DOWNTOWN BROOKLYN NURSING & REHABILITATION CENTER

520 PROSPECT PLACE, BROOKLYN, NY 11238 (718) 636-1000
For profit - Limited Liability company 320 Beds CASSENA CARE Data: November 2025 1 Immediate Jeopardy citation
Trust Grade
43/100
#390 of 594 in NY
Last Inspection: April 2025

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

Overview

Downtown Brooklyn Nursing & Rehabilitation Center has received a Trust Grade of D, indicating below-average quality and notable concerns about care. It ranks #390 out of 594 nursing homes in New York, placing it in the bottom half of facilities, and #32 of 40 in Kings County, suggesting limited better options nearby. The facility is showing signs of improvement, with the number of reported issues decreasing from 7 in 2024 to 3 in 2025. Staffing is a relative strength, with a 3-star rating and a turnover rate of 33%, which is better than the state average. However, there are serious concerns, including critical issues with excessive room temperatures affecting all resident floors and inadequate respiratory care for a resident who required oxygen without proper orders. The facility has not incurred any fines, which is a positive aspect, and it boasts higher RN coverage than 91% of similar facilities, providing good oversight for resident care.

Trust Score
D
43/100
In New York
#390/594
Bottom 35%
Safety Record
High Risk
Review needed
Inspections
Getting Better
7 → 3 violations
Staff Stability
○ Average
33% turnover. Near New York's 48% average. Typical for the industry.
Penalties
✓ Good
No fines on record. Clean compliance history, better than most New York facilities.
Skilled Nurses
✓ Good
Each resident gets 58 minutes of Registered Nurse (RN) attention daily — more than average for New York. RNs are trained to catch health problems early.
Violations
⚠ Watch
18 deficiencies on record. Higher than average. Multiple issues found across inspections.
★★☆☆☆
2.0
Overall Rating
★★★☆☆
3.0
Staff Levels
★★★★★
5.0
Care Quality
★☆☆☆☆
1.0
Inspection Score
Stable
2024: 7 issues
2025: 3 issues

The Good

  • 5-Star Quality Measures · Strong clinical quality outcomes
  • Full Sprinkler Coverage · Fire safety systems throughout facility
  • No fines on record
  • Staff turnover below average (33%)

    15 points below New York average of 48%

Facility shows strength in quality measures, fire safety.

The Bad

2-Star Overall Rating

Below New York average (3.1)

Below average - review inspection findings carefully

Staff Turnover: 33%

13pts below New York avg (46%)

Typical for the industry

Chain: CASSENA CARE

Part of a multi-facility chain

Ask about local staffing decisions and management

The Ugly 18 deficiencies on record

1 life-threatening
Jun 2025 2 deficiencies 1 IJ (1 facility-wide)
CRITICAL (L) 📢 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

Safe Environment (Tag F0584)

Someone could have died · This affected most or all residents

⚠️ Facility-wide issue

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observations, record review, and interviews conducted during the onsite visit for Complaint NY00384702, it was determin...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observations, record review, and interviews conducted during the onsite visit for Complaint NY00384702, it was determined that the facility failed to maintain safe and comfortable temperature levels. This was evident on four (4) of four (4) resident floors, where 55 out of 55 rooms sampled had temperatures above the Federal and State requirements in accordance with 42 CFR Part 483 and 10 NYCRR: 415.29. Specifically, room [ROOM NUMBER] was 105 degrees Fahrenheit, room [ROOM NUMBER] was 102 degrees Fahrenheit, and Resident #1 room [ROOM NUMBER] temperature reading was 96 degrees Fahrenheit. Three (3) complaints were submitted to the State Agency regarding high temperatures throughout the facility from 06/24/2025 through 06/25/2025, stating all residents were affected. The facility temperature log on 06/24/2025 at approximately 4:00 PM documented high temperatures above the regulatory range in 29 of the 36 resident rooms sampled. This resulted in Immediate Jeopardy to all resident's health and safety. The findings are: Observations during the initial tour of the facility on 06/25/2025, from 11:10 AM to 12:15 PM, included temperatures in resident rooms and corridors measuring above Federal and State required ranges of 71 to 81 degrees Fahrenheit. Temperatures were observed between 84 and 105 degrees Fahrenheit. On 06/26/2025 between 10:15 AM and 12:15 PM, 61 resident rooms were sampled with 27 resident rooms having temperatures above the regulation. Residents and staff were seen complaining to the Director of Maintenance and maintenance staff regarding the heat in their various units. On 06/25/2025 at approximately 12:14 PM, the Corporate Regional Administrator was interviewed and stated they were not aware of any complaints about malfunctioning Packaged Terminal Air Conditioner (PTAC) units or high temperatures in resident rooms until the evening of 06/24/2025. They stated that all Packaged Terminal Air Conditioner units in resident rooms were serviced on 04/29/2025, including Heating, Ventilation, and Air Conditioning (HVAC) which was serviced on 05/23/2025 in preparation for summer. A review of the facility's policy on Heat Precaution dated 07/2016 revealed that the facility shall provide information to staff, resident and family to identify and reduce adverse effects of increased heat and humidity and to prevent heat related illnesses. The policy is to ensure the safety of residents during high heat alert and to assist preventing heat illness among residents during the hot and humid weather. A review of the Maintenance Logbooks on the 2nd to 5th floors revealed that on four (4) of four (4) resident floors, there were maintenance entries indicating the air conditioning was not working, residents requested fans, rooms were reported to be hot, circuit breaker tripped off or portable air conditioners were installed in rooms. These entries were made from 06/06/2025 through 06/25/2025 and more than 36 resident rooms were affected by faulty air conditioner or hot air complaints. A review of the facility Daily Room Temperature Log Readings for 06/24/2025 and 06/25/2025 revealed that hallway and resident room temperatures on resident floors ranged from 74 to 90 degrees Fahrenheit. During an interview on 06/26/2025 at 11:06 AM, Resident #1 stated they had been in the facility for six (6) years, and had been telling the facility management, specifically the previous Administrator and maintenance staff, about the preparation for heatwaves because their experience during summer periods in the facility has not been pleasant. They stated that although the facility performed maintenance activities such as fixing the Packaged Terminal Air Conditioner units, and checking the circuit breakers, those maintenance methods did not always yield desired results. They stated that in their own opinion, centralized Heating, Ventilation, and Air Conditioning may be the solution to the high temperatures in the facility during the summer. During an interview on 06/26/2025 at 4:12 PM, in Resident #1's room, with their Family Member #1 they stated they have complained to facility staff about the high temperature in the resident's room. They stated that on one occasion, Resident #1 had a severe headache due to the high temperature in their room. Nursing Supervisor #1 was informed, and Resident #1's vital signs were taken and recorded as normal. They stated that on more than one occasion they requested a fan for the room. They further stated that on 06/18/2025 they complained to the Admissions Director, who was in the reception area at the time, and on 06/23/2025 they complained to Registered Nurse Supervisor # 1. On 6/18/2025, The admission Director called the maintenance department because the room thermostat was reading 86 degrees Fahrenheit. On 06/21/2025 and 06/22/2025, the maintenance log documented the resident's room was very hot and a fan was requested. During a telephone interview on 06/26/2025 at 4:30 PM with Resident #1's Family Member #2, they corroborated Family Member #1's statement regarding the high temperature in the resident's room, as they had visited Resident #1 on 06/25/2025. During an interview on 06/26/2025 at 4:52 PM with Certified Nurse Aide #5, they stated residents had been complaining about their air conditioners not working for the past three (3) days. They said they usually take residents to a cooler place, give them water, and check their vitals. They stated that they will call the nurse if they observe anything strange with the weather or temperature. During an interview on 06/27/2025 at 12:42PM with Maintenance Staff #1, they stated their department was getting calls from nursing stations and resident family members to inform them of air conditioners malfunctioning and they were attending to the issues. They stated they were hired about three (3) weeks ago. During an interview on 06/27/2025 at 3:50 PM, the Director of Maintenance stated all Heating, Ventilation, and Air Conditioning systems in the facility were serviced and circuit breakers were checked. They stated that the maintenance of this equipment was completed on 04/29/2025 in preparation for summer. They stated their department receives calls occasionally to attend to some malfunctioned units, but they noticed an increase in calls around 06/23/2025. They stated they mobilized their staff to attend to the issues; they take the system out, wash, flush and change the filters, after which they bring the unit in and reinstall. They do Packaged Terminal Air Conditioner replacement where necessary, change parts as needed, and put portable air conditioning units where the Packaged Terminal Air Conditioner units could not be fixed. During an interview on 06/27/2025 at approximately 11:16 AM, the admission Director stated they received multiple calls on 06/23/2025 from residents newly admitted reporting that their rooms were extremely hot, with most calls coming from the 3rd floor. The admission Director stated they called Maintenance and the Nurse Supervisor to offer a room change. The admission Director stated that they sent Maintenance staff to resident rooms, to check and work on the issues raised. During an interview on 06/27/2025 at approximately 3:13 PM, the Administrator stated they are the chairman of the Quality Assurance Performance Improvement committee and are responsible for all department performance, including the Maintenance Department. The Administrator stated that on 06/19/2025, they received an email from the New York State Department of Health with a heat advisory memo. Maintenance was immediately deployed to re-check the air conditioning units in the resident's rooms, Packaged Terminal Air Conditioner and Heating, Ventilation, and Air Conditioning to ensure proper operation. The Administrator stated that no issues were reported on 06/21/2025 and 06/22/2025. The Administrator stated they contacted an electrician due to the breaker tripping. The electrician came on site on 06/24/2025 and assessed the electrical grid and contacted Con [NAME] (the energy company) and discovered that Con [NAME] had cut the voltage to the facility by 8%. They also contacted the air conditioning company on 06/24/2025 due to an abnormal number of overheated air conditioning units. The air conditioning company came to the facility on the same day and evaluated the air conditioning units and there were no significant issues, but some units failed and were replaced immediately. The Administrator stated that on 06/24/2025 at 7:58 PM, they received a phone call from the New York State Department of Health stating there is a complaint of heat in the building and requested the temperature log to be sent the following day (06/25/2025). The log was sent at 2:00 PM on 06/25/2025. The Administrator stated they were not in the facility on 06/25/2025 due to a medical appointment, but a Quality Assurance Performance Improvement meeting was held on 06/26/2025 to discuss a heat problem in the facility. Immediate Jeopardy was identified, and the Administrator was notified on 06/25/2025 at approximately 5:22 PM. An acceptable immediate corrective action plan from the facility was received on 06/25/2025 at approximately 6:12 PM. Immediate Jeopardy was removed on 06/27/2025 at 5:00 PM based on the following corrective actions taken by the facility: Observation of all units was done by the State Surveyor on 06/27/2025 between 12:15 PM and 1:02 PM. 70 resident rooms were sampled and temperatures ranged between 65 to 79 degrees Fahrenheit. Surveyors interviewed two families and five (5) alert and oriented residents who were satisfied with room temperatures. The facility held a Quality meeting on 06/26/2025 to discuss the deficiency cited for Immediate Jeopardy F584. 30 Industrial sized 'Spot Coolers' were observed in operation in the facility. They were situated in the hallways throughout the eight (8) units in the facility. They were used to offset any extreme temperatures that occurred due to the heat wave. Two (2) Spot Coolers were in reserve. The Surveyor also observed 100 portable air conditioners in reserve. Invoice dated 06/25/2025, delivery date 06/26/2025, documented 100 Portable Air Conditioners were purchased. On 06/26/2025, facility staff assessed all residents for vital signs. Temperature Entry dated 06/26/2025 was reviewed and revealed that vital signs for 307 residents were taken, and no abnormal temperature was documented except Resident #7, who had 102.8 F, BP 194/106 and was taken to the hospital with suspected Sepsis. Dx Heart Failure, Obesity, Pulmonary Hypertension. Resident #7 room was not on the pool of the temperature. Their room has portable A/C, and the current room temperature was 81F. Six (6) residents were sampled for body temperature and vitals, no abnormality was reported. As per the Medical Director, all four (4) physicians were in-serviced over the phone to do more frequent rounds. Observation on 06/27/2025 on all units revealed Hydration Stations were seen on all resident units, to ensure residents remain hydrated and safe. Cooling Areas are on all units including the dining rooms, lounges and at the end of the hallways to maintain resident comfort. The maintenance staff checked for open windows and made sure blinds were drawn to prevent excessive heat from the sun. The facility changed parts and made any necessary repairs to Packaged Terminal Air Conditioners and some units were replaced. Temperatures have continuously been taken on all units, at 2-hour intervals. All staff were in-serviced on heat precautions during extreme heat events as per the Director of Nursing. The facility utilized online, phone and classroom delivery methods. This was documented with lesson plans and attendance sheets. Employees not physically present in the building for an in-person re-education were provided with an in-service module via Relias for their immediate compliance. Seven (7) employees, six (6) Certified Nursing Assistants and one (1) Nurse, who are on leave, will be re-educated on the first day that they report back to work. During an interview with interdisciplinary staff, they verbalized knowledge of heat advisory policy. Transfer agreements were reviewed and are ready to be implemented if the need should arise. The facility provided a heat wave notification advisory to the resident contacts and the Ombudsman to notify them of current conditions and what the facility is currently doing to rectify the condition. The Heat Precaution Policy dated 6/2025, was revised to include Supplemental Actions to be taken due to extreme weather . 10 NYCRR: 415.5(h)(4)
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

Administration (Tag F0835)

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 conducted during an abbreviated and partial extended survey, complaint # NY0...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, record review, and interviews conducted during an abbreviated and partial extended survey, complaint # NY00384702, it was determined that administration failed to ensure that the facility was administered in a manner that enables it to use its resources effectively and efficiently to attain or maintain the highest practicable physical, mental, and psychosocial well-being of each resident. This was evident on four (4) of four (4) residents floors, where 55 out of 55 rooms sampled had temperatures above the Federal and State requirements. Specifically, on 06/25/2025 at 11:10 AM the temperature in room [ROOM NUMBER] was 105 degrees Fahrenheit, room [ROOM NUMBER] was 102 degrees Fahrenheit, and Resident #1 room [ROOM NUMBER] temperature reading was 96 degrees Fahrenheit. Three (3) complaints were submitted to the State Agency regarding high temperature throughout the facility from 06/24/2025 through 06/25/2025, stating all residents were affected. The facility did not an effective system in place to monitor and maintained the temperature of the facility within an acceptable range of 71 degrees Fahrenheit to 81 degrees Fahrenheit. Findings are: The facility's policy and procedure on the Quality Management Program dated 04/28/2025, documented the Quality Assurance and Performance Improvement Program of the facility supported the mission by establishing a formal, facility-wide system that strives to improve care for residents, service, and facility operations on a continuous basis. The Quality Management Program relied on a systematic, comprehensive, data-driven, proactive approach to performance management and improvement that focuses on indicators of the outcomes of care and quality of life. The program evaluates residents' and other customers' needs and expectations and involves coordination within and between the facility departments and services. The leadership team of the facility maintains overall responsibility for the implementation of the quality management program. The facility's leadership focuses on the identification and prevention of risk exposures, include the safety and security of the environment. In a temperature log dated 06/25/2025 at 11:10 AM, documented the temperature in the sampled 55 residents' rooms on all eight units, which ranged from 83 degrees Fahrenheit to 105 degrees Fahrenheit. Seven rooms were over 100 degrees Fahrenheit. In a temperature log dated 06/26/2025 at 10:15 AM, the documented temperature in the 61 sampled residents' rooms on all eight units, which ranged from 71 degrees Fahrenheit to 89 degrees Fahrenheit. During an interview on 06/27/2025 at approximately 11:16 AM, the admission Director stated they received multiple calls on 06/23/2025 from residents who were newly admitted reporting that their rooms were extremely hot, with most calls coming from the 3rd floor. The admission Director stated they called Maintenance and the Nurse Supervisor to get the residents room changed. The admission Director stated Maintenance staff went to the resident rooms to correct the air conditioning issue. During an interview on 06/27/2025 at approximately 3:13 PM, the Administrator stated they are the chairman of the Quality Assurance Performance Improvement committee and are responsible for all department performance, including the Maintenance Department. The Administrator stated that on 06/19/2025, they received an email from the New York State Department of Health with a heat advisory memo. Maintenance was immediately deployed to re-check the air conditioning units in the resident's rooms, the Packaged Terminal Air Conditioner and the Heating, Ventilation, and Air Conditioning to ensure proper operation. The Administrator stated there were no issues reported on 06/21/2025 and 06/22/2025. The Administrator stated they contacted an electrician due to the breaker tripping. The electrician came on site on 06/24/2025 and assessed the electrical grid and contacted Con [NAME] (the energy company) and discovered the energy company had cut the voltage to the facility by 8% (eight percent). They also contacted the air conditioning company on 06/24/2025 due to an abnormal number of overheated air conditioning units. The air conditioning company came on the same day and evaluated the air conditioning units and there were no significant issues, but some units failed and were replaced immediately. The Administrator stated that on 06/24/2025 at 7:58 PM, they received a phone call from the New York State Department of Health stating there is a complaint of heat in the building and requested the temperature log to be sent the following day (06/25/2025). The log was sent at 2:00 PM on 05/25/2025. The Administrator stated they were not in the facility on 06/25/2025 due to a medical appointment, but a Quality Assurance Performance Improvement meeting was held on 06/26/2025 to discuss a heat problem in the facility. During an interview on 06/27/2025 at 11:55 AM, the Assistant Director of Nursing /Staff Educator stated no family or residents complained to them on 06/23/2025, 06/24/2025, or 06/25/2025. The Assistant Director of Nursing /Staff Educator stated on 06/23/2025, during rounds, some areas of the hallway felt warm, and they called maintenance staff, who responded. The Assistant Director of Nursing/Staff Educator stated they notified the Director of Maintenance that it was warm. The Assistant Director of Nursing /Staff Educator stated that they did not notify the Director of Nursing or Administrator, and they did not check the residents' rooms. During an interview on 06/27/2025 at 12:34 PM, the Director of Nursing stated that they first became aware that someone had made a complaint of being uncomfortable with the room temperature on 06/25/2025 from the State Surveyor at 5:00 PM. The Director of Nursing stated that the State Surveyor told them that the room temperature was above the acceptable range. The Director of Nursing stated they did rounds after that, and it was warm in the units and rooms. During an interview on 06/27/2025 at 3:34 PM, the Medical Director stated they are aware of the elevated temperatures in the facility and will monitor the medical status of residents. 10 NYCRR 415.26
Apr 2025 1 deficiency
CONCERN (D)

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

Respiratory Care (Tag F0695)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, record review, and interviews conducted during the Recertification survey from 04/03/2025 to 04/10/2025, t...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, record review, and interviews conducted during the Recertification survey from 04/03/2025 to 04/10/2025, the facility did not ensure a resident who needed respiratory care was provided such care, consistent with professional standards of practice. This was evident for 1 (Resident #274) out of 4 residents reviewed for Respiratory Care out of 38 sampled residents. Specifically, Resident #274 was observed receiving oxygen via nasal cannula at a rate of 3 liters per minute without a Physician's order. The findings are: The facility's policy titled Transcription and Order Entry into PCC (Point Click Care) with effective date 6/15 documented that all resident orders must be entered into the electronic medical record to appear in the resident's medication profile. Resident #274 had diagnoses that included Cancer, Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease, Pneumonia, and shortness of breath. The Quarterly Minimum Data Set, dated [DATE] documented that Resident #274 was moderately cognitively impaired and was not on oxygen therapy. On 04/03/2025 at 10:22 AM, 04/04/2025 at 10:23 AM and multiple occasions on 04/03/2025 and 04/04/2025, Resident #274 was observed receiving oxygen via nasal cannula at a rate of 3 liters per minute via a concentrator. On 04/03/2025 at 10:25 AM, Resident #274 was interviewed and stated they returned to the facility the day before and had been receiving oxygen since their return. The Skilled Observation Note dated 04/02/2025 documented Resident #274 had Oxygen Saturation at 94.0 % on 04/02/2025 at 21:13. The Skilled Observation Note also documented Resident #274 received oxygen via nasal cannula. The Nursing note dated 04/04/2025 documented Resident #274 was on oxygen at 2 liter/minute and had no complaint of shortness of breath. The MD (Medical Doctor) History and Physical Note-V 4 dated 04/02/2025 documented Resident was on oxygen via nasal cannula at 4 liters/minute. There was no documented evidence that a physician's order for oxygen was entered into the medical record for Resident #274 until 04/06/2025, which was four days after Resident #274 was readmitted to the facility. On 04/08/2025 at 11:31 AM, Registered Nurse #1 was interviewed and stated Resident #274 was receiving oxygen when re-admitted on [DATE]. Registered Nurse #1 also stated that the Registered Nurse Supervisor was responsible for entering the orders for newly admitted residents. On 04/08/2025 at 12:38 PM, Registered Nurse #2 was interviewed and stated that as the Registered Nurse Supervisor for the floor where Resident #274 resided they are responsible for assessing all newly admitted residents and entering the orders for the physician to sign. Registered Nurse #2 also stated that Resident #274 was receiving oxygen on admission on [DATE], and a physician's order was required for a resident to receive oxygen. Registered Nurse #2 reviewed Resident # 274's medical record and was unable to find a physician's order for oxygen for Resident #274 that covered the period 04/02/2025 to 04/05/2025. Registered Nurse #2 stated it was an error that the order had not been entered prior to Resident #274 receiving oxygen. On 04/09/2025 at 09:21 AM, the Director of Nursing was interviewed and stated that all Registered Nurses on the unit were able to enter the medical orders for residents after obtaining the verbal orders from physicians. The Director of Nursing also stated that there should be an order in place before oxygen is providing to residents. On 04/09/2025 at 11:12 AM, the Medical Director was interviewed and stated the physician's review the hospital discharge papers for all new residents. The Medical Director also stated that the nurses assess the newly admitted residents and obtain orders from the attending physicians. The Medical Director further stated that oxygen was considered a medication and therefore there should be an order in place before it is administered to residents. The Medical Director stated that it was an error to administer oxygen to Resident #274 without a physician's order. 10 NYCRR 415.12(k)(6)
Jan 2024 7 deficiencies
CONCERN (D)

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

Comprehensive Assessments (Tag F0636)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on record review and interviews conducted during the Recertification survey from 1/3/2024 to 1/10/2024, the facility did not ensure that comprehensive resident assessments were completed within ...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on record review and interviews conducted during the Recertification survey from 1/3/2024 to 1/10/2024, the facility did not ensure that comprehensive resident assessments were completed within 14 days of the assessment reference date. This is evident for 1 of 38 total sampled residents. Specifically, Resident #226's annual Minimum Data Set assessment was not completed within 14 days. The findings are: The facility policy titled Minimum Data Set Assessment Version 3.0 dated 12/2023 documented the Minimum Data Set Department will complete audit reports to review for quality data and timeliness of Minimum Data Set completion. Resident #226's annual Minimum Data Set assessment reference date was 11/27/2023 and documented a completion date of 12/14/2023, 17 days after the assessment reference date. There was no documented evidence the 11/27/2023 Minimum Data Set assessment was completed within 14 days. On 01/08/2024 at 12:03 PM, an interview was conducted with Minimum Data Set Coordinator #1 who stated the computer system was reviewed daily to ensure assessment were completed and submitted timely. They were unable to provide a reason Resident #226's assessment was completed late. On 01/09/2024 at 11:55 AM, an interview was conducted with the Regional Social Worker who stated Minimum Data Set assessments were completed late because individual staff members were not completing their assigned sections of the assessment timely. On 01/10/2024 at 09:09 AM, the Administrator was interviewed and stated the Minimum Data Set Coordinator was responsible for ensuring assessments were completed and submitted timely. Late completions were the result of human error. There was a change in Minimum Data Set Department staff recently that contributed to late completions and submissions. 10 NYCRR 415.11(a)(3)(i)
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0638 (Tag F0638)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on record review and interviews conducted during the Recertification survey from 01/03/2024 to 01/10/2024, the facility did not ensure residents were assessed using the quarterly review instrume...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on record review and interviews conducted during the Recertification survey from 01/03/2024 to 01/10/2024, the facility did not ensure residents were assessed using the quarterly review instrument specified by the State every 3 months. This was evident in 3 (Residents #62, #70 and #145) of 38 total sampled residents. Specifically, the quarterly Minimum Data Set 3.0 assessments for Residents #62, #70, and #145 were not completed within 14 days of the assessment reference date. The findings are: The facility policy titled Minimum Data Set 3.0 assessment dated 12/2023 documented audit reports will be completed to review for timeliness of completion. Resident #62's quarterly Minimum Data Set 3.0 with assessment reference date of 10/14/2023 documented a completion date of 01/05/2024, more than 14 days after the assessment reference date. Resident #70's quarterly Minimum Data Set 3.0 with assessment reference date of 11/13/2023 documented a completion date of 12/15/2023, more than 14 days after the assessment reference date. Resident #145's quarterly Minimum Data Set 3.0 with assessment reference date of 11/22/2023 documented a completion date of 12/14/2023, more than 14 days after the assessment reference date. There was no documented evidence the Minimum Data Set 3.0 assessments for Residents #62, #70, and #145 were completed within 14 days of their assessment reference dates. On 01/08/2024 at 12:03 PM, an interview was conducted with Minimum Data Set Coordinator #1 who stated the computer system was reviewed daily to ensure assessment were completed and submitted timely. They were unable to provide a reason the resident assessments were completed late. On 01/09/2024 at 11:55 AM, an interview was conducted with the Regional Social Worker who stated Minimum Data Set assessments were completed late because individual staff members were not completing their assigned sections of the assessment timely. On 01/10/2024 at 09:09 AM, the Administrator was interviewed and stated the Minimum Data Set Coordinator was responsible for ensuring assessments were completed and submitted timely. Late completions were the result of human error. There was a change in Minimum Data Set Department staff recently that contributed to late completions and submissions. 10 NYCRR 415.11(a)(4)
CONCERN (D)

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

MDS Data Transmission (Tag F0640)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on record review and interviews conducted during the Recertification survey from 1/3/2023 to 1/10/2024, the facility did not ensure that Minimum Data Set 3.0 assessments were submitted and trans...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on record review and interviews conducted during the Recertification survey from 1/3/2023 to 1/10/2024, the facility did not ensure that Minimum Data Set 3.0 assessments were submitted and transmitted within 14 days of completion. This was evident for 4 (Residents #70, #145, #226 and #110) of 38 total sampled residents. Specifically, the Minimum Data Set 3.0 assessments for Residents #70, #145, #226, and #110 were not submitted and transmitted within 14 days of completion. The findings are: The facility policy titled Minimum Data Set 3.0 assessment dated 12/2023 documented assessments will be submitted at least weekly 14 days of the Care Plan date. Resident #70's Minimum Data Set 3.0 assessment with reference date 11/13/2023 and completion date 12/15/2023 documented a submission date of 01/05/2024, more than 14 days after the completion date. Resident #145's Minimum Data Set 3.0 assessment with reference date 11/22/2023 and completion date 12/14/2023 documented a submission date of 01/05/2024, more than 14 days after the completion date. Resident #226's Minimum Data Set 3.0 assessment with reference date 11/27/2023 and completion date 12/14/2023 documented a submission date of 01/05/2024, more than 14 days after the completion date. Resident #110's Minimum Data Set 3.0 assessment with reference date 12/2/2023 and completion date 12/13/2023 documented a submission date of 01/05/2024, more than 14 days after the completion date. There was no documented evidence the Minimum Data Set 3.0 assessments for Residents #70, #145, #226, and #110 were submitted within 14 days of completion. On 01/08/2024 at 12:03 PM, an interview was conducted with the Minimum Data Set Coordinator #1 who stated the computer system alerted them when assessments were ready for submission. The batch of assessments for Residents #70, #145, #226, and #110 were submitted late due to human error. On 01/10/2024 at 09:09 AM, the Administrator was interviewed and stated the Minimum Data Set Coordinator was responsible for ensuring assessments were completed and submitted timely. Late completions were the result of human error. There was a change in Minimum Data Set Department staff recently that contributed to late completions and submissions. 10 NYCRR 415.11(a)(1-5)
CONCERN (D)

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

Assessment Accuracy (Tag F0641)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, record review, and interviews conducted during the Recertification survey from 01/03/2024 to 01/10/2024, t...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, record review, and interviews conducted during the Recertification survey from 01/03/2024 to 01/10/2024, the facility did not ensure the Minimum Data Set 3.0 assessment accurately reflected a resident's status. This was evident for 1 (Resident #244) of 38 total sampled residents. Specifically, the Minimum Data Set 3.0 assessment for Resident #244 did not document the resident's pain. The findings are: The facility policy titled Minimum Data Set Assessment Version 3.0 dated 12/2023 documented the Minimum Data Set 3.0 assessment should be accurate with information gathered from multiple sources including interview of resident, communication with and observation of the resident, and communication with the resident's family. Resident #244 had diagnoses of low back pain and osteoarthritis. The Minimum Data Set 3.0 assessment dated [DATE] documented Resident #244 was moderately cognitively impaired, received pain medication, rarely had pain, rarely had pain that effected their sleep, and had a pain intensity of 4 out of 10. On 01/03/2024 at 12:20 PM, Resident #244 was interviewed and stated they had pain in their knees, hips, shoulders, and lower back that became worse over the past 3 months. The pain disturbed Resident #244's sleep frequently and Resident #244 complained of pain to the nurse daily. On 01/05/2024 at 02:34 PM, Minimum Data Set Coordinator #2 was interviewed and stated they interviewed residents and staff and reviewed the medical record to gather the information for the Minimum Data Set 3.0 pain assessment. Minimum Data Set Coordinator #2 stated they did not interview Resident #244 about their pain due to a language barrier and was not aware Resident #244's pain became worse over the last 3 months and that the pain frequently disturbed their sleep. Minimum Data Set Coordinator #2 was not confident the pain assessment performed on 11/27/2023 reflected the actual pain level, frequency, and the impact on sleep for Resident #244. 10 NYCRR 415.11(b)
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0676 (Tag F0676)

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 the Recertification survey from 01/03/2024 to 01/10/2024, t...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, record review, and interviews conducted during the Recertification survey from 01/03/2024 to 01/10/2024, the facility did not ensure a resident was given the appropriate language and communication services to maintain their ability to carry out activities of daily living. This was evident for 1 (Resident #244) of 5 residents reviewed for activities of daily living out of 38 total sampled residents. Specifically, language interpretation services were not used to communicate effectively with Resident #244. The findings are: The facility policy titled Activities of Daily Living dated 11/2018 documented the facility will provide the necessary care and services based on comprehensive assessment of a resident and consistent with the resident's needs, choices, and preferences, to maintain or improve, the resident's ability to perform activities of daily living. The facility policy titled Communication with Non-English-Speaking Residents dated 1/3/2024 documented the facility shall have a system in place to ensure that residents limited English proficiency is provided with means of communication to enable resident understanding and participation in their care. Resident #244 had diagnoses of low back pain and osteoarthritis. The Minimum Data Set 3.0 assessment dated [DATE] documented Resident #244 was moderately cognitively impaired. Resident #244 and their representative did not participate in the assessment. On 01/03/2024 at 12:20 PM, Resident #244 was interviewed and stated they only spoke Fuzhouese, a Chinese dialect, and did not speak or understand English. Staff did not communicate with Resident #244 when providing care and Resident #244 did not understand their medical condition. On 01/03/2024 at 02:24 PM, Resident #244 was observed speaking to Registered Nurse #3 in Chinese and complaining of pain to their knees, shoulders, and hips. Registered Nurse #3 motioned to Resident #244 and stated they did not understand what Resident #244 was saying. Registered Nurse #3 left Resident #244's room, went to the medication cart in the hallway, and continued to administer medication to other residents on the unit. On 01/03/2024 at 02:47 PM, Certified Nursing Assistant #9 was observed weighing Resident #244 in their room and communicated the wight to Resident #244 in English. Resident #244 motioned to Certified Nursing Assistant #9 and stated in their language that they did not understand what Certified Nursing Assistant #9 said to them. Certified Nursing Assistant #9 then left the resident's room. The admission Record Resident Information documented Resident #244's primary language was Chinese. The comprehensive care plan related to communication created 8/27/2022 and last updated 12/8/2023 documented Resident #244 had a language barrier and interventions included to provide a translator and use a communication book/board, writing pad, gestures, signs, and pictures as needed. On 01/04/2024 at 10:36 AM, Certified Nursing Assistant #9 was interviewed and stated Resident #244 did not speak English and they communicated with Resident #244 by using sign language. Certified Nursing Assistant # 9 did not know Resident #244 wanted to know their weight. They did not use a language communication book and thought Resident #244 could understand them. On 01/04/2024 at 10:25 AM, Registered Nurse #3 was interviewed and stated they used the language communication book to communicate with Chinese speaking residents. They forgot to use a communication book to understand Resident #244 on 1/3/2024 when they were administering medications and did not understand what Resident #244 was trying to tell them at the time. Registered Nurse #3 stated they did not administer as-needed pain medication ordered for Resident #244 on 1/3/2024 because they did not understand that Resident #244 was expressing pain in Chinese. On 01/05/2024 at 03:01 PM, the Director of Nursing was interviewed and stated all staff had training in communicating with non-English speaking residents. The Director of Nursing conducted daily unit rounds to check on patient care, spoke to staff, and spoke to residents regarding their concerns. The Director of Nursing did not know whether they spoke with Resident #244 regarding their language communication concerns and forgot what language Resident #244 spoke. Residents should not be prevented from knowing what care and medications they received because they were not English speaking. 10 NYCRR 415.12(a)(2)
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0679 (Tag F0679)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, record review, and interviews conducted during the Recertification survey from 01/03/2024 to 01/10/2024, t...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, record review, and interviews conducted during the Recertification survey from 01/03/2024 to 01/10/2024, the facility did not provide an ongoing program to support residents in their choice of activities, designed to meet the interests of and support the physical, mental, and psychosocial well-being of each resident. This was evident for 1 (Resident #609) resident reviewed for activities out of 38 total sampled residents. Specifically, Resident #609 was not provided with television stations and meaningful activities in their preferred language. The findings are: The facility policy titled Activity Recreation Program and assessment dated 11/2016 documented the facility shall provide for an ongoing program of activities designed to meet the interests and the physical, mental, psychosocial well-being of each resident. The Recreation Therapist will complete a comprehensive assessment to help develop an activity plan that reflects the resident's level of leisure and lifestyle satisfaction. Resident #609 had diagnoses of unspecified dementia and diabetes mellitus. The Minimum Data Set 3.0 dated 12/22/2023 documented Resident #609 was severely cognitively impaired, usually understood others, and found it very important to do their favorite activities such as keeping up with the news and listening to preferred music. On 01/03/2024 at 11:27 AM, Resident #609 was interviewed and stated their primary language is Cantonese and the Recreation Therapist has not asked them about their activity preferences. Resident #609 preferred to watch television in their native language so they could understand the news and programs. On 01/03/2024 at 11:33 AM, Resident #609 was observed in their room turning on their television. All available stations were observed to be in the English or Spanish language. From 01/03/2024 at 11:27 AM to 01/08/2024 at 10:07 AM, there were multiple observations of Resident #609 in their room or in the wheelchair in the hallway with no ongoing activities and the television in their room turned to a station in English. The Comprehensive Care Plan related to activities initiated 12/17/2023 documented Resident #609 speaks Cantonese and Mandarin and expressed interests in music and watching television. The daily activity participation would be based on their therapy schedule and individual preference. The Therapeutic Recreation assessment dated [DATE] documented Resident #609 spoke Chinese and preferred to keep up with the news, listen to music, and do their favorite activities. The facility television channel list documented all provided channels were available in English or Spanish. There was no documented evidence Resident #609's activity preference to watch television in Cantonese and keep up with the news was honored with meaningful therapeutic recreation. On 01/08/2024 at 10:12 AM, Certified Nursing Assistant #5 was interviewed and stated Resident #609 did not speak English and mainly stayed in their room. Certified Nursing Assistant #5 stated they did not see the Recreation Therapist interact with Resident #609, did not see activities provided to Resident #609, and saw the television turned on in Resident #609's room but the resident did not watch the English programs that were available. On 01/08/2024 at 11:40 AM, Activities Aide #1 was interviewed and stated they conducted the recreation assessment for Resident #609. It was very important to Resident #609 that they watch television in Cantonese. The facility offered television channels in English and Spanish. Activities Aide #1 stated they did not know what activities were offered and available to Resident #609. On 01/08/2024 at 01:56 PM, Recreation Therapist #1 was interviewed and stated they provided puzzles to Resident #609 even though they knew Resident #609 did not prefer puzzles as an activity. Recreation Therapist #1 did not know Resident #609's activity interests. The Therapeutic Recreation Department had a tablet for residents to watch programs in their preferred language in the event residents were unable to understand English or Spanish television channels provided by the facility. Recreation Therapist #1 stated they did not provide the tablet to Resident #609 to watch videos in Cantonese and did not involve Resident #609's representative in attempting to accommodate Resident #609's preference for meaningful activities. On 01/08/2024 at 02:23 PM, the Recreation Director was interviewed and stated the facility offered television channels in English and Spanish. The facility should accommodate Resident #609's preference to watch television channel in Cantonese. The Recreation Director was not able to explain why the activity preference for Resident #609 was not provided or accommodated. 10 NYCRR 415.5(f)(1)
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 observations, record review, and interviews conducted during the Recertification survey from 1/3/2023 to 1/10/2024, the facility did not ensure food was prepared and served in accordance with...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observations, record review, and interviews conducted during the Recertification survey from 1/3/2023 to 1/10/2024, the facility did not ensure food was prepared and served in accordance with professional standards for food service safety to prevent foodborne illness. This was evident for 1 (2nd Floor) of 3 dining rooms. Specifically, Certified Nursing Assistant #6 was observed assisting multiple residents with hand hygiene without performing hand hygiene in between residents. The findings are: The facility policy titled Meal Service-Assistance of Residents dated 04/2016 documented Certified Nursing Assistants wash resident hands or offer hand wipes. On 01/03/2024 at 11:44 AM, the 2nd floor dining room was observed during lunch service. Certified Nursing Assistant #6 passed out hand wipes to multiple residents in the dining room with bare hands. Certified Nursing Assistant #6 retrieved a used hand wipe from Resident # 34, went to Resident #116 and assisted the resident with using a hand wipe, went to Resident #68 and assisted the resident with using a hand wipe, and continued assisting Resident #124, Resident #115, and Resident #153 without performing hand hygiene in between each resident. Certified Nursing Assistant #6 then grabbed a paper towel and gathered the used hand wipes from Residents #241, #99, and #85 without performing hand hygiene in between each resident. On 01/03/2024 at 12:06 PM, Certified Nursing Assistant #6 was interviewed and stated they did not clean their hands while assisting residents with hand hygiene in the 2nd floor dining room. Their hand should have been sanitized in between each resident contact to prevent passing germs from one resident to another. On 01/03/2024 at 02:33 PM, Licensed Practical Nurse #1 was interviewed and stated all staff wash their hands before they enter the dining room and when they leave the dining room. On 01/03/2024 at 02:42 PM, Registered Nurse # 5 was interviewed and stated Certified Nursing Assistants should wash their hands before giving hand wipes to residents and should sanitize their hands in between each resident contact. On 01/03/2024 at 02:54 PM, the Assistant Director of Nursing was interviewed and stated they observe dining daily. Staff should wash their hands, give hand wipes to and assist residents with sanitizing their hands, and wash their hands in between dispensing each hand wipe. The Assistant Director of Nursing stated they monitored hand hygiene during dining. 10 NYCRR 415.14(h)
Oct 2021 8 deficiencies
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0568 (Tag F0568)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

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

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review and interview conducted during the recertification survey, the facility did not ensure that residents received quarterly statements of their personal funds account. Specifically, the family member of a cognitively impaired resident was not provided with quarterly financial statements. This was evident for 1 of 1 resident reviewed for Personal Funds. (Resident #30) The finding is: The facility policy titled Establishment of Residents' Personal Incidental Allowance Fund dated 11/2017 documented financial statements of deposits or withdrawal of funds shall be issued quarterly. When a designated family member is responsible, the quarterly statements shall be mailed to them. The Social Worker (SW) shall be available to assist and direct the resident and/or family member to the Business Office when questions arise. Resident #30 was diagnosed with Acute Kidney Disease and Major Depressive Disorder. The most recent Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated [DATE] documented the resident had severely impaired cognition. On 10/24/21 at 11:56 AM, a telephone interview was conducted with the next of kin (NOK) listed on the facesheet of Resident #30. The NOK stated they had not been receiving quarterly financial statements from the facility. The resident's income goes to the facility, but the NOK has not been updated re: the status of the resident's account. An interview was conducted with SW #1 on 10/27/2021 at 2:45 PM. SW #1 stated residents who are cognitively intact receive their financial statements on a quarterly basis. Statements are only mailed to the legally appointed Power of Attorney (POA) of a cognitively impaired resident. The NOK of Resident #30 is not the resident's POA. On 10/27/2021 at 3:00 PM, an interview was conducted with the Business Coordinator (BC) who stated the SW assists the business office with delivering the quarterly financial statements to cognitively intact residents in the facility who can receive and sign for their statements. Resident #30 is cognitively impaired and does not have POA appointed to manage their finances. The BC is unaware of any requests for quarterly financial statements from the NOK of Resident #30. On 10/29/2021 at 10:57 AM, the Administrator was interviewed and stated financial statements cannot be issued to anyone other than a cognitively intact resident or the financial POA of the resident. If the resident does not have a POA in place, the statements are kept in the facility for review and safekeeping. 415.26 (h)(5)(I)
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0604 (Tag F0604)

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 the recertification survey, the facility did not ensure tha...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, record review, and interviews conducted during the recertification survey, the facility did not ensure that a resident was free from physical restraints. Specifically, a concave mattress was observed being used to restrict a resident with no prior history of falls from the bed. This was evident for 1 of 1 resident reviewed for Physical Restraints. (Resident #57) The findings are: The facility policy titled Restraints Devices and Siderails dated 11/17 documented physical restraints will only be utilized after less restrictive alternatives have been attempted and considered as a last resort to treat the resident's medical symptoms. The clinical team will consider various alternatives prior to the use of the restraints, monitor the use of and assess for the possibility of reducing restraints. At no time will a restraint be utilized for staff convenience or resident discipline. Resident # 57 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses that included Alzheimer's Dementia and history of falling. The most recent Minimum Data Set 3.0 assessment (MDS) dated [DATE] documented Resident # 57 displayed moderate cognitive impairments and required 1 person to assist with bed mobility, 2 people to assist with transfers, and did not walk in their room or corridor. The resident did not display any adverse behaviors within the assessment period and had no falls since their most recent admission to the facility. The MDS also documented physical restraints were not used with Resident #57. On 10/24/21 at 09:33 AM, 10/25/21 at 09:12 AM, 10/26/21 at 08:59 AM, 10/27/21 at 09:14 AM, and 10/29/21 at 9:16 AM, Resident # 57 was observed in bed with a concave mattress and bilateral upper side rails fully raised. The bed was not at the lowest position and there was no floor mat. Resident # 57 was calm and quiet. Physician Orders dated 1/16/19 documented Resident #57 was ordered to have 2 top siderails in the raised position while in bed as an enabler. Fall precautions were ordered for the resident on 3/9/20. The comprehensive care plan (CCP) related to risk for falls was initiated 1/16/19 and last revised 8/10/2021. The CCP documented the resident's risk was related to new environment and age-related debility. Interventions to prevent falls included placing a yellow charm on resident's identification bracelet, having call light within reach, and anticipating the resident's needs. The CCP related to siderails was initiated 1/17/19 and last revised on 8/10/21. The CCP documented Resident #57 uses 2 siderails that are not restraints because control panels are located on the rails providing the resident and caregiver with easy access to bed controls and personal care. Resident was to be observed for entrapment/injury and to ensure they maintain autonomy in changing positions. There was no documented evidence in the medical record that Resident #57 was assessed for a concave mattress or that a concave mattress was ordered. There was no documented evidence in the medical record Resident #57 was assessed for restraints or that restraints were an intervention to address the resident's medical and physical condition. There was no documented evidence that Resident #57 had a fall from bed. On 10/26/21 at 09:04 AM, an interview was conducted with Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA) # 1 who stated Resident # 57 was confused, responsive, and totally dependent for most Activities of Daily Living (ADLs). Resident # 57 previously attempted to try to get out of the bed without assistance, but CNA #1 was not aware of the resident having any falls. The resident required a Hoyer lifter and 2 people to transfer from bed to wheelchair. CNA #1 noticed the concave mattress was placed in the resident's room a few months ago. This type of mattress is used to prevent Resident #57 from getting out of bed without assistance. Resident #57 has not attempted to get out of the bed since the concave mattress was put in place because the concave mattress prevents Resident #57 from moving their legs. CNA #1 stated the resident does not have any other fall interventions in place such as floor mats. On 10/26/21 at 03:26 PM, an interview was conducted with Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) # 1 who has been working as the charge nurse in the evening for approximately 1 year. Resident # 57 has had the concave mattress in place since LPN #1 began working on the unit. LPN #1 was unsure when Resident # 57 was first provided the concave mattress. Resident # 57 was responsive but confused and was unable to follow instructions. The concave mattress was used to keep the resident in bed and prevent falls because Resident #57 moves around in bed a lot. Resident #57 has not had any falls, has not other fall precautions in place, and is unable to get out of the bed because of the concave mattress. On 10/26/21 at 09:22 AM, an interview was conducted with Registered Nurse (RN) # 1 who identified themselves as a floating nurse first assigned to the resident's unit 3-4 weeks ago. RN #1 observed Resident # 57 in bed and stated the resident was alert but confused and required extensive assistance with ADLs, including transferring in and out of bed. RN #1 did not know who determined Resident #57 was a candidate for using a concave mattress or when it was put in place. The concave mattress is used for positioning and as a barrier in the event Resident #57 attempts to get out of bed. RN #1 stated they were not aware of Resident #57 having any fall incidents or any other fall interventions in place, i.e., floor mats or having the bed in the lowest position. On 10/26/21 at 09:45 AM, an interview was conducted was RN #2, a supervisor who has been working at the facility for 2 months and covers 2 units. RN #2 observed Resident # 57 in bed with concave mattress in place and stated they were not familiar with the resident's care or condition. RN #2 was unaware Resident #57 had a concave mattress in place. The concave mattress restricts a resident's position while in bed, thereby preventing falls. Resident #57 was not currently receiving any other fall interventions, i.e., floor mats or having the bed in the lowest position. After observing the resident and reviewing their medical record, RN #2 stated Resident #57 would not be able to get out of the bed with the concave mattress in place due to the resident's functional status. On 10/26/21 at 10:22 AM, an interview was conducted with the Occupational Therapist (OT) who most recently worked with Resident #57 in August 2021. The resident had been referred to OT for a decline in ADL status. Upon discharge from OT, Resident #57 required extensive to total assistance with their ADLs, was confused, and was unable to follow commands. Resident #57 is not physically capable of getting out of bed with a concave mattress in place. OT stated they were unaware of any Physician orders for Resident #57 to have fall precautions while in bed. An interdisciplinary (IDT) team meeting had not taken place to discuss the need for fall prevention interventions, including a concave mattress. If it was determined that Resident #57 was at risk for falls, the IDT team would meet and determine the necessary interventions to prevent falls. A Physician's order for agreed upon interventions would then be obtained. Residents were placed in concave mattresses for positioning and to prevent falls by keeping them in bed. On 10/26/21 at 12:10 PM, an interview was conducted with Director of Nursing (DON) who began working at the facility approximately 2 weeks ago. The DON stated they were not familiar with Resident #57. The concave mattress currently in place is used by the resident for positioning and is not used to restrict the resident ability to get out of bed. On 10/26/21 at 03:20 PM, a telephone interview was conducted with primary Physician (PMD) for Resident #57. The PMD stated they did not order the concave mattress for Resident # 57. Concave mattresses are used to promote positioning and comfort, not to restrict the resident in bed. Due to the functional status of Resident #57, a concave mattress may prevent Resident # 57 from getting out of bed. On 10/28/21 at 11:46 AM, an interview was conducted with Medical Director (MD) who stated the concave mattress was used to prevent a resident from rolling and falling out of bed. Concave mattresses do not restrict the movement of residents with higher functional capabilities. Residents who require extensive to total assistance with ADLs would be restricted to the bed if a concave mattress were in place. A concave mattress would create a barrier for Resident # 57 due to their functional status, and Resident #57 would be prevented from getting out of bed. 415.4 (a)(2-7)
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0657 (Tag F0657)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** 2) Resident #207 had diagnoses of Diabetes Mellitus and major depressive disorder. Resident #207 was interviewed on 10/24/21 at...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** 2) Resident #207 had diagnoses of Diabetes Mellitus and major depressive disorder. Resident #207 was interviewed on 10/24/21 at 12:28 PM. Resident #207 stated they were invited to their admission CCP meeting but has not been invited to attend any CCP meetings since then. The most recent MDS dated [DATE], documented that Resident #207 had intact cognition, participated in the assessment, and had no guardian or legally authorized representative. The Comprehensive Care Plan Meeting Attendance Record dated 9/23/21 did not document a signature from Resident #207 that they attended the quarterly CCP meeting held by the IDT. There was no documented evidence in the medical record that Resident #207 was invited to the quarterly CCP meeting held on 9/23/21. On 10/29/21 at 11:45 AM, an interview was conducted with Director of Nursing Service (DNS) who stated residents and/or representatives are invited to attend the admission, annual, and significant change IDT CCP meetings. Resident and/or their designated representatives are not invited to quarterly IDT CCP meetings to review and revise their plan of care. 415.11(c)(2) (i-iii) Based on record reviews, and staff interviews during the recertification survey, the facility did not ensure that a resident's Comprehensive Care Plan (CCP)was person-centered and individualized. Specifically, there was no documented evidence the facility invited residents and/or their designated representative to attend interdisciplinary (IDT) CCP meetings to review and revise. This was evident for 2 of 4 residents reviewed for Care Planning. (Residents #170 and #207) The findings are: The facility's undated policy titled Care and Treatment of Residents - Care Planning Process documented the facility shall have a care planning process that is person centered. Person Centered Care - IDT will focus on the resident as the focus of control and supporting the resident in making their own choices and having control over their own daily lives. Care plans are developed by the IDT and the facility will facilitate the inclusion of the resident/representative in the process. The facility policy & procedure titled Care Planning Summary revised 7/2019 documented if resident is unable to attend or sign the summary and the representative is not in attendance, the social worker will mail a copy of the summary to the representative and document same in the EMR. The policy and procedure titled Care Planning Process revised 7/2018 documented resident and/or designated representative will be informed by providing the scheduled Comprehensive Care Plan meetings reflecting the date and time by the Social Service Department. Social worker will document a plan of care note in the progress note section indicating that the letter was sent or additional communication with the family occurred regarding the invite to the care plan meeting. 1) Resident #170 was diagnosed with Diabetes Mellitus (Type 2) and major depressive disorder (MDD). The most recent Minimum Data Set (MDS) 3.0 dated 09/07/2021 documented Resident #170 was cognitively intact. An interview was conducted with Resident #170 on 10/26/2021 at 02:23 PM. Resident #170 stated they were only aware of an IDT meeting once a year. The resident was not aware of nor was invited to CCP meetings held by the IDT on 07/23/2020, 10/23/2020 and 01/15/2021. The Comprehensive Care Plan Meeting Attendance Record documented CCP meetings held on 07/23/2020, 10/23/2020 and 01/15/2021. The attendance record did not document a signature from Resident #170 on these dates. There was no documented evidence in the resident's medical record that Resident #170 was invited to the CCP meetings held on 07/23/2020, 10/23/2020 and 01/15/2021. On 10/28/2021 at 09:52 AM, an interview was conducted with the Director of Social Work (SW #9) who is responsible for inviting residents and/or designated representatives to CCP meetings. SW #9 stated Resident #170 was not invited to and did not attend the quarterly CCP meetings held on 07/23/2020, 10/23/2020 and 01/15/2021. Residents and their designated representatives are only invited to admission, annual, and significant change CCP meetings.
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0676 (Tag F0676)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

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

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observations, interviews, and record reviews during the Recertification survey, the facility did not ensure that a resident was provided with appropriate treatment and services to maintain or improve their ability to ambulate. Specifically, Resident #162 was not provided with the Unit Ambulation Program (UAP) in accordance with physician's orders. This was evident for 1 of 7 residents reviewed for Activities of Daily Living (ADL). The findings are: The facility's policy titled Activities of Daily Living was dated 11/2018 and documented the facility will provide the necessary care and services based on the comprehensive assessment of a resident and consistent with the resident's needs, choices, and preferences, to maintain or improve the resident's ability to perform ADLs and to prevent decline. Resident #162 had diagnoses of dementia and muscle weakness. The Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated [DATE], documented that Resident #162 was severely cognitively impaired, did not display any adverse behaviors, and required extensive assistance from staff to ambulate. On 10/24/21 at 11:20 AM, 10/26/21 at 9:00 AM, 10/28/21 at 2:54 PM, and 10/29/21 at 9:03 AM Resident #162 was observed to be alert and in bed. On 10/27/21 at 11:30 AM and 10/29/21 at 10:32 AM Resident #162 was observed sitting in their wheelchair in the dining room. There were no observations of Resident #162 being provided with assistance to ambulate with a wheelchair to follow. The Comprehensive Care Plan (CCP) related to limited physical mobility was initiated 9/16/21 and documented Resident #162 had impaired balance and fatigue. Interventions included UAP: Ambulation 40 feet using a FWW with extensive assist and wheelchair follow, daily. A Physical Therapy Discharge Summary completed on 9/11/21, documented that, at their baseline on 8/26/21, Resident #162 required substantial/maximal assistance to ambulate 5 feet. Upon discharge from physical therapy on 9/10/21, Resident #162 was able to ambulate 50 feet with partial/moderate assistance. The comments section of the discharge summary documented the resident was able to ambulate using a Forward Wheel [NAME] (FWW) and wheelchair follow with minimal assistance on the unit incorporated with ADLs throughout the day. The discharge recommendations documented Functional Maintenance Program (FMP) Established/Trained = Range of Motion Program. The Physician's Order initiated 9/12/21 documented resident was to be provided with UAP: Ambulation 40 feet using a FWW with extensive assist and wheelchair follow, daily. A Nursing Note titled Rehab Intervention dated 9/14/21 documented Resident #162 was discharged from physical therapy and occupational restorative therapy. Resident can transfer safely with extensive assistance of one and resident ambulates with rolling walker (RW) up to 40 feet and will resume FMP with nursing staff on the unit. The Certified Nursing Assistant Accountability Record (CNAAR) dated September 2021 documented Resident #162 should receive UAP: Ambulation 40 feet using a FWW with extensive assist and wheelchair follow, daily. The CNAAR documented 40 opportunities to enter the UAP done on the 7-3 and 3-11 shifts from 9/11/21 to 9/30/21, a 20-day period. Out of 40 opportunities, there were 3 refusals, 19 entries of Not Applicable, and 19 entries documenting ambulation was completed with distances ranging from 2 to 100 feet (ft). CNA #3 completed 8 of the 19 completed ambulation entries. No ambulation was documented for 5 out of 20 days. The CNAAR dated October 2021 documented 54 opportunities to enter the UAP done on the 7-3 and 3-11 shifts from 10/1/21 to 10/27/21, a 27-day period. Out of 54 opportunities, there were 3 refusals, 29 entries of Not Applicable, and 22 entries for ambulation completed with distances ranging from 2 to 1000ft. CNA #3 completed 9 of the 22 completed ambulation entries and 7 of 29 Not Applicable entries. No ambulation was documented for 8 out of 27 days. CNA #3, the regularly assigned CNA for Resident #162, was interviewed on 10/27/21 at 9:28 AM. CNA #3 stated they were unaware Resident #162 was ordered to receive UAP with a FWW. No attempt has been made to use the FWW to ambulate with the resident on the unit. The resident does not display any behaviors and has never refused care. The CNA documented Not Applicable on the report because the UAP does not apply to the resident's current condition. Resident #162 uses a wheelchair and requires extensive assistance of 1 person to transfer out of bed. On the days CNA #3 signed that Resident #162 recieved UAP, CNA #3 stated they thought they were supposed to document the amount of feet the CNA walked when pushing the resident's wheelchair from their bedroom to the dining room. The CNA stated they have received general inservice and training related to UAP but has not been provided with specific instruction on how to provide UAP to Resident #162. CNA #3 did not communicate with the charge nurse or the rehabilitation department to clarify the UAP order and ensure the correct services were provided. Per the interview with CNA #3, the entries CNA #3 entered for ambulation were not distance walked but distance pushed in the wheelchair. On 10/27/21 at 2:41 PM, Registered Nurse (RN) #3, the charge nurse for Resident#162's unit, was interviewed. RN #3 stated they were unaware that Resident #162 had orders for UAP with FWW. RN #3 was not the nurse who reconciled the physician's order and did not update the CCP related to limited mobility. There was no system in place to monitor whether the CNAs were providing the UAP according to the physician's order, no communication from the rehabilitation department re: Resident #162 discharge recommendations for UAP with FWW, and the CNAs did not communicate any concerns with UAP order to RN #3. On 10/29/21 at 9:35 AM, the Director of Rehabilitation (DOR) was interviewed and stated the physical therapist who made the recommendation for UAP with FWW for Resident #162 was unavailable for an interview. The CNAs on the unit had been provided with general inservice related to UAP. The rehabilitation department does not communicate with the CNAs about UAP services for each individual resident. There was no training or inservice provided to the unit staff re: how to provide UAP with FWW for Resident #162. There was no follow up from the rehabilitation department to ensure the services were provided. Everything the CNAs and nurses need to know is in the physical therapy discharge instructions. The nurse reads the instructions and is responsible for obtaining a physician's order for the recommended services. On 10/29/21 at 11:48 AM, Director of Nursing Services (DNS) was interviewed and stated the CNA is responsible for documenting in the resident's medical record when UAP is provided. If a resident refuses or is unable to complete the task, the CNA should communicate this to the charge nurse. The CNA documentation is continuously monitored by the charge nurses to ensure residents are receiving care in accordance with physician's order. 415.12(a)(2)
CONCERN (D)

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

Accident Prevention (Tag F0689)

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 conducted during the recertification survey, the facility did not ensure a re...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview, and record review conducted during the recertification survey, the facility did not ensure a resident's environment remained free of hazards. Specifically, personal medication was found unsecured in a resident's room. This was evident for 1 of 2 residents reviewed in the area of Accidents/Hazards. (Resident #453) The findings are: A facility policy titled Storage of Medications was dated 4/19 and documented medications shall always be kept in a secure storage area. Access to medications is limited to authorized personnel and cannot be removed without a key. Resident #453 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnosis of congestive heart failure, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, and diabetes mellitus II. The Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated [DATE] documented the resident had mild cognitive impairment, required extensive assistance of 2 people for trasnfers, did not walk in their room or corridor, and required the total assistance of 1 person for locomotion on and off the unit. Reisdent #453 did not display any adverse behavior during the assessment period. On 10/25/21 at 01:23 PM, Resident #453 was observed lying in the bed closest to the doorway in a 2-bedded room. The resident was alert and oriented X (times) 3, and agreed to be interviewed. During the interview, a large brown paper bag was observed on the floor on the right side of the resident's bed between the bed and the wall. The top of the bag was open and an orange prescription medication bottle was visible from a standing position, approximately 2 feet away. Resident #453 stated the bag contained their medication from the community and gave permission for the contents of the bag to be observed and recorded. The bag contained 10 bottles with varying amounts of pills and 1 ointment tube of the following prescription medications for Resident #453: Rosuvastatin 20mg daily; Ferrous Sulfate 335mg every other day; Spironolactone 25mg onset daily; Allopurinol 300mg 2 tabs once daily; Entresto 24/26mg every 12 hours; Colchicine .6mg once daily; Furosemide 80mg twice daily; Jardiance 10mg once daily; Metoprolol 50mg once daily; Aspirin 81mg once daily; and Collagenase. Resident #453 stated the bag has been in the room and out in the open since their admission to the facility on [DATE]. Resident #453 brought the medications with them from the hospital. Resident #453 stated facility staff are aware of the bag of medications, including the resident's regularly assigned CNA (CNA #9) and a medication nurse whom Resident #453 could not identify. The nurse advised Resident #453 not to take the medication in the bag because the facility provides medications to the resident. Resident #453 stated the staff never asked to take the bag of medication from the room and never advised the resident to store the medications in a secure and locked location. Facility staff did not educate the resident on the facility policy re: Medication Storage and/or whether the facility allows for self administration of medication. Resident #453 denied taking any of their personal medication since admission to the facility. Resident #453 understood that wandering residents may be at risk for harm if they were to consume any of the medications in the bag. Resident #453 was agreeable to having the bag of medications stored in a locked location for safekeeping, but staff never presented this as an option and did not address the bag of medications after the medication nurse spoke to the resident. There was no documented evidence in the resident's medical record that staff had addressed the bag of medication at the bedside of Resident #453. An interview was conducted with CNA #9 on 10/29/21 at 10:06 AM. CNA #9 has been assigned to care for Resident #453 since the resident was admitted to the facility 2 weeks ago. CNA #9 stated Resident #453 came from the hospital with a bag of medication in their possession. CNA #9 noticed it on the first day that they worked with Resident #453 and informed the charge nurse. CNA #9 could not recall the identity of the charge nurse. CNA #9 stated the resident reported most of the prescription medication bottles were vitamins. CNA #9 did not confirm this information by looking at the medication bottles. After CNA #9 reported the bag of medication to the charge nurse, CNA #9 saw the charge nurse go to the resident's room and educate Resident #453 that they should only be taking medication the facility provides. CNA #9 returned to the room after the charge nurse spoke with Resident #453 and saw the bag of medication was still in the resident's room. CNA #9 and the charge nurse did not discuss the matter any further after the charge nurse spoke with the resident. CNA #9 is not aware of any residents on the unit that are allowed to hold onto their medication and keep it at bedside out in the open. CNA #9 has not looked for the medication since the initial report and does not know if the bag of medication is still at the resident's bedside because they have not provided care to Resident #453 yet today. The roommate of Resident #453 is confused but unable to ambulate and is wheelchair bound. There are other residents on the unit that are confused and can ambulate but CNA #9 could not readily identify them. An interview was conducted with Registered Nurse (RN) #8 on 10/29/21 at 10:20 AM. RN #8 is the supervisor for Resident #453's unit and has been working in the facility for 1 month. RN #8 stated their responsibilities include environmental rounds and room checks to ensure resident safety. RN #8 stated they do not recall seeing a bag of medication in the room of Resident #453 and has not received any reports form nursing staff that Resident #453 had a bag of medication in their room. RN #8 is unfamiliar with the facility policy on medication storage in a resident's room, self-administration of medication, or whether there are any other residents on the unit that hold onto their personal medication. RN #8 does not know if there are confused residents on the unit. In the event RN #8 found a bag of medication in a resident's room, RN #8 would report to the nursing supervisor and the Medical Doctor. The bag of medication would be removed from the resident's room and RN #8 would place the resident on the nursing report to communicate the incident with the next shift. RN #9 would also document this in the resident's progress notes and update the care plan, but RN #8 is still new and learning what types of information the facility documents in the medical record. RN #8 verbally reminds the charge nurses to document occurrences with all residents before they end their shift daily. An interview was conducted with RN #7 on 10/29/21 at 11:41 AM. RN #7 is the charge nurse for Resident's #453's unit and knows that resident requires a hoyer lifter and 2 people to transfer them out of bed. Resident #453 is unable to move on their own without assistance from staff and has been pleasant and cooperative since admission to the facility. The resident is also alert and oriented X3 and cognitively intact. There were only 2 occasions where Resident #453 refused to take medications from the nurse and this was due to resident being on the commode or busy at the time of administration. RN #7 stated they never saw a open bag of medication or any paper bag at all in the resident's room. There are residents that are admitted to the facility and their personal medication comes with them from the hospital. All newly admitted residents arriving from the hospital are screened by security in the lobby before being allowed on the unit. Security searches through the residents' belongings during this process. The nursing supervisor assesses the new admission and creates a property list as part of the resident's admission process. If RN #7 found a bag of medication, they would confiscate the bag from the resident, keep it locked in the medication room, and inform their supervisor. The SW reported to RN #7 that a bag of medication was found in the room of Resident #453 on 10/26/21 and the SW confiscated it. There was also a verbal report of this occurrence in the facility daily morning meeting held with administrative staff and department heads. RN #7 stated they were not provided with any instruction or guidance on documenting the occurrence in the medical record of Resident #453; and, RN #7 has not reviewed or revised the resident's plan of care since the report was given. RN #7 is unaware of any ongoing investigation or the facility's plan to address the found bag of medication. An interview was conducted with the Director of Nursing (DON) on 10/29/21 at 02:19 PM. The DON stated any resident found with personal medication in their possession has 2 options: 1- store the medications in a lockbox in the SW office, or 2- keep the medications locked in the Nursing office until a family member can retrieve them. The SW was doing daily rounds and found a bag of medications in the room of Resident #453 on 10/26/21 but cannot recall the time of day. Resident #453 reported to the SW that they did not take any of the medication and was compliant with giving the medication to the SW for safekeeping. Nursing supervisors and SW did not report seeing the bag of medication previously. DON does not know of any staff member that observed this bag of medication prior to 10/26/21. RN #8 completed the admission assessment for Resident #453 and does not recall seeing the bag of medication upon admission. The DON has not had an opportunity to interview any CNAs or other staff who have interacted with Resident #453. The investigation of the incident is ongoing. The facility does not have a property list for Resident #453 from admission. All staff members are required to report if a resident is found with medication in their room. There is no documentation in the medical record that Resident #453 was found with medication on 10/26/21 because the SW was aware, Resident #453 is alert and oriented, and Resident #453 reported they did not take any of the medication in the bag. There are times that situations would be documented in a grievance form instead of the resident's medical record. There is good communication between the Nursing and SW staff. This is sufficient and every incident may not be documented in the resident's medical record. An interview was conducted with the Director of SW (DSW) on 10/29/21 at 03:11 PM. The DSW stated they were doing rounds on 10/26/21 prior to lunch, but cannot recall the exact time. DSW was having a conversation with Resident #453 when the resident reported that there was a bag of medication at their bedside. DSW observed a brown paper bag on the resident's chair at bedside. The bag was not sealed but the top was slightly folded over so the DSW could not readily see the medication bottles prior to unfolding the top. DSW educated Resident #453 that medications could not be kept at their bedside and took the medication to the SW office for safekeeping. DSW stated this incident does not need to be documented in the resident's chart because Resident #453 was counseled. 415.12(h)(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

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview, and record review conducted during the 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, interview, and record review conducted during the recertification survey, the facility did not ensure that medications were stored in locked compartments and in accordance with professional standards. Specifically, (1) medications were left in a resident's room; and, (2) the narcotics box contained items other than narcotics medication. This was evident for 1 of 36 sampled residents (Resident #108) and 1 of 5 medication rooms on 1 of 5 units observed for Medication storage task (unit 5). The findings are: The facility policy titled Medication Storage dated 4/19 documented that all medications should be kept in safe and locked compartment. Medications and medication rooms should be kept in sanitary condition. 1) Resident #108 had a diagnoses of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. The Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated [DATE] documented the resident was severely cognitively impaired and required extensive to total assistance with Activities of Daily Living (ADL). On 10/24/21 at 01:12 PM, Resident #108's room was observed. There were 2 boxes of wound care supplies on the resident's windowsill. One of the boxes was labeled Gauze Sponge 50X2 count and contained gauze bandages, scissors, and tape. The box also contained 2 tubes of Santyl Collagenase that were opened, mostly full, and had no tops screwed onto the end so the ointment was visible. The tubes were dated 10/7/21 and 10/18/21 and were labeled with 2 other residents' names. On 10/26/21 at 11:53 AM, Resident #108's room was observed again. A large dark brown bottle with a prescription label was observed on top of the resident's bedside table next to a Ziploc plastic bag with an empty urine sample cup labeled with the resident's name. The pharmacy label documented: Gentamycin/Clindamycin/Polymyxin 29516742/Es10063 and Refrigerate. The liquid inside the bottle was a total of 425 milliliters. Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA) #11 was in the room attending to Resident #108. CNA #11 stated that she did not know what the bottle was and continued to make the bed of Resident #108. Registered Nurse (RN) #7 came to the resident's room and was interviewed on 10/26/21 at 12:10 PM. A follow up interview with RN #7 was also done on 10/29/21 at 12:05 PM. RN #7 observed the medication bottle and stated the medication should not be out in the resident's room. The medication was a new order and was just delivered to the night charge nurse from 10/25/21. The medicaiton is to be painted onto the resident's wounds during wound care. RN #7 is a regular nurse on the unit and provides the wound care for Resident #108 daily. RN #7 did rounds in the morning upon arriving on the unit and did not see the bottle sitting on the resident's bedside table. The Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) #3 assigned to the unit last night must have left it out thinking RN #7 would be doing the wound care for Resident #108 early in the morning when RN #7 first arrives at the facility. RN #7 stated this is not standard practice, medications should never be left out in the open for the safety of all the residents on the unit. Resident #7 never uses the wound care supplies of another resident for Resident #108 and did not know the tubes of Collagenase were on the resident's windowsill. This situation has never happened before. RN #7 stated they would check with the pharmacy to ensure the medication was still viable since it was supposed to be refrigerated and must have been left out since 7AM when the night nurse went off shift. RN #7 did not observe the bedside table during the morning rounds. Medications should never be left in a resident's room because it is unsafe if the resident or any other resident on the unit tries to use it. Treatment medications should be locked the same as any any other prescribed medications. There is a locked treatment cart where they are stored and are only taken out when providing the treatment for that resident. An interview was conducted with RN #2, the Nursing Supervisor for Resident 108s unit, on 10/26/21 at 12:34 PM. RN #2 stated they do rounds every morning and checks every resident's room, but did not see any medications on the bedside table of Residnt #108. RN #2 worked on the previous day and is responsible for receiving medications from the pharmacy, but does not reconcile the medication when it comes in. RN #2 hands it to the charge nurse for the unit and they go through it to make sure refrigerated medications go in the refrigerator and other medications match the list the pharmacy provided. RN #2 checked with the pharmacy during the interview and stated the medication was delivered at midnight and the overnight supervisor was responsible for receiving it. The charge nurses are responsible for securing the medication in the appropriate location. All medications should be put away immediately and kept locked in either the appropriate cart or the medication room. RN #2 is not aware of any residents that are allowed to hold onto their own medication in their room. Resident #108 is cognitively impaired and does not have any plan in place that wound care medications should be in the room. LPN #3 placed the medication for Resident #108 in the fridge but took it out at change of shift to ensure that it warmed up before being applied to the residents skin. LPN #3 was concerned about the resident being uncomfortable with a cold ointment. A telephone interview was conducted with LPN #3 on 10/28/21 at 04:06 PM. LPN #3 stated they were responsible for reconciling and receiving the wound treatment medication for Resident #108. LPN #3 placed the medication in the medication fridge and communicated to RN #2 during change of shift in the morning that the medication had arrived. LPN #3 placed the medication at the resident's bedside with the intention of letting it warm before being applied to the resident's skin. LPN #3 thought RN #2 would be doing the wound care prior to medication pass. This was the first and only time LPN #3 left medication out but knows that is not safe for other residents on the unit and the proper protocol is to leave it locked in the treatment cart until it is ready for use. There should be no resident with medication in their room and LPN #3 is unaware of any other treatments medications or prescription pills in any other resident's room. If LPN #3 observed medications in a resident's room, they would let the supervisor know. An interview was conducted with RN #8, another Nursing Supervisor for Resident #108s, unit, on 10/29/21 at 10:45 AM. RN #8 stated there should never be treatment medications in a resident's room. That is the purpose of a locked treatment cart. The facility does not have an issue with supply of Collagenase and there is no reason that tubes of Collagenase prescribed to other residents should be in the room of Resident #108. RN #8 does not know of any previous reports of medications being left in resident rooms and it has never been reported to them that Collagenase ran out and another resident's prescription needed to be used in its place. 2) Observation of the Medication Room on the 5th floor was done with RN #7 on 10/26/21 at 02:31 PM. The narcotics box located affixed to the wall in the medication room had a double lock and was opened by RN #7. The box contained 3 shelves: top shelf contained narcotics medications in labeled blister packs; middle shelf contained blister packs of narcotics mediations; the bottom shelf contained a small plastic bag labeled with 543 A. RN #7 removed the plastic bag and emptied the contents. A set of several keys were observed being removed from the plastic bag. RN #7 stated the keys belonged to a hospitalized resident and RN #7 had placed them there because they looked important and RN #7 did not want them to go missing. On 10/29/21 at 12:16 PM, an interview was conducted with RN #7 who stated the keys should have never been in the narcotics box. Only narcotics medication should be stored in the narcotics box. Placing other items in the box can compromise the medication contained within. RN #7 stated they had placed the keys in the box last week sometime. Every shift of nurses is responsible for checking the medication rooms and narcotics boxes to ensure they are clean and free of any items other than medications and that medications are stored properly. On 10/29/21 at 02:14 PM, an interview was conducted with the Director of Nursing (DNS) who stated only narcotics should be stored in narcotics boxes in the medication rooms. Resident personal items should not be stored in the narcotics box as they can be contaminants. They can be stored safely in the nursing office. The DNS also stated LPN #3 left the treatment medication at the resident's bedside with the intention that wound care treatment was going to be done immediately. RN #7 got caught up in med pass and did not observe that the bottle was there. The DNS stated that they were unaware that Collagenase tubes were found in the room of Resident #108 with labels of other resident's names on them. This is not acceptable and medications should be stored in locked compartments. 415.18(e)(1-4)
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 record review and interviews conducted during the recertification survey and complaint investigation (NY000269748), the...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review and interviews conducted during the recertification survey and complaint investigation (NY000269748), the facility did not ensure that a resident's medical record contained adequate documentation of scheduled clinic appointments. Specifically, the facility did not provide documentation for several scheduled and missed clinic appointments in the medical record of Resident #449. (1 of 34 residents in sample). The findings are: The facility policy titled Medical and Dental Consults was dated 11/17 and documented the Consult Coordinator (CC) will enter the consult appointment into a log book and document the nurse who transcribed the order. The log book will document resident refusal to go and/or if a consult was rescheduled. The CC is responsible for informing the nursing supervisor of any unresolved issues related to consults. Resident #449 was diagnosed with fracture of the right femur and malignant neoplasm of the lung. admission Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] documented the resident was rarely understood, was nonverbal, and had intact short term and long term memory with some difficulty in new situations. A telephone interview was conducted with the Complainant on 10/27/21 at 11:31 AM who stated Resident #449 did not keep appointments with the oncology clinic on 12/29/20, 12/30/20, and 12/31/20. The Complainant received a referral because the resident had missed multiple appointments for chemotherapy, radiation, and follow up with the Oncologist re: lung cancer diagnosis. The Complainant had documented their conversations with multiple staff members at the facility in an attempt to resolve any issues related to Resident #449 keeping their appointments. The staff members the complainant spoke to included the Social Worker (no longer at the facility), the Assistant Director of Nursing (ADNS)(no longer at the facility), and the CC. The Complainant confirmed with the CC that the facility was aware of appointments scheduled on 1/4/21 and 1/6/21 and was told Resident #449 would be able to go without any concern. The complainant was informed Resident #449 again missed appointment for 1/6/21 and spoke with the ADNS. The appointment was rescheduled for 1/7/21. The resident's son was at the Oncology clinic on 1/7/21 in anticipation of meeting the resident there once Resident #449 was transported from the facility to their appointment. The resident again did not show up to the appointment at the scheduled time and the facility was contacted at 3:45PM. The clinic was assured the resident was in the ambulette and was en route to the oncology clinic. A Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA) from the facility showed up at the oncology clinic shortly before 5PM and escorted a resident from the facility into the waiting room. The resident's son and the Oncology clinic staff observed that the resident who accompanied the CNA was not Resident #449. The complainant did not have a name of the resident who arrived of or the CNA that accompanied them. At this point, a supervisor at the Oncology Clinic became involved and spoke directly with the ADNS. There were no further concerns with the resident keeping appointments after 1/8/21. The facility never followed up with the Oncology Clinic to explain why a different resident showed up to the appointment for Resident #449 and never provided any outcome of an investigation into the multiple missed appointments. A Patient Review Instrument dated 12/24/20 documented under the Treatments section that Resident #449 had a final radiation therapy appointment scheduled for 12/29/20. A hospital After Care Summary dated 12/24/20 documented Resident #449 had radiation and chemotherapy appointments at the oncology clinic scheduled for 12/29/20 and 12/30/20 respectively. The facility provided an untitled, computer generated template that documented appointment dates of Resident #449 as 12/28/20, 01/04/21, 01/05/21, 01/06/21, 01/07/21, and 01/08/21. Nursing Notes dated 12/28/20 and 12/29/20 documented Resident #449 returned from radiation clinic appointment. Nursing Notes dated 12/30/20 and 12/31/20 did not document that Resident #449 left or returned to the facility for a clinic appointment. Nursing Note dated 1/4/21 documented the resident went and returned to oncology clinic appointment. Nursing Notes dated 1/5/21, 1/6/21, and 1/7/21 did not document the resident left or returned to the facility for any appointments. Nursing Note dated 1/8/21 documented the resident went to a clinic appointment. There was no documented evidence in the resident's medical record re: missed clinic appointments and no investigation into another resident being transported to an appointment instead of Resident #449. The facility did not provide documentation of any communication with the Oncology Clinic re: resident's missed appointments. An interview was conducted with the CC on 10/28/21 at 11:58 AM. The CC stated they do not recall speaking with the oncology clinic but can recall that Resident #449 made most of his appointments to the oncology clinic. The ADNS would be responsible for documenting any conversations with the oncology clinic and the CC was unable to provide any log book entries documenting whether Resident #449 missed any appointments and the reason. An interview was conducted with the Director of Nursing (DNS) on 10/29/21 at 02:47 PM. The DNS stated they were unaware of any concerns with Resident #449 keeping their appointments. If the resident did not keep an appointment, the nurse on the unit is required to document the reason and if the resident was rescheduled. The DNS and ADNS employed by the facility at the time did not make any corporate entity aware there was a concern with Resident #449. If corporate was aware, there would have been an investigation. The nurse did not document missed appointments and if it is not documented, then it did not occur. 415.22(a)(1-4)
CONCERN (D)

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

Infection Control (Tag F0880)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview, and record review conducted during the 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, interview, and record review conducted during the recertification survey, the facility did not ensure that infection control practices were maintained for a resident receiving respiratory care. Specifically, oxygen tubing was observed on the floor on multiple occasions. This was evident for 1 of 1 residents reviewed for Respiratory Care (Resident #108). The findings are: Facility policy titled Oxygen Therapy dated 6/17 documented oxygen tubing should be changed once weekly and as needed if the cleanliness of the tubing is compromised. Resident #108 was diagnosed with dementia and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. The Minimum Date Set (MDS) dated [DATE] documented Resident #108 was severely cognitively impaired and required extensive to total assistance with activities of daily living. On 10/25/21 at 01:04 PM, Resident #108 was observed in bed, alert with continuous oxygen via nasal canula in use. The tubing was running from resident nose down the right side of the bed to the concentrator. The oxygen tubing was on the floor. On 10/26/21 at 11:53 AM, Resident #108 was observed in a gerichair next to their bed. The resident was partially behind the privacy curtain and 2 Certified Nursing Assistants (CNA) were in the room. CNA #10 pushed the hoyer lifter out of the room while CNA #11 made the resident's bed with new sheets. CNA #10 and #11 both pushed the resident's gerichair away from bed so Resident #108 was in front of the foot of their bed. Resident #108 had a nasal canula in their nose and the attached oxygen tubing was observed on the floor. Both CNAs continued to move the resident by pushing the gerichair and concentrator closer to the wall. CNA #10 backed up and stepped on the oxygen tubing with the right foot during the maneuver. CNA #10 left the room and CNA #11 continued to finish making the resident's bed. As CNA #11 was making the bed, RN #7 entered the room, observed the resident in the gerichair and then left the room without addressing the oxygen tubing on the floor. CNA #11 left the room to get another sheet for the bed and returned and finished making the bed. CNA #11 then left the room. The Comprehensive Care Plan (CCP) related to alteration in respiratory status initiated 8/14/21 documented the staff were to monitor respiratory status during care and administer respiratory medications according to physician order. The CCP related to oxygen therapy was initiated 9/8/21 and documented staff were to monitor the oxygen tank every shift. The Physician's Order dated 10/15/21 documented the resident was to receive 2 liters per minute of oxygen via nasal canula as needed for shortness of breath with the tubing to be changed weekly. An interview was conducted with CNA #11 on 10/26/21 at 12:18 PM. CNA #11 stated that they had completed their morning care routine for Resident #108 and had moved on to the next assignment. CNA #11 did not notice the oxygen tubing on the floor and stated it was not on the floor during transferring the resident. The resident is transferred via hoyer lifter and the CNA removes the nasal canula during transfer to make sure the tubing does not get tangled. If oxygen tubing is on the floor, it should be picked up and sanitized and then placed back on the resident. CNA #11 observed that the oxygen tubing was on the floor during the interview. An interview was conducted with RN #7 on 10/29/21 at 12:05 PM. RN #7 stated they noticed the tubing on the floor while being interviewed in the resident's room on 10/26/21. RN #7 stated they picked the tubing up off the floor and placed it in a plastic bag after the SA left the room. There was inservice done immediately afterwards with staff on the unit to ensure they were aware of how to properly care for oxygen tubing. RN #7 stated they personally change the entire tubing instead of sanitizing it, but it is acceptable to sanitize the tubing. This should be done immediately upon finding the tubing on the floor. 415.19(a)(1-3)
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
  • • No fines on record. Clean compliance history, better than most New York facilities.
  • • 33% turnover. Below New York's 48% average. Good staff retention means consistent care.
Concerns
  • • Multiple safety concerns identified: 1 life-threatening violation(s). Review inspection reports carefully.
  • • 18 deficiencies on record, including 1 critical (life-threatening) violation. These warrant careful review before choosing this facility.
  • • Grade D (43/100). Below average facility with significant concerns.
Bottom line: Trust Score of 43/100 indicates significant concerns. Thoroughly evaluate alternatives.

About This Facility

What is Downtown Brooklyn Nursing & Rehabilitation Center's CMS Rating?

CMS assigns DOWNTOWN BROOKLYN NURSING & REHABILITATION CENTER an overall rating of 2 out of 5 stars, which is considered 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 Downtown Brooklyn Nursing & Rehabilitation Center Staffed?

CMS rates DOWNTOWN BROOKLYN NURSING & REHABILITATION CENTER's staffing level at 3 out of 5 stars, which is average compared to other nursing homes. Staff turnover is 33%, compared to the New York average of 46%. This relatively stable workforce can support continuity of care.

What Have Inspectors Found at Downtown Brooklyn Nursing & Rehabilitation Center?

State health inspectors documented 18 deficiencies at DOWNTOWN BROOKLYN NURSING & REHABILITATION CENTER during 2021 to 2025. These included: 1 Immediate Jeopardy (the most serious level, indicating potential for serious harm or death) and 17 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 Downtown Brooklyn Nursing & Rehabilitation Center?

DOWNTOWN BROOKLYN NURSING & REHABILITATION CENTER is owned by a for-profit company. For-profit facilities operate as businesses with obligations to shareholders or private owners. The facility is operated by CASSENA CARE, a chain that manages multiple nursing homes. With 320 certified beds and approximately 307 residents (about 96% occupancy), it is a large facility located in BROOKLYN, New York.

How Does Downtown Brooklyn Nursing & Rehabilitation Center Compare to Other New York Nursing Homes?

Compared to the 100 nursing homes in New York, DOWNTOWN BROOKLYN NURSING & REHABILITATION CENTER's overall rating (2 stars) is below the state average of 3.1, staff turnover (33%) is significantly lower than the state average of 46%, and health inspection rating (1 stars) is much below the national benchmark.

What Should Families Ask When Visiting Downtown Brooklyn Nursing & Rehabilitation Center?

Based on this facility's data, families visiting should ask: "What changes have been made since the serious inspection findings, and how are you preventing similar issues?" "Can I visit during a mealtime to observe dining assistance and food quality?" "How do you handle medical emergencies, and what is your hospital transfer rate?" "Can I speak with family members of current residents about their experience?" These questions are particularly relevant given the facility's Immediate Jeopardy citations.

Is Downtown Brooklyn Nursing & Rehabilitation Center Safe?

Based on CMS inspection data, DOWNTOWN BROOKLYN NURSING & REHABILITATION CENTER has documented safety concerns. Inspectors have issued 1 Immediate Jeopardy citation (the most serious violation level indicating risk of serious injury or death). The facility has a 2-star overall rating and ranks #100 of 100 nursing homes in New York. Families considering this facility should ask detailed questions about what corrective actions have been taken since these incidents.

Do Nurses at Downtown Brooklyn Nursing & Rehabilitation Center Stick Around?

DOWNTOWN BROOKLYN NURSING & REHABILITATION CENTER has a staff turnover rate of 33%, which is about average for New York nursing homes (state average: 46%). Moderate turnover is common in nursing homes, but families should still ask about staff tenure and how the facility maintains care continuity when employees leave.

Was Downtown Brooklyn Nursing & Rehabilitation Center Ever Fined?

DOWNTOWN BROOKLYN NURSING & REHABILITATION CENTER has no federal fines on record. CMS issues fines when nursing homes fail to meet care standards or don't correct problems found during inspections. The absence of fines suggests the facility has either maintained compliance or corrected any issues before penalties were assessed. This is a positive indicator, though families should still review recent inspection reports for the full picture.

Is Downtown Brooklyn Nursing & Rehabilitation Center on Any Federal Watch List?

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