview on 08/19/2021 at 1:15 PM, that the Social Worker or Admissions Coordinators will explain food safety to families. Nursing staff are responsible to label and date food brought to residents. Dietary are responsible for removing outdated food brought to residents from the nourishment station refrigerators. The Social Worker stated in an interview on 08/19/2021 at 1:19 PM, that families are asked to date food but are not provided information on safe cooling, cross-contamination, or hand hygiene. Admissions Coordinator #1 stated in an interview on 08/19/2021 at 1:25 PM, that safe food handling was not explained to families/visitors that bring food to residents. The Food Service Director stated in an interview on 08/19/2021 at 1:36 PM, that dietary staff should be discarding food brought to residents that does not have a date or is out of date, and what was found in the nourishment stations were probably overlooked.
CONCERN (E)

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

Infection Control (Tag F0880)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

Based on observation, interview and record review during a recertification survey completed on 8/16/21, the facility did not maintain an infection prevention and control program designed to provide a ...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, interview and record review during a recertification survey completed on 8/16/21, the facility did not maintain an infection prevention and control program designed to provide a safe, sanitary, and comfortable environment and to help prevent the development and transmission of communicable diseases, infections, and COVID-19 upon entry to, and within the facility. Specifically, a Licensed Practical Nurse and two Dietary Aides did not wear facemasks in accordance with Centers of Disease Control guidance, and a Certified Nurse Aide and a Licensed Practical Nurse wore their face masks in a manner that did not cover their nose and mouth. This was evidenced by: The CDC guidance updated 2/23/2021, titled Interim Infection Prevention and Control Recommendations for Healthcare Personnel During the Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) Pandemic, documented: [Health Care Personnel] should wear well-fitting source control at all times while they are in the healthcare facility, including in break rooms or other spaces where they might encounter co-workers. Per such guidance, source control means cloth masks, facemasks, or respirators to cover a person's mouth and nose to prevent spread of respiratory secretions when they are breathing. Finding #1: Staff did not wear facemasks in accordance with Centers of Disease Control guidance. During an observation on 08/16/2021 at 06:15 AM, Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) #4 was not wearing a mask when they approached the survey team in the lobby. At 06:38 AM, LPN #1 was masked and approached LPN #4, then LPN #1 and #4 stood within 1 foot of one another while LPN #4 remained unmasked. During an observation on 08/16/2021 at 06:40 AM, Dietary Aide #1 and Dietary Aide #2 entered Hall A from the back door employee entrance, walked to the dietary department door and entered. Neither of the two employees were wearing a mask. During an interview on 08/16/2021 at 06:40 AM, LPN #4 stated they did not have to wear a mask, and they had not worn a mask in months. LPN #4 thought that everyone else wanted to wear a mask and it was not required, then put a face mask on. LPN #4 they had not been told a face mask was required at all times. During an interview on 08/23/2021 at 11:54 AM, Dietary Aide #1 stated they were running late and forgot to grab a mask at the employee entrance before coming into the facility. They had an inservice a couple months back about wearing Personal Protective Equipment (PPE) and face masks. Dietary Aide #1 also stated they knew a mask should have been worn. During an interview on 08/23/2021 at 11:54 AM, Dietary Aide #2 stated they were running late and forgot to grab a mask at the back door. They did have an inservice on wearing PPE. Dietary Aide #2 also stated they knew a mask should be worn before coming into the facility. Finding 2: Staff wore their face masks in a manner that did not cover their nose and mouth. During an observation on 08/16/2021 at 06:45 AM on the Unit A Certified Nurse Aide (CNA) #18 came out of a resident room carrying dirty linen and the mask was below their nose. The CNA #18 pulled the mask below the chin when the surveyor asked for a moment to speak and CNA #18 responded OK. When asked what the protocol was for wearing a mask CNA #18 then pulled the mask back over the mouth and nose. During an observation on 08/16/2021 at 07:14 AM on B unit, LPN #4 wore a mask positioned below the chin while standing within 3 feet of two other staff members who were masked. During an observation on 08/16/2021 at 07:25 AM on B unit, LPN #4 wore a mask positioned below the chin while standing within 3 eight-inch floor tiles (2 feet) of a resident. LPN #4 repositioned the mask to cover the mouth and nose when a resident approached. Additional Interviews: During an interview on 08/16/2021 at 06:45 AM CNA #18 stated a mask was supposed to be worn when in resident rooms, but not always when not in a resident room. CNA #18 also stated they did not wear a mask when sitting at the nursing station but knew that masks were supposed to be worn all the time in the facility. During an interview on 8/23/21 at 2:00 PM Registered Nurse Supervisor (RNS) #3 stated staff were required to wear masks at all times. If a staff member was seen not wearing a mask properly, they would be educated. During an interview on 8/17/21 at 9:48 AM the Director of Nursing (DON) stated masks were supposed to be worn by all staff while in the building. Staff were to put a mask on at the time clock before entering the facility through the back door employee entrance. The Dietary Aides should have donned masks before coming into the facility. All staff have received education on wearing masks. During an interview on 8/16/21 at 9:10 AM The Administrator stated all staff should be wearing masks at all times, and that they did not know why the LPN #4 and other staff were not wearing their masks. The Administrator stated they were not aware this was happening. 10 NYCRR 415.19(a)(1)
CONCERN (E)

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

Deficiency F0925 (Tag F0925)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

Based on observation, record review, and staff interview during the recertification survey, the facility did not maintain a pest-free environment and an effective pest control program. Specifically, t...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, record review, and staff interview during the recertification survey, the facility did not maintain a pest-free environment and an effective pest control program. Specifically, the facility did not maintain an adequate pest control program as evidenced by multiple sightings of rodent droppings. This is evidenced as follows. Observations on 08/16/2021 at 10:24 AM and at 10:57 AM, revealed rodent droppings in a cabinet where plastic silverware was stored in the A-Unit nourishment station, next to the floor below the main kitchen dishwashing machine, and the Minimum Data Set Co-ordinator's office. Additionally, the floor below the kitchen dishwashing machine was soiled with food particles. Record review of the pest-control service reports on 08/16/2021, revealed that the facility was treated at least monthly for rodents from February 2021 through August 2021. The reports state that the facility sighting logs did not report any rodent activity from staff, but a sweep of the kitchen was recommended in June 2021. Record review of the facility pest-control sighting logs on 08/16/2021, revealed staff reported rodent activity in June 2021, but not at any other time during 2021. The Director of Plant Operations stated in an interview on 08/16/2021 at 10:57 AM, that the rodent droppings are new and should have been reported by staff. The Administrator stated in an interview on 08/18/2021 at 2:41 PM, that the expectation is that staff should be identifying evidence of rodent droppings and the exterminator will be notified. 10 NYCRR 415.29(j)(5)
Understanding Severity Codes (click to expand)
Life-Threatening (Immediate Jeopardy)
J - Isolated K - Pattern L - Widespread
Actual Harm
G - Isolated H - Pattern I - Widespread
Potential for Harm
D - Isolated E - Pattern F - Widespread
No Harm (Minor)
A - Isolated B - Pattern C - Widespread

Questions to Ask on Your Visit

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

Our Honest Assessment

Strengths
  • • Licensed and certified facility. Meets minimum state requirements.
Concerns
  • • Multiple safety concerns identified: 1 life-threatening violation(s), Special Focus Facility, $40,937 in fines. Review inspection reports carefully.
  • • 56 deficiencies on record, including 1 critical (life-threatening) violation. These warrant careful review before choosing this facility.
  • • $40,937 in fines. Higher than 94% of New York facilities, suggesting repeated compliance issues.
  • • Grade F (3/100). Below average facility with significant concerns.
Bottom line: This facility is on CMS's Special Focus list for poor performance. Consider alternatives strongly.

About This Facility

What is The Grand Rehabilitation And Nrsg At Guilderland's CMS Rating?

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

How is The Grand Rehabilitation And Nrsg At Guilderland Staffed?

CMS rates THE GRAND REHABILITATION AND NRSG AT GUILDERLAND's staffing level at 1 out of 5 stars, which is much below average compared to other nursing homes. Staff turnover is 54%, compared to the New York average of 46%. RN turnover specifically is 74%, which is notably high. RNs provide skilled clinical oversight, so turnover in this role can affect medical care quality.

What Have Inspectors Found at The Grand Rehabilitation And Nrsg At Guilderland?

State health inspectors documented 56 deficiencies at THE GRAND REHABILITATION AND NRSG AT GUILDERLAND during 2021 to 2025. These included: 1 Immediate Jeopardy (the most serious level, indicating potential for serious harm or death) and 55 with potential for harm. Immediate Jeopardy findings are rare and represent the most serious regulatory concerns. They require immediate corrective action.

Who Owns and Operates The Grand Rehabilitation And Nrsg At Guilderland?

THE GRAND REHABILITATION AND NRSG AT GUILDERLAND is owned by a for-profit company. For-profit facilities operate as businesses with obligations to shareholders or private owners. The facility is operated by THE GRAND HEALTHCARE, a chain that manages multiple nursing homes. With 127 certified beds and approximately 122 residents (about 96% occupancy), it is a mid-sized facility located in ALTAMONT, New York.

How Does The Grand Rehabilitation And Nrsg At Guilderland Compare to Other New York Nursing Homes?

Compared to the 100 nursing homes in New York, THE GRAND REHABILITATION AND NRSG AT GUILDERLAND's overall rating (1 stars) is below the state average of 3.0, staff turnover (54%) is near the state average of 46%, and health inspection rating (1 stars) is much below the national benchmark.

What Should Families Ask When Visiting The Grand Rehabilitation And Nrsg At Guilderland?

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

Is The Grand Rehabilitation And Nrsg At Guilderland Safe?

Based on CMS inspection data, THE GRAND REHABILITATION AND NRSG AT GUILDERLAND has documented safety concerns. Inspectors have issued 1 Immediate Jeopardy citation (the most serious violation level indicating risk of serious injury or death). The facility is currently on the Special Focus Facility watch list (a federal program monitoring the lowest-performing 1% of nursing homes nationwide). The facility has a 1-star overall rating and ranks #100 of 100 nursing homes in New York. Families considering this facility should ask detailed questions about what corrective actions have been taken since these incidents.

Do Nurses at The Grand Rehabilitation And Nrsg At Guilderland Stick Around?

THE GRAND REHABILITATION AND NRSG AT GUILDERLAND has a staff turnover rate of 54%, which is 8 percentage points above the New York average of 46%. Moderate turnover is common in nursing homes, but families should still ask about staff tenure and how the facility maintains care continuity when employees leave.

Was The Grand Rehabilitation And Nrsg At Guilderland Ever Fined?

THE GRAND REHABILITATION AND NRSG AT GUILDERLAND has been fined $40,937 across 1 penalty action. The New York average is $33,488. 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 The Grand Rehabilitation And Nrsg At Guilderland on Any Federal Watch List?

THE GRAND REHABILITATION AND NRSG AT GUILDERLAND is currently an SFF Candidate, meaning CMS has identified it as potentially qualifying for the Special Focus Facility watch list. SFF Candidates have a history of serious deficiencies but haven't yet reached the threshold for full SFF designation. The facility is being monitored more closely — if problems continue, it may be added to the official watch list. Families should ask what the facility is doing to address the issues that led to this status.