CAMPBELL HALL REHABILITATION CENTER INC

23 KIERNAN RD, CAMPBELL HALL, NY 10916 (845) 294-8154
For profit - Corporation 134 Beds Independent Data: November 2025 1 Immediate Jeopardy citation
Trust Grade
0/100
#487 of 594 in NY
Last Inspection: December 2024

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

Overview

Campbell Hall Rehabilitation Center Inc has received a Trust Grade of F, indicating significant concerns and poor quality of care. Ranking #487 out of 594 facilities in New York places it in the bottom half, while its county rank of #7 out of 10 suggests that only a few local options are better. Although the facility is showing improvement in its issues, decreasing from 21 in 2024 to 6 in 2025, it still has a high number of concerns, totaling 51 deficiencies. Staffing is a weak point with a rating of 2 out of 5 stars, and the turnover rate is 44%, which is around average. The facility has also been fined $311,517, which is more than 99% of other facilities in New York, raising red flags about compliance. Specific incidents include a failure to supervise residents who smoke, leading to a fire, and inadequate care plans for several residents that did not address their medical and psychosocial needs. Overall, while there are some signs of improvement, the facility has serious weaknesses that families should carefully consider.

Trust Score
F
0/100
In New York
#487/594
Bottom 19%
Safety Record
High Risk
Review needed
Inspections
Getting Better
21 → 6 violations
Staff Stability
○ Average
44% turnover. Near New York's 48% average. Typical for the industry.
Penalties
○ Average
$311,517 in fines. Higher than 72% of New York facilities. Some compliance issues.
Skilled Nurses
⚠ Watch
Each resident gets only 25 minutes of Registered Nurse (RN) attention daily — below average for New York. Fewer RN minutes means fewer trained eyes watching for problems.
Violations
⚠ Watch
51 deficiencies on record. Higher than average. Multiple issues found across inspections.
★☆☆☆☆
1.0
Overall Rating
★★☆☆☆
2.0
Staff Levels
★☆☆☆☆
1.0
Care Quality
★☆☆☆☆
1.0
Inspection Score
Stable
2024: 21 issues
2025: 6 issues

The Good

  • Full Sprinkler Coverage · Fire safety systems throughout facility
  • No fines on record
  • Staff turnover below average (44%)

    4 points below New York average of 48%

Facility shows strength in fire safety.

The Bad

1-Star Overall Rating

Below New York average (3.0)

Significant quality concerns identified by CMS

Staff Turnover: 44%

Near New York avg (46%)

Typical for the industry

Federal Fines: $311,517

Well above median ($33,413)

Significant penalties indicating serious issues

The Ugly 51 deficiencies on record

1 life-threatening
Aug 2025 6 deficiencies
CONCERN (D) 📢 Someone Reported This

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

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

Free from Abuse/Neglect (Tag F0600)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on observation, interviews and record review conducted during the recertification and abbreviated surveys (NY00383678), it was determined for 1 (Resident #111) of 4 residents reviewed for abuse ...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, interviews and record review conducted during the recertification and abbreviated surveys (NY00383678), it was determined for 1 (Resident #111) of 4 residents reviewed for abuse that the facility did not ensure that Resident #111 was free from mental abuse, including abuse facilitated or enabled through the use of technology. Specifically, Resident #111 was recorded on live stream video during cares revealing their naked upper and lower body which was posted to social media when Certified Nurse Aide #22 carried their cell phone in their pocket. This caused Resident #111 to verbalize they felt violated and humiliated by Certified Nurse Aide's #22 actions.Findings are:The facility policy titled Photo and Video policy dated 5/30/25 documented the facility is dedicated to protecting the privacy, dignity, and rights of residents. The unauthorized capture, recording or dissemination of photos of residents, their families or their surroundings is strictly prohibited unless prior written informed consent is obtained.The facility's undated policy and procedure titled: Cell Phone Usage, documented employees of the facility are not permitted to make or receive cell phone calls at any time while working in resident care areas or any area where resident services are being performed. Cell phones must not be carried in these work areas. The facility's policy and procedure titled and dated 05/30/22: Prevention, investigation and reporting of Resident Abuse, Mistreatment, Neglect and Misappropriation of Resident Property, documented that the facility did not permit verbal, mental, sexual or physical abuse including corporal punishment or involuntary seclusion of residents. The policy is to ensure all measures are taken to prevent abuse. Resident #111 had diagnoses which included atrial fibrillation, major depressive disorder and hemiplegia.The 4/19/25 Minimum Data Set assessment tool documented Resident #111 had intact cognitive skills for daily decision making.The Facility Incident Report form, dated 6/15/25 at 1:00 PM, documented Resident #111 was in bed receiving cares as Certified Nurse Aide #22 was live streaming on social media. The facility had received a call about a video being live streamed within the nursing home. Certified Nurse Aide #22 inadvertently pressed record on their phone activating live stream video and went about their routine, performing cares. They stopped the recording when they were approached by the facility Nursing Supervisor about the recording. Certified Nurse Aide #22 was terminated.During an interview on 7/30/25 at 10:38 AM, Resident #111 stated when they found out about the incident, they felt violated and terrible about it. They had trouble trying to understand how and why it happened and was humiliated when they were told about the video. They have since spoken to the facility Social Worker and Psychiatric Nurse Practitioner and their family member about it and finds comfort talking. During an interview on 08/01/2025 at 12:50 PM, Registered Nurse #14 stated they had many in-services about phones and photos and videos of residents, but it was hard to monitor staff when they were administering medications. They stated they did their best to intervene when they saw staff using their phone during cares. During an observation of the video with the Administrator on 8/1/25 at 3:40 PM, Certified Nurse Aide #22 was observed walking in and out of Resident #111's room. On entry to room Resident #111, the resident was easily identified and there was full exposure of their head, chest, and legs wearing only a brief. During an interview on 08/01/25 at 3:40 PM, the Administrator stated the staff was clearly in violation of using their cell phone in a resident area which was against their policy. A video was made of the resident without wearing clothing. They further stated that whether or not it was intentional, abuse occurred. They stated that staff had been made aware of the facility policy. During an interview on 08/04/2025 at 1:52 PM, Certified Nurse Aide #22 stated they were not aware they were live streaming to social media while delivering care. They did have an in- service during their employment orientation and was aware cell phones were not permitted but had it on their person anyway. 415.12(h)(2)]
CONCERN (D) 📢 Someone Reported This

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

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

Report Alleged Abuse (Tag F0609)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on interview and record review conducted during the recertification and abbreviated (NY00368202) surveys from 7/29/2025 through 8/4/2025, the facility did not ensure that an alleged violation of...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on interview and record review conducted during the recertification and abbreviated (NY00368202) surveys from 7/29/2025 through 8/4/2025, the facility did not ensure that an alleged violation of abuse, was reported immediately, but not later than two hours after the allegation was made, for one (Resident #112) of 7 residents reviewed for accidents. Specifically, on 1/5/2025 Resident #112 and informed the staff that they had been raped. The facility did not report the rape allegation to the New York State Department of Health.The findings include: Resident #112 had diagnoses that included asthma, osteoarthritis, and anxiety. The Minimum Data Set (a resident assessment tool) dated 11/26/24 documented Resident #112 was cognitively intact and exhibited no behavioral symptoms. Resident #112 required assistance from staff to complete activities of daily living including personal care. The 1/5/25 at 10:23 AM progress note written by Registered Nurse Supervisor #17 documented a call from Resident #112's relative who reported that the resident was on the floor in their room and had been raped. Both floor nurses and Registered Nurse Supervisor #17 responded to the resident's room, where they found the resident sitting on the floor beside their bed. The resident was alert but disoriented, expressing confusion about their surroundings and repeatedly asking for clarification. The resident stated that someone had raped them and that they needed help. The resident stated that they had woken up and found their surroundings unfamiliar; the room looked different to the resident.The 1/6/25 at 1:43 PM Progress Note documented the Director of Social Services interviewed the resident, and the resident clarified that they had not been raped. During a telephone interview on 8/4/2025 at 9:59 AM, the resident's representative stated that the resident had called them to inform them that they were on the floor, naked, in their room on the morning of 1/5/25. The representative stated they then contacted the facility to request that someone check on the resident. A staff member later confirmed that they had seen the resident sitting on the floor in their room. During a telephone interview on 8/4/2025 at 1:39 PM, Registered Nurse Supervisor #17 stated they were working the overnight shift when the resident was observed sitting on the floor of their room and alleged rape. They stated they assessed the resident after their fall and found no injuries, and the resident later recanted their allegation of rape. They stated that the resident appeared disoriented to their surroundings and required staff to orient the resident to where they were. They stated that they informed both the Nurse Practitioner and the Director of Nursing and the physician about the incident.During an interview on 8/4/2025 at 12:54 PM, the Administrator stated Resident #112's allegation of rape had not been reported to the New York State Department of Health. They explained that the resident later retracted their claim of being raped. 10 NYCRR 415.4(b)(2)
CONCERN (D) 📢 Someone Reported This

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

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

Investigate Abuse (Tag F0610)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on observation, interview, and record review conducted during the recertification and abbreviated surveys (NY00378577) from 7/29/25 to 8/5/25, the facility did not ensure that the staff involved...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, interview, and record review conducted during the recertification and abbreviated surveys (NY00378577) from 7/29/25 to 8/5/25, the facility did not ensure that the staff involved in the incident was suspended during the entirety of the investigation to prevent further potential abuse for one of four residents (#71) reviewed for abuse. Specifically, during an incident on 4/20/25 at 9:30 PM, Certified Nurse Aide #11 caused bruising to Resident #71's left hand after physically removing Resident #71's left hand from Licensed Practical Nurse #10's arm during a fingerstick refusal. The facility documented on the Internal Investigation Report that both Certified Nurse Aide #11 and Licensed Practical Nurse #10 were suspended pending investigation, although the facility did not suspend Certified Nurse #11 while the abuse investigation was being conducted. The findings included:A facility policy titled Prevention, Investigation and Reporting of Resident Abuse, Mistreatment, Neglect and Misappropriation of Resident Property reviewed 5/25/25 included: If the staff are involved in the alleged abuse, this employee should be suspended immediately pending the outcome of the investigationResident #71 diagnoses included: heart failure, chronic pulmonary obstructive disease, and diabetes mellitus due to underlying condition with hyperglycemia. The 1/16/25 quarterly Minimum Data Set (a resident assessment tool) documented Resident #71 was cognitively intact, required set-up / clean up assistance with eating, and was independent in dressing and transfers.A resident care plan titled At Risk for Abuse, updated 4/21/25 documented: Resident is at risk for abuse secondary to: increased need for assistance with activities of daily living. Interventions included: monitor skin changes and report all to nursing supervisor every shift, Social Worker evaluation upon admission, quarterly, yearly and as needed and refer to Psychiatry as needed. The 4/20/25 Accident / Incident Report documentation included: Resident #71 consented to a finger stick, got stuck and got upset at licensed practical nurse. Resident #71 grabbed the licensed practical nurse. The certified nurse aide came and removed Resident #71's hands from the licensed practical nurse. The immediate action to prevent reoccurrence documented: Licensed practical nurse and certified nurse aide suspended. The root cause analysis documented: Resident #71 was disoriented and grabbed the licensed practical nurse. The certified nurse aide tried to deescalate by prying Resident #71's hands off the licensed practical nurse. Injury: ecchymosis on left hand. The Internal Investigation Report dated 4/25/25 documentation included root cause analysis: The certified nurse aide attempted to free the nurse from Resident #71's hold and put their hands on Resident #71's hands to free the licensed practical nurses' arms. They were unfamiliar with the scope of physical abuse which included any action to control a resident's behavior. The immediate action documented: the licensed practical nurse and certified nurse aide were suspended pending investigation. During interviews on 07/29/2025 at 3:16 PM and 08/04/2025 at 5:53 PM, Resident #71 stated they had an incident with a nurse and certified nurse assistant after they completed a fingerstick which they refused. Resident #71 stated they were trying to push the licensed practical nurse away and were yelling patient refuses treatment and nurse did not stop and continued with the fingerstick. Resident #71 stated the certified nurse aide presented to room and helped the licensed practical nurse instead of helping the resident. Resident stated their left hand and wrist area were bruised after the incident.During an interview on 08/04/2025 at 6:11 PM, Certified Nurse Aide #11 stated they recalled the incident with Resident #71. They stated they were walking in the unit hallway and heard Resident #71 yelling for help. They stated when they walked into Resident #71's room, they observed Resident #71 digging their nails into Licensed Practical Nurse #10's arm. They stated they put on gloves and tried to loosen Resident #71's finger grip on Licensed Practical Nurse #10's arm. They stated they may have had their hand over Resident #71's left wrist. Certified Nurse Aide #11 stated they were asking Resident #71 to remove their hand from Licensed Practical Nurse #10's arm which Resident #71 did.During an interview and observation on 08/05/2025 at 10:10 AM, the Director of Human Resources / Staffing Coordinator stated Certified Nurse Aide #11 had a written counseling dated 4/24/25 by employee and dated 4/22/25 by Administrator. A review of the Counseling Report documented the disciplinary action for the counseling was Verbal, Written 1 and Written 2. The Suspension x __ days line was left blank. The Director of Human Resources/Staffing Coordinator stated they are not aware if Certified Nurse Aide #11 was suspended. A review of the staffing sheets for Certified Nurse Aide #11 documented they returned to work 4/22/25 3:30 PM-6:04 AM. During an interview on 08/05/2025 at 12:18 PM, the Administrator stated the investigation of alleged abuse was completed and findings were not submitted to the Survey Agency until 4/25/25. The Administrator stated they were aware that Certified Nurse Aide #11 returned to work at the facility on 4/22/25 and that they should not have returned to work until after the investigation was completed. During an interview on 08/05/2025 at 1:51 PM, the Director of Nursing stated they were aware that Certified Nurse Aide #11 returned to work on 4/22/25, prior to the completion of the investigation of alleged abuse. They stated Certified Nurse Aide #11 should not have returned to employment until the investigation was completed. 10NYCRR 415.4(b)(3)
CONCERN (D) 📢 Someone Reported This

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

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

Accident Prevention (Tag F0689)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on record review and interview during the recertification and abbreviated surveys (NY00032854) conducted from 7/29/25 to 8/4/25, the facility did not ensure that 1 of 7 residents (Resident #112)...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on record review and interview during the recertification and abbreviated surveys (NY00032854) conducted from 7/29/25 to 8/4/25, the facility did not ensure that 1 of 7 residents (Resident #112) reviewed for accidents received adequate supervision and/or an environment free of hazards to prevent accidents. Specifically, Resident #112 was found on the floor of their room on 1/5/2025, and there was no documented evidence that a facility incident/accident report or investigation had been completed to determine a possible cause of the accident and to determine interventions to prevent further accidents.The findings include:The 5/22/2025 facility policy and procedure on resident accident/incident report policy documented the facility will promote and maintain a safe environment and maintain reports and surveillance of all resident's accidents and incidents. In addition, the facility will investigate and document all accidents and incidents and develop corrective measures to prevent reoccurrences.Resident #112 had diagnoses that included asthma, osteoarthritis, and anxiety. The 11/26/24 Minimum Data Set (a resident assessment tool) documented Resident #112 was cognitively intact. Resident required assistance from staff to completes their activities of daily living including personal care. The 1/5/25 at 10:23 AM progress note written by Registered Nurse Supervisor #17 documented a call from Resident #112's relative who reported that the resident was on the floor in their room and had been raped. Both floor nurses and Registered Nurse Supervisor #17 responded to the resident's room, where they found the resident sitting on the floor beside their bed. The resident was alert but disoriented, expressing confusion about their surroundings and repeatedly asking for clarification. The resident stated that someone had raped them and that they needed help. The resident stated that they had woken up and found their surroundings unfamiliar; the room looked different to the resident.The 1/5/25 at 6:55 PM progress note written by Nurse Practitioner #2 documented the reason for the residents' visit was related to the resident's fall. The resident was awake and alert in bed. According to nursing staff, the resident had been found on the floor that morning. Nurse Practitioner #2 observed no bruising or swelling and observed that the resident's range of motion was at baseline.During a telephone interview on 8/4/2025 at 9:59 AM, the resident's representative stated that the resident had called them to inform them that they were on the floor, naked, in their room on the morning of 1/5/25. The representative stated they then contacted the facility to request that someone check on the resident. A staff member later confirmed that they had seen the resident sitting on the floor in their room. When requested, the facility could not provide documented evidence of an incident/accident report for Resident #112's fall on 1/5/2025.During a telephone interview on 8/4/2025 at 1:39 PM, Registered Nurse Supervisor #17 stated they were working the overnight shift when the resident was observed sitting on the floor of their room and alleged rape. They stated they assessed the resident after their fall and found no injuries. They stated that the resident appeared disoriented to their surroundings and required staff to orient the resident to where they were. They stated that they informed both the Nurse Practitioner and the Director of Nursing and the physician about the incident. They stated an incident/accident report was initiated and was passed on to the next supervisor.During an interview on 8/4/2025 at 12:54 PM, the Administrator stated that a facility incident/accident report was not completed for the resident's fall on 1/5/25, because the allegation of rape made by the resident took precedence over the fall incident. During an interview on 8/5/2025 at 2:05 PM, the Director of Nursing stated that they would attempt to locate the incident/accident report for the fall on 1/5/25. In a follow-up interview on 8/5/2025 at 3:25 PM, the Director of Nursing stated that they could not locate the incident/accident report for Resident #112's fall on 1/5/25. 10 NYCRR 415.12 (h) (2)
CONCERN (D) 📢 Someone Reported This

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

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

Deficiency F0925 (Tag F0925)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on observation, record review, and interview during the recertification and abbreviated surveys (NY00444179) from July 29, 2025, to August 5, 2025, the facility did not ensure that an effective ...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, record review, and interview during the recertification and abbreviated surveys (NY00444179) from July 29, 2025, to August 5, 2025, the facility did not ensure that an effective pest control program was maintained to keep the facility free of mice in 2 of 2 Resident rooms (Resident #10 and Resident #66) reviewed. Specifically, Residents #10 and #66 complained of mice in their rooms and there was no documented evidence the rooms were inspected or that an effective pest control program was put in place. The findings are: The policy and procedure titled Pest Control revised 8/7/2025 documented: The Pest Control Policy outlines our approach to prevent, monitor, and control pest infestations within our premises, by applicable U.S. health and safety standards and regulations. Findings of any pest activity are reported to the Maintenance staff, and the Maintenance staff will forward findings to the pest control professional. A service inspection report dated November 12, 2024, documented the exterior building, rodent bait stations, and empty rodent feeding infestations at 75%–100%. A service inspection report dated December 10, 2024, documented that the exterior and all rodent bait stations were checked for activity, and bait was replaced as needed. A service inspection report dated December 24, 2024, documented the presence of ants in the kitchen behind the juice machine and the placement of ant gel bait in those areas to prevent and protect against seasonal and winter infestations. A service inspection report dated January 16, 2025, documented the treatment of ants with ant gel bait to prevent and protect against seasonal and winter invaders. A service inspection report dated January 28, 2025, documented a walk-through inspection conducted on the second floor, during which staff reported the presence of mice in the back room near the sink and refrigerator. Droppings were found in the cabinets, and glue boards were placed. There was no documented evidence that the residents’ rooms were inspected. During an observation and interview on 07/29/2025 at 10:00 AM, Resident #10 was in bed and stated that mice were present in the room, that mice had gotten on the table, the issue had been reported to staff, and that the problem persisted. The room was observed to be very cluttered, and no mouse droppings or traps were observed. During an interview and observation on 07/29/2025 at 11:22 AM, Resident #66 stated they have a mouse in their room which the observe frequently. They stated they have made unit staff and maintenance staff aware. An approximately five inches by three inch square hole was observed in wall behind resident bed during interview. During an interview on 08/01/2025 at 1:22 PM, Social Worker #19 stated Resident #10 had complained about mice in the room and no mice were seen. The office adjacent to the resident’s room had no mouse activity. The resident’s room was described as very unorganized. Multiple efforts had been made to organize the room, but the accumulation of items continued. During an interview on 08/01/2025 at 1:21 PM, Maintenance Worker #20 stated pest control companies were utilized at the facility but pest control staff did not observe resident rooms. They stated complaint regarding mouse sightings had been received from Resident #10. During an interview on 08/04/2025 at 11:45 AM, Registered Nurse #5 stated they were not aware of mouse in Resident #66’s room. They stated mice reports were placed in unit maintenance staff book on the unit. A review of the maintenance book did not document a report of any mice in Resident #66’s room, however there were numerous other mice concerns documented in book for the second floor, including resident rooms and the nurse station. During an interview and observation on 08/05/2025 at 8:41 AM, the Director of Maintenance stated the maintenance log book on units were checked daily. They stated some resident rooms reported having mice, mostly in resident rooms who keep food out. They stated a pest control company treated the facility monthly and a recent area of penetration was found outside building which was addressed. They stated staff encourage residents not to have excessive food in their rooms and encourage the use of plastic storage containers. They stated they were not aware of a mouse in Resident #66’s room. During an observation of Resident #66’ s room, the Director of Maintenance observed a hole in the wall behind the bed. They stated hole needed to be patched and food placed in plastic containers. 10 NYCRR 415.29(j)(5)
CONCERN (E) 📢 Someone Reported This

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

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

Pressure Ulcer Prevention (Tag F0686)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

Based on observation, record review, and interviews during the recertification and abbreviated surveys (NY00374242) from 7/29/25-8/5/25, the facility did not ensure each resident received care, consis...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, record review, and interviews during the recertification and abbreviated surveys (NY00374242) from 7/29/25-8/5/25, the facility did not ensure each resident received care, consistent with professional standards of practice, to prevent and treat pressure ulcers for 2 of 4 residents (Residents #34 and #114) reviewed for pressure ulcers. Specifically, 1) Resident #34 had a physician's order to offload their heels in bed. The resident was observed in bed with their heels resting directly on the mattress and there was no pillow on the mattress to offload the resident's feet. The physician's order, dated 7/22/25, to offload heels in bed was not added to the resident's care plan or certified nurse aide instructions. 2) Resident #114 had pressure ulcers and wound care treatment was not provided consistently as ordered. The findings included:1) Resident #34 diagnoses included: vascular dementia, retention of urine and type 2 diabetes mellitus. The 7/9/25 Quarterly Minimum Data Set (a resident assessment tool) documented Resident #34 had severe cognitive impairment and required substantial/maximal assistance with bed mobility, toileting and bathing and was dependent on staff for transfers. The 7/22/25 physician's order documented to off load heels in bed. The 7/23/25 Skin Integrity care plan documented the Resident was at risk for skin breakdown related to decreased mobility, pain, incontinence. Interventions included Certified Nurse Aide evaluation of skin condition daily during care and report any skin abnormalities to nurse, encourage frequent position changes, prevent friction during transfers, resident care and bed mobility, and turn and repositioning schedule as recommended. There was no documented evidence that the care plan was updated to include the 7/22/25 physician's order to offload resident heels while in bed.The 7/22/25 hospital discharge summary note documented wound consult in hospital. Bilateral foot wounds. Scattered scabs to multiple toes with the most notable lateral on the bilateral bunion area, right foot. Recommendation: float heels with pillows. During observations on 07/30/2025 at 10:38 AM, 7/31/25 at 12:46 PM, and 8/1/2025 at 9:22 AM, Resident #34's bilateral heels were observed on their mattress, and not offloaded. Red scabs were observed on the resident's bilateral upper feet near and on their great toes. During an interview on 08/01/2025 at 9:22 AM, Certified Nurse Aide #15 stated they believe Resident #34's heels should be offloaded while they are in bed. They were not aware of an order or task for off-loading the resident's heels or if that was documented on the certified nurse aide instructions or tasks. They stated they will offload Resident #34's heels anyway as they probably should be. During an observation and interview on 08/04/2025 at 11:25 AM, Registered Nurse #5 stated Resident #34's bilateral heels should be offloaded. During a review of the electronic medical record, Registered Nurse #5 stated that a physician's order for Resident #34's heels to be offloaded was entered on 7/22/25 and that the skin integrity care plan for Resident #34 and the certified nurse aide instructions and tasks were not updated to reflect the physician order. They stated they are responsible for overseeing certified nurse aides on unit and for updating resident care plans. They stated that the staff member who entered the order could have updated the care plan and certified nurse aid instructions and tasks at that time. During an interview on 08/05/2025 at 1:40 PM, the Director of Nursing stated that when a physician's order is entered into the electronic medical record to offload a resident's heels, the expectation is that it be done. They stated that unit nurses should be assuring that physician's orders are added to resident care plans, interventions, and to the certified nurse aide instructions and tasks.2) Resident #114 had diagnoses that included end stage renal disease, diabetes mellitus, and heart failure. The facility Pressure Ulcer Treatment policy last reviewed 8/1/2025 documented general guidelines for the treatment of pressure ulcers and protocols based on the condition of the wound. Residents with congestive heart failure, renal disease, liver disease and diabetes, would be evaluated on a case-to-case basis. The 2/11/24 Quarterly Minimum Data Set documented moderately impaired cognition, no behaviors including refusal of care, dependent on assistance for most activities of daily living, incontinent bowel and bladder, unhealed pressure ulcers, two stage 4 ulcers (1 present on admission), interventions include pressure relief bed, chair, turn and position, nutritional management, pressure ulcer care, and application of ointment. The 12/22/2023 Skin Integrity Presence of Pressure Ulcer Care Plan documented Resident #114 had pressure ulcers. The goals were documented as remaining free of infection and that the wound will show signs of healing. Interventions included wound rounds weekly, turn and position every two hours, apply treatments as ordered by the physician, and air mattress. The 12/21/2023 physician's order documented check integrity and verify settings of air mattress every shift.The 12/21/2023 physician's order documented Santyl 250 unit/gram topical ointment, apply 1 applicatorful by topical route once daily in the morning to the coccyx wound after cleaning with normal saline. The 12/29/23 Annual Minimum Data Set documented intact cognition and no behavioral symptoms or refusal of care. Resident required maximal assistance or dependent assistance with activities of daily living, catheter, incontinent of bowel, risk for pressure ulcer, has 2 stage 4 unhealed pressure ulcers (1 present on admission). Interventions included pressure relief bed, chair, turn and position, nutritional management, pressure ulcer care, application of ointment and dressing application. The 1/31/2024 wound care note documented a stage 4 to the coccyx (site 3) measuring 3.6 x 0.6 x 0.5 cm. Recommendations included offload wound, reposition per protocol, limit sitting. Factors complicating wound healing included end stage renal disease and heart failure. The 2/21/2024 wound care note documented the stage 4 to the coccyx (site 3) measured 3.9 cm x 0.9 cm x 0.6 cm. Recommendations for offloading and repositioning continued.The 4/3/2024 wound care note documented the stage 4 to the coccyx (site 3) measured 4.1 cm x 1.0 cm x 0.8 cm. New recommendations included Dakin's solution and mupirocin topical 2%. There was no documented evidence of Physician's orders for Dakin's solution or mupirocin topical 2%.The Treatment Administration Records dated 1/1/2024-4/5/2024 had twenty omissions for the daily wound care treatment to the coccyx.The Treatment Administration Record dated 1/1/2024-4/5/2024 had forty-two omissions for checking the air mattress integrity and settings. During an interview on 08/05/2025 at 2:55 PM, the Director of Nursing stated that Resident #114 was seen on wound rounds and did have treatments ordered. They stated there should be no omissions on the treatment or medication administration records, and if a medication or treatment was not documented there was no evidence that the treatment was done. 10NYCRR 415.12(c)(1)
Dec 2024 19 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

Accident Prevention (Tag F0689)

Someone could have died · This affected most or all residents

⚠️ Facility-wide issue

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, record review, and interview during the recertification, abbreviated (NY00359302), and extended surveys fr...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, record review, and interview during the recertification, abbreviated (NY00359302), and extended surveys from 12/15/2024 to 12/22/2024, the facility failed to provide adequate supervision to prevent accidents related to smoking for 6 of 6 residents (#2, #6, #9, #29, #41 and #54) identified as smokers. Specifically, Resident #41 was a known smoker in a non-smoking facility and the facility failed to complete safety assessments or develop and implement a plan of care to ensure their safety, when it was known that the resident continued to smoke outside of the facility. On 11/1/2024 a fire was started on the outside patio when Resident #41 threw a cigarette butt into dry leaves. There were no facility staff supervising the resident during this smoking activity. Facility staff was alerted to the fire when the Director of Human Resources observed the smoke and fire from their office window. Facility staff had to remove residents from the area and extinguish the fire. Additionally, 2) Resident #54 had cigarettes and lighters with a strong odor of cigarette smoke in their room; 3) Residents # 2, #29, #41, and #54 were observed smoking on the patio without supervision. The patio was observed with cigarette butts in raised flower planters; there were no ashtrays or cigarette receptacles on the patio. The facility was aware the residents continued smoking and did not complete safety assessments or provide supervision. This resulted in Substandard Quality of Care, with no actual harm, that was Immediate Jeopardy with the likelihood for serious adverse outcome to all 102 residents in the facility. Findings include: The facility Smoking Policy and Procedure dated 1/21/2022 documented residents could smoke, and the Nursing Supervisor would assess the residents' ability to smoke safely by completing a smoking assessment that included an evaluation of the resident safety awareness, judgement, cognitive ability, and manual dexterity. The policy listed designated times for smoking and supplies would be marked with the resident's name and kept in a locked drawer in the copy room. The facility Smoking Policy dated 6/23/2022 documented smoking would not be permitted by residents. The policy did not address how to accommodate the residents that were smoking prior to the policy change. The policy did not address resident smoking contracts, agreements or participation in smoking cessation programs. 1) Resident #41 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses of Paraplegia (an impairment in motor or sensory function of the lower extremities), Schizoaffective and Borderline Personality disorder(Mental illness) . The Minimum Data Set (resident assessment tool) dated 10/18/2024 documented the resident had moderately impaired cognition and did not document tobacco use. Resident self ambulates by wheelchair. Resident #41's smoking assessment dated [DATE] documented the resident could only smoke while supervised. There were no further directions guiding the resident during smoking activity. There were no other smoking assessments in the resident's medical record. Resident #41's smoking care plan dated 9/1/2023, and a care plan review note dated 6/28/2024, documented the resident was found smoking in their room. Interventions included to review smoking policy with resident and family on admission, readmission and as needed. Staff will continue to counsel resident on a daily basis to ensure the safety of smoking in the facility is complied with. Resident has been referred to psychologist and psychiatrist due to his noncompliance with the facility policy of non-smoking, the resident will be educated and offered smoke cessation, visually observe residents clothing and surroundings regularly for signs of unsafe smoking including smoke, ashes and burns on hands and clothing. A nursing progress note dated 10/3/2024 documented staff approached Resident #41 regarding the aroma and visible smoke emanating from the resident's room. The resident was reminded that the facility was smoke free and instructed not to smoke in the facility. The resident acknowledged awareness of the policy and stated that smoking would not occur indoors in the future. A facility investigation dated 11/4/2024, completed by the facility Administrator, documented on 11/1/2024 around 4:15 PM, Resident #41 was smoking in the gazebo and put out a cigarette in the leaves behind the gazebo starting a fire. The root cause analysis determined Resident #41 was a smoker, frequently used the patio and put ashes on the gazebo and the ground surrounding it. The dry air and warm environment contributed to the cigarette butt lighting the dry leaves on fire. The immediate action was the patio was closed on the weekend and reopened on Monday 11/4/2024. The corrective action was Resident #41's patio privileges were revoked until further notice. The Director of Human Resources written statement, dated 11/1/2024, documented they smelled smoke from an open window, looked outside and saw a small fire starting to grow from behind the gazebo on the facility patio. Code Red was called, and they used extinguishers to put out the fire. The Social Worker was stomping the leaves, and Certified Nurse Aide #9 threw a fire blanket on the fire. Two residents were on the patio and taken back inside. Once the fire was out, they locked the patio door. There was no documented evidence Resident #41's comprehensive care plan was updated to reflect the need for increased supervision after the fire on 11/1/2024. During an interview on 12/15/2024 at 11:00 AM, at the entrance conference, the Administrator stated it was a non-smoking facility. They stated there were residents that smoked, and they were care planned for non-compliance. During an observation on 12/15/2024 at 1:15 PM, 12 cigarette butts were in the planter closest to the patio door with entrance into the building. The doors were labeled with no smoking signs. There were no ashtrays on the patio. During an interview on 12/15/2024 at 12:59 PM, Certified Nurse Aide #6 stated the facility was a non-smoking facility but there were residents that smoked. Cigarettes were taken from residents and held by the Administrator if the resident was a known smoker. They stated they believed there was a resident downstairs that got cigarettes and distributed them to other residents. Residents were not escorted outside to smoke by staff and could only smoke when on a leave of absence from the facility. They stated there was not a formal list of smokers but knew for certain that Resident #41 and Resident #6 smoked. - at 1:09 PM Licensed Practical Nurse #8 stated the facility was a non-smoking facility. They stated they thought there were residents that smoked but they were not tracked or listed anywhere. During an interview on 12/15/2024 at 1:10PM the receptionist stated the residents were allowed to go outside alone on the patio and the patio was open from 7:00 AM to7:00 PM. They stated no one should be smoking on the patio, not staff, residents, or visitors. They stated Resident #54 has an uncle that visits twice a week and takes the resident up by the entrance to smoke. They stated Residents #2, #6, #9, #29, #41 and #54 were known smokers. During an interview on 12/15/2024 at 1:25 PM Certified Nurse Aide #5 stated Resident #41 was a known smoker, and they had been advised by facility administration to watch the resident closely. They stated they had smelled cigarette smoke in the facility in the past but had not observed matches, cigarettes, or lighters in the resident rooms. During an interview on 12/15/2024 t 1:34 PM Certified Nurse Aide #1 stated Resident #54 and Resident #41 smoked on the patio and sometimes in their rooms. -at 1:46 PM the Registered Nurse Supervisor#2 stated it was a non-smoking facility and when the residents went out with their families they could smoke. They stated there was not supposed to be smoking on the patio, but some of the residents smoked on the patio including Resident #54. During an interview on 12/15/2024 at 1:11 PM, Resident #41 stated they were allowed to smoke when they were admitted to the facility and the facility changed the rules without discussion with residents. They stated no accommodations were made for smokers. They stated they had been accused of smoking and privileges had been taken away. During a follow up interview on 12/15/2024 at 4:25PM, Resident #41 stated they were not given a smoking contract or education regarding noncompliance after the fire. During an interview on 12/15/2024 at 2:00 PM the Administrator stated the facility was non-smoking but had residents who smoked. The Administrator stated residents who smoked were care planned for non-compliance with the smoking policy. They stated they were aware that smoking unsupervised on the patio, and residents could come and go freely. The Administrator provided a list of residents that smoked including Residents #2, #6, #9, #29, #41, and #54. During an interview on 12/16/2024 at 11:30 AM, the Administrator stated they were notified of the fire on 11/1/2024 but was out of the facility and did not return until Monday 11/4/2024. An investigation was initiated, and statements were taken immediately after the incident from staff and residents. The patio was closed for the weekend. Video evidence and interviews indicated that Resident #41 caused the fire. Resident #41 was indefinitely banned from the patio. The fire was investigated, and no new systematic interventions were put in place to prevent unsupervised smoking. Resident #41's patio privilege was revoked on 11/1/2024 and reinstated on 11/18/2024. During an interview on 12/16/2024 at 11:58 AM, the Director of Nursing stated they were aware that residents smoked on the patio unsupervised. They stated they viewed the video from the fire that occurred on 11/1/2024 and reviewed Resident #41's statement after the incident. They stated they did not put any interventions in place after the incident and stated the Smoking care plan documented regular monitoring. They stated the monitoring was not documented. During an interview on 12/16/2024 at 12:27 PM, the Director of Human Resources stated on 11/1/2024 the window was open, and they smelled burning leaves. They went to the patio and saw the fire by the gazebo. They told the receptionist to call Code Red and grabbed the fire extinguisher and used it. Neither the Administrator or Director of Nursing were in facility, both were notified and neither returned back to the facility. The Administrator directed them to lock the patio door. They did view the video and it showed Resident #41 going outside to the patio and then back inside. The Director of Human Resources stated the flames were high. They stated they were aware that residents smoked on patio, but no one including staff, visitors, or residents were allowed to smoke on facility property. During an interview on 12/16/2024 at 12:44 PM, the Social Worker stated when the fire code was called, they ran to the patio, staff was struggling with extinguisher, so they stomped on the fire. They were not notified of any resident patio privileges being lifted. They stated they had not witnessed residents smoking out on patio but stated that they had smelled smoke. During an observation and interview on 12/16/2024 at 1:15 PM, with the Maintenance Director, 2 residents were observed smoking in the gazebo located on the patio. There was no staff present and no ashtrays or metal containers with self-closing devices in the area. The Maintenance Director stated they told the residents many times that smoking was not allowed but the residents did not care and still smoked. They stated they could smell cigarette smoke coming from residents' rooms. They further stated that administration was aware that residents smoked unsupervised on the patio. The Maintenance Director stated that they did not know if the wooden gazebo was fireproofed. They stated that it was a nonsmoking facility, and that was why there were no ashtrays. During the resident council meeting on 12/16/2024 at 1:30 PM, multiple residents stated they knew there was smoking in resident rooms as well as outside. They stated they could smell both weed and cigarettes. The residents stated there was once a fire outside caused by smoking. The Resident Council did not complain about the smoking as a group. However, during the meeting several residents stated that they have complained to staff about residents smoking in the facility. During an observation on 12/17/2024 at 11:18 AM, Resident #41 was self-propelling their wheelchair on the patio heading to the gazebo. At the gazebo the resident took out their lighter and cigarettes, lit the cigarette and started smoking. No staff were observed monitoring the resident, patio area, or gazebo. During an observation on 12/17/2024 at 1:32 PM, Resident #41 was observed smoking cigarettes on the patio with Resident #6 and Resident #29. No staff was present on the patio while the residents were smoking. During an interview on 12/22/2024 at 2:30 PM, the owner of the facility stated they were aware the residents smoked, and they had some problematic residents which they had been trying to discharge. They stated the issue was not brought up at the Quality Assurance/Performance Improvement committee meetings. 2. Resident #54 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses including nicotine dependence, cannabis dependence, quadriplegia and muscle spasms. The Minimum Data Set, dated [DATE] documented intact cognition and functional limitations in range of motion to both upper and lower extremities. Resident utilizes a motorized wheelchair for mobility. A smoking evaluation, dated 7/8/2021, documented Resident #54 could smoke with supervision only. There were no other smoking assessments in the resident's medical record to determine if the resident could smoke safely. The care plan titled Non-Compliance last updated 5/22/2024, documented interventions to educate the resident on the nonsmoking policy, monitor resident for smoking regularly and upon return from leave of absence for signs of smoking. Report any issues to the supervisor immediately and smoking cessation support was to be offered. There was no documented evidence that smoking cessation materials were ordered or administered to the residents who smoke. The care plan titled Smoking last updated 10/1/2024, documented Resident #54 was a known smoker, including smoking marijuana. The interventions include to check the resident's clothing regularly and upon return from leave of absence for evidence of unsafe smoking practice. The smoking policy was to be reviewed with the resident and family upon admission and as necessary. Smoking cessation support was to be offered. A 12/4/2024 a physiatry note documented Resident #54 had bilateral upper extremity spasticity with some use of the right hand. On 12/15/2024 at 9:30 AM, Resident #54 was observed with smoking materials including cigarettes, 2 lighters and a dried shredded green/brown mix of stems, seeds, and leaves, on the resident's overbed table; a heavy odor of cigarette smoke was noted in their room. The resident was interviewed at the time of observation and stated the cigarettes and lighters belonged to them. They stated they smoked outside on the patio, without staff present and lit their own cigarettes. During an observation on the patio on 12/15/2024 at 1:15 PM 12 cigarette butts were identified in the planter closest to the patio door leading to the building. The doors were clearly marked with No Smoking signs. When interviewed on 12/15/2024 at 1:34 PM, Certified Nurse Aide #1 stated Resident #54 and Resident #41 smoked on the patio and sometimes in their rooms. 3. Resident #29 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnosis of Schizophrenia (mental disorder) diabetes and anxiety disorder. The 10/14/2024 Quarterly Minimum Data Set documented Resident #29 demonstrated intact cognition and is dependent on staff for activity of daily living. Resident utilizes a wheelchair for mobility. Review of the electronic health record revealed Resident #29 had no care plan for smoking or non-compliance. During an interview on 12/15/2024 at 1:27 PM, Resident #29 stated there were residents in the facility who smoked outside at night. During an observation of the patio on 12/15/2024 at 4:18 PM, Residents #29 and #2 were outside the patio door on their way into the facility. A strong odor of cigarette smoke was present, no staff members were observed providing supervision on the patio. The residents were interviewed at the time and Resident #29 stated they were not smoking but Resident #2 was. Resident #2 was aphasic (a disorder that impairs the ability to communicate) but shook their head no. Resident #29 stated they were allowed to smoke when they were admitted to the facility and one day they were told they could no longer smoke at the facility. During an observation on 12/16/2024 at 1:15 PM, with the Director of Maintenance present, Residents #29 and #54 were observed smoking in the gazebo located on the patio without supervision. Resident #29 was interviewed at the time and stated that they discarded their ashes in the snow. During an observation on 12/17/2024 at 1:32 PM, Resident #6, Resident #29, and Resident #41 were observed smoking cigarettes on the patio without staff supervision. The facility was notified of the Immediate Jeopardy on 12/18/2024 at 4:39 PM. The Immediate Jeopardy was lifted on 12/21/2024 prior to the completion of the survey based on the following corrective actions: 1. The Smoking Policy was reviewed and updated to include that residents admitted to the facility prior to the implementation of the nonsmoking policy would be given smoking privileges. These residents who desired to smoke would be permitted to do so if the facility Interdisciplinary Team determined that the practice was safe for the residents, and they do so in the facility designated area. 2. A nursing assessment by a Registered Nurse was done for all smokers. They examined the residents and clothing for any burns. This was completed this on 12/18/2024. 3. All residents that currently smoke were assessed to determine if they were safe to smoke or require supervision and or assistance. This was completed 12/18/2024. 4. Safe smoking contracts were established for residents that smoke. This was completed on 12/18/2024. 5. A safe smoking area 30 feet from the building was established on 12/18/2024. 6. Appropriate receptacle for cigarettes butts was installed. On 12/18/2024 the receptacle was ordered with a delivery date 12/23/2024. On 12/20/2024 a small metal step-on garbage can that self-closed was installed. Surveyors observed garbage can being utilized during smoking activity. Two residents (#29, #41) were observed smoking on the patio under staff supervision. Cigarettes were disposed of in the can under the supervision of the facility staff. On 12/21/2024 at 10:00 AM, Residents #54, #29, #2 and #41 were observed smoking on the patio in the designated area under staff supervision. The small metal step-on garbage can was in use. 7. Sign for supervised smoking area was posted on 12/18/2024. 8. Smoking aprons were placed by exit to patio for those residents assessed to need an apron. On 12/21/2024 two smoking aprons were observed stored in two tier plastic storage bins by the [NAME] room door. 9. A standard size all-purpose fire extinguisher was located near the patio door on 12/18/2024. 10. Smoking materials for all residents were removed from resident rooms and placed in a locked medication cart, completed 12/18/24. 11. Supervised smoking times were assigned for 10:00 AM, 2:00 PM and 6:30 PM; doors were locked when smoking was not in session, completed 12/18/2024. 12. Schedule of staff supervision was completed 12/19/2024. 13. Care plans for all 6 smokers were completed for safe smoking on 12/19/2024. 14. Physician orders for each smoker documented residents were care planned to smoke in facility designated area only. 15. The facility employs 109 staff members. Of these, 102 completed the in-service training, including supervisors. Dates of the in-service were 12/18/2024, 12/19/2024 and 12/20/2024. A sample of staff members from Nursing, Rehabilitation, Administration, and Recreation were interviewed and verified they received the education. 16. All supervisor staff were educated on facility procedures particularly their role to call 911 in the event of a fire. 17. An hourly smoking monitoring log was maintained to check resident rooms for signs of smoking. 18. The patio door was locked and remained locked except during the smoking times. Staff was observed supervising the smokers, unlocking the door to allow the residents into the smoking area and locking the door when smoking was completed. 10 NYCRR 415.5(f)(2)
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0625 (Tag F0625)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review and interview during the recertification survey from 12/15/24-12/22/24, the facility did not ensure resid...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review and interview during the recertification survey from 12/15/24-12/22/24, the facility did not ensure residents or resident's representatives were notified in writing of the facility policy for bed hold for 2 of 2 residents reviewed (Resident #49 and Resident #93) for hospitalization. Specifically, Residents #49 and #93 were transferred to the hospital, and the facility was unable to provide evidence that written notice of the facility policy for bed hold was given to the resident or the resident's representative. The findings are: The facility policy titled Bed Hold Reservation revised 6/2019 and documented that it is the policy of the facility to notify private insurance carrier that resident has been transferred to the hospital or is out on therapeutic leave. 1. Resident #49 was admitted to the facility with diagnoses including Sepsis, Dementia, and Bipolar Disorder. The Minimum Data Set (assessment tool) discharge assessment dated [DATE] documented Resident #49 was discharged to hospital on 9/27/24. A Nursing Progress Note dated 9/27/24 documented Resident #49 was sent to the hospital for evaluation. A Nursing Progress Note dated 9/28/24 documented Resident #49 was admitted to the hospital with a diagnosis of Septic Shock. 2. Resident #93 was admitted to the facility with diagnoses of Non Alzheimer's Dementia (brain disorder affecting memory and), Huntington's Disease, and Parkinson's Disease. The Annual Minimum Data Set (an assessment tool) dated 11/18/24 for Resident #93 documented severe cognitive impairment. The Nursing Progress Note dates of most recent hospitalizations included 12/4-12/5/24, and 11/29/24-12/2/24. When requested on 12/22/24 at 9:30 AM documentation could not be provided to verify that the facility notified Resident #49 and Resident #93 or the representative in writing about the facility bed hold policy for the hospital admission on [DATE]. During an interview on 12/22/24 at 2:00 PM the Director of Social Work, stated notification of the facility bed hold policy was not provided to the resident or the resident's representative. During an interview on 12/22/24 2:38 PM the Director of Nursing stated nursing and social work were responsible for giving the family the notice of discharge. They were unable to provide a copy of the notification. 10NYCRR 415.3 (i)(3)(i)(a)
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0645 (Tag F0645)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on observation, record review and interview conducted during the Recertification Survey from 12/15/24 to 12/22/24, the facility did not ensure a Preadmission Screen was completed for 1 of 22 res...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, record review and interview conducted during the Recertification Survey from 12/15/24 to 12/22/24, the facility did not ensure a Preadmission Screen was completed for 1 of 22 residents reviewed. Specifically, for Resident #55, the facility did not ensure the Screen form (DOH-695) was completed. The findings are: The Facility Screen/Preadmission Screening and Resident Review Policy dated 5/26/2022 documents that the Social Worker is designated as the facility's Qualified Screener and is responsible for the completion of the Screen/Preadmission Screening and Resident Review as identified in the New York State Department of Health Regulations. Section 4 documents that no resident will be admitted to the Facility without a completed Preadmission Screening and Resident Review. The document must be done to determine whether or not the resident requires the level of services provided by the Facility, or if the resident requires the level of services of an inpatient psychiatric hospital or institution for mental disease or requires an intermediate care facility to determine whether or not the resident requires active treatment for mental illness or mental retardation. Resident #55 had diagnoses including Non-Alzheimer's Dementia (brain disorder affecting memory and other intellectual function), Anxiety Disorder, and Schizophrenia (severe brain disorder). The Annual Minimum Data Set Assessment (an assessment tool) dated 4/19/24 documented severe cognitive impairment for Resident #55. The Quarterly Minimum Data Set Assessment (an assessment tool) dated 9/28/24 documented severe cognitive impairment for Resident #55. There was no documented evidence that a Screen (form DOH-695) was completed for Resident #55. During an interview on 12/19/24 at 3PM, the Director of Social Services stated they were unable to provide the Screen therefore they could not verify if it had been completed. NYCRR 415.11(a)(5)
CONCERN (D)

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

Incontinence Care (Tag F0690)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observations, interviews, and record review conducted during the standard survey from 12/15/24-12/22/24, the facility d...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observations, interviews, and record review conducted during the standard survey from 12/15/24-12/22/24, the facility did not ensure that residents who had an indwelling/ suprapubic (foley) catheter (tube inserted into the bladder to drain urine) received the appropriate care and services to manage catheters for one (Resident #86) of three residents reviewed for bowel and bladder. Specifically, Resident #86 had a size 16 French suprapubic catheter surgically inserted, the facility did not develop a care plan, obtain a doctor's order with diagnosis to include the catheter size or directions on care of the suprapubic tube or when the catheter should be changed. The finding is: Resident #86 had diagnoses of Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease, Bipolar Disorder, and Hypertension. The Quarterly Minimum Data Set (an assessment tool) dated 9/27/24 documented the resident's cognition was intact. The resident required supervision to moderate assistance for activities of daily living. The resident has an indwelling catheter. During an observation on 12/17/24 at 2:00 PM the resident was in bed with a urinary catheter attached to a urinary drainage system. During an observation on 12/18/24 at 4:12 PM the resident was in bed and had a 16 French suprapubic catheter attached to a urinary drainage system. A review of the hospital record dated 9/23/24 documented the resident had an elective suprapubic tube placed for urinary incontinence without sensory awareness. A size 16 Foley suprapubic tube was inserted. A review of the Care Plan dated 9/24/24 documented the resident has an indwelling catheter for bladder elimination. The care plan did not include a diagnosis, catheter or balloon size for the suprapubic catheter. A review of the November 2024 and December 2024 physician orders documented an order to monitor urinary output every shift there were no orders for the care of the suprapubic catheter tube. A review of the Medication Administration Record and Treatment Administration Record for September 2024-current did not document the suprapubic tube was replaced. A review of the urology consult dated 10/31/24 documented the suprapubic tube was replaced with a 16 French catheter. A review of the nurses note dated 10/31/24 documented suprapubic tube was changed during an appointment with the urologist, a new 16 French catheter and bag were placed. A review of the Urology consult dated 12/4/24 documented a 14 French tube inserted at [NAME] Hall was too small to drain well, a 16 French tube inserted. During an interview on 12/18/24 at 1:28 PM with the Director of Nursing stated we were unable to locate the current order for the suprapubic tube. We were aware the resident went out to urology recently because the suprapubic tube was not draining, and the urologist replaced the tube. During an interview on 12/18/24 at 2:31 PM with Resident #86 the doctor advised them to get the tube because they had to urinate every 30 minutes. They did not know what the diagnosis was or why they needed it. The facility changed it once after the surgery but does not remember what day or who changed it. During an interview with Licensed Practical Nurse #12 on 12/19/24 at 8:53 AM stated the resident has a suprapubic tube, the supra pubic tube should be changed per physician orders, they stated in reviewing the record an order for the suprapubic tube was placed on 12/18/24 and it did include the foley size but did not include a diagnosis or balloon size. They were unaware when it was changed in the facility. 10NYCRR 415.12 (d) (2)
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0692 (Tag F0692)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on observations, interviews and record review during the recertification survey conducted from 12/15/24-12/22/24, the facility did not ensure that acceptable parameters of nutritional status for...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observations, interviews and record review during the recertification survey conducted from 12/15/24-12/22/24, the facility did not ensure that acceptable parameters of nutritional status for 1 of 2 residents (Residents #93) reviewed for Nutrition were maintained. Specifically, Resident #93 had a significant weight loss of 28.12% in four months (8/28/24-12/18/24) and that weight loss was not communicated to the physician effectively resulting in no assessment by the physician for weight loss. Findings included: The Facility Policy titled Weight Monitoring last reviewed 9/20/24 documents that Residents experiencing unplanned weight gains or losses will have such changes monitored and care plans revised, as necessary, by the Interdisciplinary Team. Furthermore, it documents that the Registered Dietician/Dietician Technician is responsible for documentation regarding significant weight changes as well as notification to the attending physician. Dietary is also responsible for documenting a progress note and reviewing and revising the Comprehensive Care Plan, as necessary. The physician is responsible for documenting a medical note and implementing appropriate medical interventions. Resident #93 had diagnoses including, but not limited to, Huntington's Disease, Parkinson's Disease, and Gastritis. Facility Clinical Monitoring Report documented a weight of 145.8 pounds on 8/28/24. Dietary progress note dated 8/28/24 documented Resident #93 noted with decreased appetite and oral intake of meals status post recent hospitalization. Significant weight loss of 23.5%. Recommendations were to consider a more aggressive bowel regimen and document all Bowel movements, recent labs (renal and hydration indices, electrolytes, Complete Blood Count), honor food preferences, continue current oral supplementation and adjust based on any observed preference. The Comprehensive Care Plan dated 10/25/24 documented a Focus of Dietary-Nutrition Risk related to inadequate oral intake (meals and fluids) related to variable appetite and psychiatric illness as evidenced by consuming less than 50% of many meals provided, status post intravenous hydration, Schizoaffective Disorder (serious mental illness). Goals included, but not limited to, resident will maintain adequate nutritional status as evidenced by least restrictive diet tolerated, no signs or symptoms of malnutrition, no significant change from current body weight. Interventions included, but not limited to, continue current diet consistency as tolerated, continue ensure order, encourage meals/fluids, assist as needed, encourage adequate hydration, and provide additional 240 milliliters of fluids every shift, monitor for need of softer diet. Facility Clinical Monitoring Report documented a weight of 122.2 pounds on 10/30/24. The Annual Minimum Data Set (an assessment tool) dated 11/4/24 documented set up assistance for eating and oral hygiene, weight 131 pounds and height 68 inches, weight loss of 5% in the last month and 10% in the last 6 months, and not a physician prescribed weight loss. No oral or dental conditions documented. No special treatments indicated. Facility Clinical Monitoring Report documented a weight of 116.4 pounds on 11/29/24. Physician order dated 12/2/24 documented Vitamin E 268mg (400 unit) capsule take 1 capsule by oral route once daily. Dietary progress note dated 12/4/24 documented a significant weight loss of 32.4% in less than 180 days. Recommended interventions included, but not limited to, evaluate, and discontinue unnecessary medications to limit pill burden, discontinue Vitamin E, continue current diet, Ensure, and provide substitutes. No evidence of discussion of weight loss with Physician. There was no evidence of Dietary progress notes between 8/28/24 and 12/4/24. Physician order dated 12/4/24 documented House Diet, chopped consistency, thickened liquids-none, Special Instructions: Bland diet/chopped/thin. Physician order dated 12/4/24 Ensure Clear 8 oz Frequency three times a day or as desired, alternate with Ensure clear if one or the other declined. Physician order dated 12/4/24 Ensure Plus 8oz Frequency three times a day or as desired, alternate with ensure plus if one or the other is declined. During an observation on 12/17/24 at 8:25 AM, Resident #93 observed lying in bed, breakfast tray set up for them at bedside. Resident #93 not eating. At 8:39 AM, Resident #93 breakfast tray observed at bedside, little consumption noted, staff removing tray from bedside. During an observation on 12/18/24 at 8:36 AM, Resident #93 observed lying flat in bed, meal tray on bedside table, no staff assisting with feeding. At 9:46AM Resident #93 observed in bed, lying flat, breakfast tray remains on bedside table, small amount of food appears to have been eaten. During an observation on 12/18/24 at 12:24 PM, lunch tray set up for Resident #93 on bedside table. Resident #93 sitting at side of bed looking at tray, no staff assistance observed with feeding. Resident #93 then layed back down in bed. At 12:44 PM, observed Certified Nursing Assistant in room with Resident #93 assisting Resident #93 with fluid consumption. Verbal encouragement to eat also provided to Resident #93, however they stated, no don't want that. Facility Clinical Monitoring Report documented a weight of 104.8lbs on 12/18/24. During an observation on 12/20/24 at 8:34 AM, Resident #93 observed sitting up in dining room in wheelchair, breakfast tray in front of them on table, no assistance or encouragement with eating observed. Resident #93 preparing tea independently, playing with straw, drinking fluids intermittently. At 8:50 AM, Resident #93 remains sitting at table with breakfast tray, not eating any of the food on tray, no assistance/encouragement observed by staff, drank some fluids with eyes half closed. At 9:01 AM while feeding another resident at table, Licensed Practical Nurse #7 provided verbal encouragement to Resident #93 to eat but resident did not consume any food. During an interview on 12/20/24 at 9:11 AM, Licensed Practical Nurse #7 stated that Resident #93 used to have a great appetite and eat everything, but not anymore and has lost a lot of weight. During an interview on 12/20/24 at 10:02 AM, Certified Nursing Assistant #15 stated that Resident #93 has been declining. Resident #93 requires set up assist with meals and does need verbal assistance/encouragement on occasion, refuses meals at times, but does like Ensure and will often drink that instead of the meal provided. Meal consumption and snacks are tracked in Sigma (electronic medical record). They stated they report meal refusals to the nurse. Uncertain how often Resident #93 is weighed. They stated Resident #93 has lost weight since they first came to the facility. Denies Resident #93 having any trouble swallowing or eating the current ordered diet. During an interview on 12/20/24 at 10:12 AM, Licensed Practical Nurse #16 stated that Resident #93 requires set up supervised assist for meals generally, but level of assistance varies day to day. Nursing monitors resident intake and tries to have them up in dining room for closer monitoring, but that depends on resident preference for the day. Stated they have noticed that Resident #93 has had a cognitive decline and weight loss since they started at the facility eight months ago. Stated they are uncertain of the frequency of the resident's weight monitoring, but they have a weight binder for the unit that would indicate the frequency. Stated that consumption is recorded by the Certified Nursing Assistants in the electronic medical record, and they report poor intake to the floor nurses. They encourage supplements if Resident #93 refuses a meal. If Resident #93 continues to refuse, they let the Registered Nurse Supervisor or Nurse Practitioner know. They contact the Dietician if there is a question about the resident's diet or texture. Stated that there has been no indication that Resident #93 is having difficulty swallowing and denies any indication of pain when they eat. Unit Weight book reviewed on 12/20/24 at 10:30AM, unable to locate Resident #93 on several weekly and monthly sheets in binder, unable to decipher the frequency of their weight monitoring. Certified Nurse Assistant #15 and Licensed Practical Nurse #16 reviewed the weight book and were unable to provide the frequency of weights for Resident #93. Licensed Practical Nurse #16 stated they are in the process of reorganizing the weight book for the unit. During an interview on 12/20/24 at 11:03 AM, the Registered Dietician stated that all residents are weighed monthly on admission/or return from the hospital, and more frequently if indicated. There are no orders in the electronic medical record for weight monitoring frequency. They stated they have been working on improving the weight tracking process. They compile lists of residents on weekly weights on Monday and bring those lists to the units. They distribute lists to the units for monthly weights as well. Some residents are weighed by the rehabilitation department if they are on therapy. Resident #93 is currently on therapy and weighed weekly by the rehabilitation staff. Resident #93's weight loss has been significant since hospitalization several months ago. Risk factors include a BMI of 17.8 and gastric medical issues (stomach issues). Stated that Nursing staff is monitoring intake. Certified Nurse Assistants track the intake of meals and record them in the electronic medical record. They have not received any recent reports from nursing about Resident #93's intake but has been told it continues to be poor and no recent emesis (vomiting) reported. Weights are discussed in morning meeting. Stated they have not had a formal discussion with the physician about Resident #93's weight loss, but the physician is provided with the Mini Nutrition Assessment for all residents quarterly, annually, if significant change, and on admission. Resident #93 was scored as 7 (malnourished) on their last Mini Nutrition Assessment. The physician should also be aware of Resident #93's weight loss from recorded weights in the electronic medical record, the dietician's notes, and any requests/suggestions the dietician makes through the Physician/Nurse Practitioner communication books that are on the units. During an interview on 12/20/24 at 4:49PM, Nurse Practitioner #1 stated that no one has reported Resident#93's weight loss to them. Stated that the nursing or dietary staff would tell them verbally or put it in the communication book. Stated that they have not received any messages from the Dietician or Nursing regarding Resident #93's weight loss. When made aware of Resident #93's weight loss in the last month alone, Nurse Practitioner #1 stated that they did see Resident #93 recently and thought they looked smaller, but nothing was reported to them. Stated that no additional interventions were put in place as they were not aware. During an interview on 12/22/24 at 12:38 PM, the Director of Nursing stated that the weights for residents are in the electronic medical record. Stated that Resident #93 did have recent transfers to the hospital, and they thought their weight loss was more Gastrointestinal related. The Director of Nursing stated they have spoken to the family in the past regarding the resident's general condition/decline. Stated that significant weight losses are discussed in morning meeting once a week but doesn't remember speaking about Resident #93 specifically. Stated the physician should have acknowledged the weight loss in progress notes. During an interview on 12/22/24 at 1:10 PM, the Medical Director stated that they will have to review Resident #93's chart to discuss the weight loss. Stated they will return call to discuss once they have reviewed the record. 10NYCRR 415.12(j)
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, interview, and record review conducted during the Recertification Survey from 12/15-12/22/24, the facility...

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 from 12/15-12/22/24, the facility did not ensure residents who need respiratory care are provided such care, consistent with professional standards of practice and the comprehensive person-centered care plan for 2/2 residents reviewed for Respiratory Care (Resident #75 and Resident #89). Specifically, 1) Resident #75 was provided oxygen 2.5 liters via nasal cannula without a physician order and 2) Resident #89 with a physician order for oxygen 2 liters as needed via nasal cannula for saturation below 90% was observed with oxygen being administered at 3 liters via nasal cannula. The Findings include: Review of the facility policy titled Oxygen Therapy, last reviewed 5/26/22, documented that a physician's order is required to institute oxygen therapy. In an emergency situation, a licensed nurse may start oxygen therapy and obtain a physician's order as soon as possible. Furthermore it documents that when charting use of oxygen the reason for oxygen therapy should be documented. Review of the policy titled Comprehensive Care Plan, last reviewed 9/23/24, documented that [NAME] Hall Rehabilitation Center is dedicated to providing personalized, high-quality care for our residents using a comprehensive resident assessment and care planning process. Additionally, it documents that Residents CCP will be individualized and remain up-to-date, reflecting the resident's current status and needs. Any changes in a resident's health, preferences, or goals will prompt an immediate review and necessary updates to the CCP by the relevant interdisciplinary team member(s). Resident #75 had diagnoses including but not limited to, Unspecified Atrial Fibrillation (heart arrythmia), Cough unspecified, Unspecified Bacterial Pneumonia. The Quarterly Minimum Data Set (an assessment tool) dated 9/20/24 documented Resident # 75 had severe cognitive impairment, no shortness of breath, and did not receive oxygen therapy. There was no documented physician order for the use of oxygen. During observation on 12/17/24 at 7:51 AM 12/18/24 at 8:43 AM, and 12/19/24 at 8:00 AM Resident #75 was observed with oxygen 2.5 liters in use via nasal cannula. During an interview on 12/19/24 at 09:24 AM Licensed Practical Nurse #14 reviewed the resident's electronic medical record and stated Resident #75 did not have an order for oxygen. During an interview on 12/19/24 at 09:33 AM, Unit Manager #1 stated they were unable to locate an oxygen order in the electronic medical record. Unit Manager #1 stated they were not aware Resident #75 was receiving oxygen. Unit Manager #1 stated medication nurses would be expected to let the unit manager know and/or update the communication book for physician/nurse practitioner if oxygen was being used and there was no order. 2. Resident #89 had diagnoses including but not limited to Unspecified Atrial Fibrillation (heart arrythmia), Dyspnea (difficulty breathing) and Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (lung disease that depletes oxygen intake and may cause difficulty breathing). The 8/22/24 Physician Order documented oxygen 2 liters as needed via nasal cannula for saturation below 90% and monitor oxygen saturation every shift. The 11/22/24 Minimum Data Set documented Resident #89 had severe cognitive impairment, shortness of breath coding was not complete, and did not receive oxygen therapy. The December 2024 Medication Administration Record documented oxygen saturation was 94-98% with the exception of 88% on 12/19/24. During observation on 12/17/24 at 7:59 AM, 12/18/24 at 8:39 AM, and 12/19/24 at 11:42 AM Resident #89 was observed in bed with oxygen being administered at 3 liters via nasal cannula. During an interview on 12/19/24 at 09:17 AM, Licensed Practical Nurse #14 stated if oxygen saturation was above 90%, the resident would not have to use oxygen. Licensed Practical Nurse #14 stated Resident # 89's oxygen saturation had been over 90 % but today the oxygen saturation was reported as 88% with and without the use of oxygen. During an interview on 12/19/24 at 09:29 AM, Unit Manager #1 stated there was an additional order to monitor oxygen saturation every shift. Unit Manager #1 stated they did not pass medications for residents and would not monitor oxygen unless they needed to help with medication pass or resident care. Unit Manager #1 stated Resident #89 did get anxious therefore the oxygen was often left on for their comfort. Unit Manager #1 stated they would not want to leave the oxygen on/running if not medically indicated. 10NYCRR 415.1(k)(7)
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0710 (Tag F0710)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on observations, interviews and record review during the recertification survey conducted 12/15/24-12/22/24, the facility did not ensure that the Physician provided supervision of medical care f...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observations, interviews and record review during the recertification survey conducted 12/15/24-12/22/24, the facility did not ensure that the Physician provided supervision of medical care for 1 of 1 resident (Resident #93) reviewed for Physician Services. Specifically, Resident #93 had a significant weight loss of 41 pounds, 145.8 pounds to 104.8 pounds or a 28.12% weight loss, in sixteen weeks (8/28/24-12/18/24), and there was no assessment specific to the recorded weight loss by the Physician. Findings include: Review of the Facility Policy titled Weight Monitoring last reviewed 9/20/24 documented that residents experiencing unplanned weight gains or losses will have such changes monitored and care plans revised, as necessary, by the Interdisciplinary Team. Furthermore, it documents that the Registered Dietician/ Dietary Technician is responsible for documentation regarding significant weight changes as well as notification to the attending physician. Dietary is also responsible for documenting a progress note and reviewing and revising the Comprehensive Care Plan, as necessary. The physician is responsible for documenting a medical note and implementing appropriate medical interventions. Resident #93 diagnoses included, but were not limited to, Huntington's Disease, Parkinson's Disease, and Gastritis. The Annual Minimum Data Set (an assessment tool) dated 11/4/24 documented Resident #93 required set up assistance for eating and oral hygiene. Resident #93's weight was 131 pounds and height 68 inches. Resident #93 had a weight loss of 5% in the last month and 10% in the last 6 months, and it was not a physician prescribed weight loss. No oral or dental conditions documented. No special treatments indicated. Comprehensive Care Plan dated 10/25/24 documented a Focus of Dietary-Nutrition Risk related to inadequate PO intake (meals and fluids) related to variable appetite and psychiatric illness as evidenced by consuming less than 50% of many meals provided, status post intravenous hydration, Schizoaffective Disorder. Goals included, but were not limited to, Resident #93 maintaining adequate nutritional status as evidenced by least restrictive diet tolerated, no signs or symptoms of malnutrition, no significant change from current body weight. Interventions included, but were not limited to, continue current diet consistency as tolerated, continue ensure order, encourage meals/fluids, assist as needed, encourage adequate hydration, and provide additional 240ml fluids Q shift, monitor for need of softer diet. Nurse Practitioner Progress Note dated 8/25/24 documented the reason for visit as increased confusion. Documented poor intake because Resident #93 does not enjoy the foods offered to him. Recommendations included to follow up with dietary to help arrange to have more foods offered that resident enjoys eating. The Facility Clinical Monitoring Record for Resident #93's weights from 7/1/24-12/22/24 documented a weight 145.8lbs on 8/28/24. Dietary Progress Note dated 8/28/24 documented Resident #93 noted with decreased appetite and PO intake of meals s/p recent hospitalization. Significant weight loss of 23.5%. Recommendations were to consider a more aggressive bowel regimen and document all BMs, recent labs (renal and hydration indices, electrolytes, CBC), honor food preferences, continue current oral supplementation and adjust based on any observed preference. Nurse Practitioner Progress Note dated 9/1/24 documented assessment for emesis. Documented lab work, Xray, and documented that intake adequate, but will consider intravenous fluid if clinically indicated. Nurse Practitioner Progress Note dated 9/3/24 documented follow up for confusion. Recommendation to monitor intake of food/liquid- if not eating/drinking will reattempt intravenous fluids. Physician Progress Note dated 9/17/24 documented follow up for emesis, documented as resolved, continue to monitor. The Facility Clinical Monitoring Record for Resident #93's weights from 7/1/24-12/22/24 documented a weight of 131lbs on 10/11/24. Physician Progress Note dated 10/15/24 for monthly renewal. Resident #93's weight documented as 172.3lbs and no documentation of weight loss. Nurse Practitioner Progress Note dated 10/18/24 for readmission to skilled nursing facility status post hospitalization. Recommendations included medications ordered on discharge from hospital. There was no documentation of the Resident #93's weight or weight loss. The Facility Clinical Monitoring Record for Resident #93's weights from 7/1/24-12/22/24 documented a weight of 119.8lbs on 11/12/24. Nurse Practitioner Progress Note for periodic medical review dated 11/16/24 did not document Resident #93's weight or weight loss. Physician Order dated 12/2/24 documented Vitamin E 268mg (400 unit) capsule take 1 capsule by oral route once daily. Physician Progress Note dated 12/3/24 for readmission did not document Resident #93's weight or weight loss. Dietary Progress Note dated 12/4/24 documented a significant weight loss of 32.4% in less than 180 days. Recommended interventions included, but were not limited to, evaluate and discontinue unnecessary medications to limit pill burden, discontinue Vitamin E, continue current diet and Ensure, provide substitutes. No evidence of discussion of weight loss or recommendations with Physician. Physician Orders dated 12/4/24 documented for Resident #93 House Diet, chopped consistency, thickened liquids-none. Special Instructions: Bland diet/chopped/thin. Ensure Clear 8 oz Frequency TID or ad lib, alternate with Ensure clear if one or the other declined. Ensure Plus 8oz Frequency TID or ad lib, alternate with ensure plus if one or the other is declined. Nurse Practitioner Progress Note dated 12/5/24 for readmission for enteritis did not document Resident #93's weight or weight loss. Nurse Practitioner Progress Note dated 12/8/24 for enteritis did not document Resident #93's weight or weight loss. Nurse Practitioner Progress Note dated 12/9/24 did not document Resident #93's weight or weight loss. The Facility Clinical Monitoring Record for Resident #93's weights from 7/1/24-12/22/24 documented a weight of 109.2lbs on 12/11/24. During an observation on 12/17/24 at 08:25 AM, Resident #93 was observed lying in bed, breakfast tray at bedside, tray set up for resident, resident not eating. At 08:39 AM, resident breakfast tray observed at bedside. Staff member entered room, observed staff removing tray from bedside, no significant consumption noted from tray. During an observation on 12/18/24 at 08:36 AM, Resident #93 observed lying flat in bed, meal tray on bedside table, no staff assisting with feeding. At 9:46AM resident observed in bed, lying flat, breakfast tray remains on bedside table small amount of food appears to have been eaten. During an observation on 12/18/24 at 12:24 PM, Resident #93 was given lunch tray-set up, assist provided by Certified Nursing Assistant, resident sitting at side of bed looking at tray, no staff assistance observed with feeding. Resident #93 was then laid back down in bed. At 12:44 PM, observed Certified Nursing Assistant in room with Resident #93, provided resident with fluids and verbal encouragement to eat, however, resident stated, no don't want that. The Facility Clinical Monitoring Record for Resident #93's weights from 7/1/24-12/22/24 documented a weight 104.8lbs on 12/18/24. During an observation on 12/20/24 at 08:34 AM, Resident #93 observed sitting up in dining room in wheelchair, breakfast tray provided to resident, no assistance or encouragement with eating observed. Resident preparing tea independently, playing with straw, drinking fluids intermittently. At 08:50 AM, resident remains sitting at table with breakfast tray, not eating any of the food on tray, no assistance/encouragement observed by staff, resident drank some fluids with eyes half closed. At 09:01 AM nurse feeding another resident at table provided verbal encouragement to Resident #93 to eat but resident did not consume any food. Resident picking at teeth with straw. During an interview on 12/20/24 at 11:03 AM, the Registered Dietician stated that Resident #93 is on weekly weights currently. Stated that the Resident #93's weight on 7/20/24 was 172.3lbs and after their return from the hospital, it was 148.8lbs. Stated that Resident #93 has continued to lose weight since then. Resident #93's weight on 12/18/24 was 104.8lbs. Stated that the interventions in place for resident include supplements-Ensure, bland diet for gastric issues, discontinuing unnecessary meds including vitamin E, and encouragement with meals. Reviewed resident risk factors including a Body Mass Index of 17.8 and Gastric Medical Issues (stomach issues). Stated that Nursing is monitoring resident intake. Stated Certified Nursing Assistant's track the intake of meals and record resident's intake in Sigma. Stated weights are also recorded in Sigma. Stated that there have been no recent reports from nursing about a decrease in resident's intake, however, they have been told that resident's intake remains poor and that they have not had any recent emesis (vomiting). Stated they have not had a formal discussion with the Physician about this resident's weight loss, but the Physician is provided with the Mini Nutrition Assessment for all residents quarterly, annually, if there is significant change, and on admission. Stated Resident #93 was scored as 7 (malnourished) on last Mini Nutrition Assessment. Also stated, the Physician should be aware of Resident #93's weight loss from recorded weights in the electronic medical record, the dietician's notes, and any requests/suggestions the dietician makes through the Physician/Nurse Practitioner communication books that are on the units. Stated they believed the Physician was aware. During an interview on 12/20/24 at 04:49PM, Nurse Practitioner #1 stated that no one has come to them to report Resident #93's weight loss. Stated that the nursing or dietary staff would tell her verbally or put it in the communication book. Stated that they have not received any messages on Resident #93's weight loss from the Dietician or Nursing staff. When made aware of Resident #93's weight loss in last month, Nurse Practitioner #1 stated that she did see the resident recently and thought they looked smaller, but nothing has been reported. Stated that no additional interventions were put in place as they were not aware of weight loss. During an interview on 12/22/24 at 12:38 PM, the Director of Nursing stated that the weights for residents are in the electronic medical record. Stated that Resident #93 did have recent transfers to the hospital, and they thought the weight loss was more GI related. Stated that significant weight losses are discussed in morning meeting once a week but doesn't remember speaking about Resident #93. Stated the Physician should have acknowledged the weight loss in progress notes. During an interview on 12/22/24 at 01:10 PM, the Medical Director stated that they will have to review Resident #93's chart to discuss the resident's weight loss. Stated they will return call to discuss once they have reviewed the record. 10NYCRR 415.15(b)(1)(i)(ii)
CONCERN (D) 📢 Someone Reported This

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

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

Drug Regimen Review (Tag F0756)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** 3) Resident #89 had diagnoses that included, but not limited to, Unspecified Dementia, Depression and Generalized Anxiety Disord...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** 3) Resident #89 had diagnoses that included, but not limited to, Unspecified Dementia, Depression and Generalized Anxiety Disorder The Annual Minimum Data Set (an assessment tool) dated [DATE] documented severe Cognitive Impairment, Antipsychotic, Antianxiety, Antidepressant, Anticonvulsant use, no therapies or other special treatments. Pharmacy Consultant recommendation from the medication regimen review dated [DATE] documented incorrect indication for Montelukast (medication for allergies and asthma). Facility unable to provide Physician/Nurse Practitioner acknowledgement or response to recommendation. Current order documented Montelukast 10 milligram tablet once daily at bed time for high blood pressure. Seasonal allergic rhinitis listed as related diagnosis. Pharmacy Consultant recommendation from the medication regimen review dated [DATE] documented recommendation to evaluate the long term use of Miconazole cream (anti-fungal cream). Facility unable to provide Physician/Nurse Practitioner acknowledgement or response to recommendation. Current order documented Miconazole nitrate 2 % topical cream apply by topical route 3 times per day every shift and as needed. During an interview on [DATE] at 4:42PM with Nurse Practioner #1, they stated the Nurse Managers review the Pharmacy Consultant's recommendations and then they give them to the Nurse Practitioner to review, and sign off. Stated that they do get them monthly. Stated that the nurses correct the errors they can. Those recommendations that cannot be changed by nursing, they review, address, and sign off on. During an interview on [DATE] at 04:59 PM with the Director of Nursing, they stated that the entire Medical group receives the Pharmacy Consultant's recommendations via email. They stated that the nurses will review the changes that were recommended and change those that they can. Then the Nurse Practioner or Physician will review and sign off. The recommendations that can't be addressed by nursing are reviewed and addressed by the Nurse Practitioner or Physician. They then sign off on it. Stated that some of the Pharmacy Consultant's recommendations were being missed and the process needed improvement. 10NYCRR 415.18(c)(2) Based on interview and record review conducted during the Recertification Survey completed on [DATE]-[DATE], the facility did not develop and maintain policies and procedures for the monthly drug regimen review. The facility did not ensure that the attending physician, the facility's medical director and the Director of Nursing received and acted upon the Pharmacy Consultant's recommendations within a timely manner and documented in the medical record that the identified irregularities had been reviewed and what action should be taken for 3 of 5 residents reviewed for unnecessary medications (#9, #79, and #89 ). Specifically, 1) Resident # 9 had no documented follow up for drug regimen reviews from [DATE]. 2) Resident # 79 had no documented follow up for drug regimen reviews from [DATE] and [DATE] and 3) Resident #89 had irregularities documented by the Pharmacy Consultant for reviews performed on [DATE] and [DATE] with no evidence of physician review and response. The findings are: The facility did not provide a facility policy for Drug Regimen Reviews which would document the process by which the Pharmacy Consultant performs their review monthly, makes recommendations based on their review and the process by which the physician addresses those findings with documentation in the resident record. 1) Resident #9 had diagnoses of Chronic Respiratory Failure, COPD, Schizoaffective disorder, Hypertension, Rheumatoid Arthritis. The Minimum Data Set, an assessment tool, dated [DATE] documented the resident had intact cognition, verbal behaviors directed towards others and had a history of rejection of care. The Physician orders as of [DATE] document the resident was prescribed Donepezil 10mg 1 tab at bedtime for Alzheimer's insomnia (original order [DATE]), Duloxetine 60 mg capsule 2x day for Major Depressive Disorder (original order [DATE]), Eliquis 2.5 mg twice a day for hypertension (original order [DATE]), and Lyrica 75mg - 1 cap 3 x day for Mood disorder (original order [DATE]). The Pharmacy Consultant's drug regimen review document dated [DATE], recommended that based on their findings the indication for Eliquis and Lyrica were incorrect, please correct. There was no signature or response indicating the physician reviewed or responded to the finding. The physician orders reviewed on [DATE] documented there were no changes made to the indication for Eliquis or Lyrica. 2) Resident #79 had diagnoses that included Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease, Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus and , malignant neoplasm of kidney. The Minimum Data Set, an assessment tool dated [DATE] documented the resident had severe cognitive impairment and required supervision for eating and substantial assistance for oral hygiene, toileting hygiene, shower upper and lower body dressing. The Physician Orders dated [DATE] documented, the resident was prescribed Sertraline 50mg for Major Depressive Disorder. On [DATE] the physician orders documented the resident was prescribed Quetiapine 100mg - 1 tab twice a day for Major Depressive Disorder with psychoses symptoms and Clonazepam 0.5mg - ½ tab (.25mg) every eight hours for 30 days as needed for anxiety. On [DATE] the physician ordered Tramadol 50mg - 1 tab three times a day for pain. The Pharmacy Consultant's recommendation from the drug regimen review performed [DATE] documented that the Clonazepam ordered [DATE] for 0.5mg, one half tablet (.25 mg) every eight hours as needed for 30 days was still active and needed to discontinued. The Pharmacy Consultant's review performed on [DATE] documented, Clonazepam ordered [DATE] for 30 days, not yet discontinued. Please discontinue and address medication errors. There was no evidence the recommendation was addressed by the physician until [DATE] when the order was changed. The resident had received an extra dose of the Clonazepam after the order expired but was not removed from the Medication Administration record. During an interview on [DATE] at 04:44 PM with Nurse Practitioner #28 who stated they receive the Pharmacy Consultant's drug regimen review reports from the nurses and will usually review and sign off on them. They stated the diagnoses are corrected by the nurses and then the nurses sign off on the pharmacy review record. The Nurse Practitioner #28 stated they were not sure what happened in September when a correction of the diagnoses was requested and does not look over medication orders to see that the diagnoses are correct. During an interview with the Director of Nursing on [DATE] at 04:57 PM they stated they receive the pharmacy reviews and will look at them to see if there is any nursing things that need to be done and delegate that to the nurses. The Physicians and Nurse Practitioners get the reviews also and they are supposed to sign off and send them back to the Director of Nursing. I do not keep track of who sends them back or when. The Director of Nursing stated they recently had a meeting with the Nurse Practitioners and told them there needs to be improvements.
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0761 (Tag F0761)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on observation, record review, and interview conducted during the recertification survey from 12/15/24-12/22/24, the facility did not ensure that drugs and biological's in 1 of 2 medication stor...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, record review, and interview conducted during the recertification survey from 12/15/24-12/22/24, the facility did not ensure that drugs and biological's in 1 of 2 medication storage areas were labeled and stored in accordance with professional standards. Specifically, antibiotics and intravenous fluids were found expired in the medication storage room. The findings include: The policy and procedure titled Storage of Drugs revised 9/17 documented, discontinued drug containers shall be removed from the medication cart, and marked to indicate that the drug has been discontinued. Discontinued drugs shall be disposed. During an observation on 12/19/24 at 9:32 AM in the medication storage room on the first floor, Piperacillin and Tazobactam 3.375 (an antibiotic to treat bacterial infections) with an expiration date of October 2024 and 1000 milliliters of intravenous fluids with an expirations date of October 2024 were identified. During an interview on 12/19/24 at 9:32 AM, Staff #14 stated that medications were checked for expiration dates, and the night nurse was responsible for removing expired medications and returning them to the pharmacy. During an interview on 12/19/24 at 2:00 PM the Director of Nursing stated, expired medications should be removed from the medications rooms and sent back to the pharmacy. Expired medications should not remain in the medication storage room. 10 NYCRR 415.18(e)(1-4)
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0883 (Tag F0883)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review and interview during the recertification survey conducted 12/16/24 to 12/22/24, the facility did not ensu...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review and interview during the recertification survey conducted 12/16/24 to 12/22/24, the facility did not ensure each resident was offered pneumococcal immunizations and received education regarding the benefits and potential side effects of the immunizations for 1 of 5 residents (Residents #79) reviewed. Specifically, there was no documented evidence Resident #79 was offered, declined, or educated about the pneumococcal immunization. Findings include: The undated facility policy titled Pneumococcal Vaccination documented the Pneumovax vaccine will be available to all residents at [NAME] Hall Rehabilitation Center to aid in the control and spread of pneumonia between residents and staff. Residents at any age who have long term health problems are at high risk of contracting pneumonia. All residents who have no documentation of previous pneumococcal vaccine shall receive the vaccine upon admission. Pneumococcal vaccination will be recorded on the immunization record. Before offering the vaccine each resident or the resident's legal representative will receive education regarding the benefits and potential side effects of the vaccine. Resident #79 had diagnoses including Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease, Type II Diabetes Mellitus and Malignant Neoplasm of kidney. The Minimum Data Set (an assessment tool) dated 10/11/24 documented Resident #79 had severe cognitive impairment. There was no documented evidence the resident/resident representative received education, was offered the vaccination, or declined the pneumococcal vaccine. During an interview on 12/20/24 at 3:21PM the Director of Nursing stated they are in the process of training the new Infection Preventionist and tried to stay on top of the vaccine records for residents, but has only been able to organize influenza vaccines. They stated they did not have the pneumococcal vaccination records in order and did not have records of declinations. 10NYCRR 415.19 (a) (1-3)
CONCERN (E) 📢 Someone Reported This

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

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

Deficiency F0561 (Tag F0561)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, record review, and interview conducted during the Recertification, Abbreviated (NY00359302) and Extended S...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, record review, and interview conducted during the Recertification, Abbreviated (NY00359302) and Extended Survey from 12/15/24 - 12/22/24, the facility did not ensure residents had a right to make choices regarding aspects of their life for 5 of 6 residents reviewed for smoking. Specifically, the facility did not offer a designated smoking area and did not offer a smoking cessation program prior to and after the facility changed its policy to prohibit smoking for Resident # 6, #9, #29, #41, and #54 who were known smokers at the time of admission. The findings are: The Policy and Procedure titled Smoking revised on 1/21/22 documented the facility aimed to maintain the highest quality of life for each resident who smoked, and smoking was permitted only in designated areas and at scheduled times. The Policy and Procedure titled Smoking created 6/23/22 documented the facility was to maintain the highest quality of life for each resident, and smoking will not be permitted by residents. During observation on 12/15/24 at 1:15 PM patio doors were marked with No Smoking signs. 1. Resident #29 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnosis including Schizophrenia (serious mental illness) Diabetes and Anxiety. The 10/14/24 Quarterly Minimum Data Set (assessment tool) documented Resident #29 was cognitively intact. There was no documented evidence in Resident #29's electronic medical record that a smoking assessment to identify smoking habits, smoking cessation counseling, nicotine replacement options, and staff training in regards to smoking cessation programs had been offered when the facility changed its policy to prohibit smoking. During an interview on 12/15/2024 at 4:20 PM Resident #29 stated smoking was permitted when they were admitted to the facility, but later they had been made aware, smoking at the facility was no longer allowed. 2. Resident #41 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses including Paraplegia, (total loss of movements and sensation in the lower body) Borderline Personality Disorder (a mental disorder) and Schizophrenia. The Quarterly Minimum Data Set (assessment tool) dated 4/19/24, documented Resident #41 was cognitively intact. There was no documented evidence in Resident #41's electronic medical record that smoking cessation counseling, nicotine replacement options, and staff training in regards to smoking cessation programs had been offered when the facility changed its policy to prohibit smoking. During an interview on 12/15/24 at 1:11 PM Resident # 41 stated they were admitted to the facility in 2021. Resident #41 stated smoking was permitted at the time of admission, but the facility policy subsequently changed to a non-smoking facility. Resident #41 stated no accommodations were made for smokers, and smoking privileges were revoked. 3. Resident #54 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses including Quadriplegia and Major depressive Disorder. The 9/24/24 Quarterly Minimum Data Set (assessment tool) documented Resident #54 was cognitively intact. The Comprehensive Care Plan titled non-compliance last updated 5/22/24 documented educate resident on smoking, monitor resident for smoking regularly and upon return from leave of absence for signs of smoking. Any issues were to be reported to the supervisor immediately, and smoking cessation support was to be offered. The Comprehensive Care Plan Titled Smoking last updated 10/1/24 documented Resident is a known smoker, including smoking marijuana.The care plan instructed staff to check the resident's clothing regularly and upon return from leave of absence for evidence of unsafe smoking practice. The smoking policy was to be reviewed with the resident and family upon admission and as necessary. Smoking cessation support was to be offered. There was no documented evidence in Resident #54's electronic medical record that smoking cessation counseling, nicotine replacement options, and staff training in regards to smoking cessation programs had been offered when the facility changed its policy to prohibit smoking. During an interview on 12/15/2024 at 2:00 PM the Administrator stated when the facility went from a smoking facility to a non- smoking facility the needs and preferences of residents who previously smoked were not considered. 10 NYCRR 415.5(f)(2)
CONCERN (E)

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

Safe Environment (Tag F0584)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, record review and interview during the Recertification Survey from 12/15/24-12/22/24, the facility did not...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, record review and interview during the Recertification Survey from 12/15/24-12/22/24, the facility did not ensure that the building was maintained in good repair to provide a safe, healthy, functional, sanitary, and comfortable environment for residents, personnel, and the public. The findings are: On December 17, 2024, during the recertification survey, between 11:30 AM - 5:45 PM, the following was observed: -The soiled room on the second floor, was observed with a dusty fan. - Resident's room [ROOM NUMBER], the tub was observed with a brown stain around the drain, and a green colored substance around the sink faucet. -Stained ceiling tiles on the second floor corridor. -The toilets in the nurse stations on the first and second floor observed with nonfunctional fans. - Resident's room [ROOM NUMBER], the toilet was observed with a dusty fan. - In the service corridor, on the second floor, the janitor's room door did not close properly. The Director of Maintenance, who was present at the time of observations, stated that they will clean and fix the issues. NYCRR Title 10 - 415.15 10 NYCRR, 711.2(a)(1)
CONCERN (E)

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

Deficiency F0657 (Tag F0657)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observations, interviews, and record reviews conducted during the Recertification and Abbreviated (NY00361230) Surveys ...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observations, interviews, and record reviews conducted during the Recertification and Abbreviated (NY00361230) Surveys conducted from 12/15-12/22/24, the facility did not ensure that the Comprehensive Care Plans were revised for 4 of 14 residents (#41, #89, #48, and #34) reviewed for Care Planning. Specifically, 1) The Smoking Care Plan for Resident #41 was not revised to include interventions for safe smoking after resident caused a fire when they extinguished a cigarette in the leaves behind the gazebo on the facility patio; 2. The Respiratory Care Plan for Resident # 89 was not revised to reflect the intervention of the physician order for oxygen as needed. Furthermore, the Psychotropic Medication Care Plan for Resident #89 was not revised to include interventions or goals. 3. The Discharge Care Plan for Resident #48 was not updated to reflect the planned discharge of resident or the related goals or interventions; 4. The Psychotropic Medication Care Plan for Resident # 34 was not updated to reflect the discontinuation of psychotropic medications Findings include: The Facility Comprehensive Care Plan Policy last reviewed 9/23/24 documents that the development and review of the Comprehensive Care Plan will involve an interdisciplinary team. The attending physician will timely review the Comprehensive Care Plan alongside the Nurse Manager responsible for the resident's care. Residents Comprehensive Care Plan will be individualized and remain up to date, reflecting the resident's current status and needs. Any changes to the Comprehensive Care Plan by the relevant interdisciplinary team member(s). All Comprehensive Care Plans at a minimum will be reviewed and or updated quarterly. Resident #41 had diagnoses that included, but not limited to, Paraplegia, Schizoaffective Disorder and Borderline Personality Disorder. The Minimum Data Set (assessment tool) dated 10/18/24 documented moderately impaired cognition and no tobacco use. Comprehensive Care Plan dated 9/1/23, and a care plan review note dated 6/28/24, documented that resident smoked in his room. Interventions included to review smoking policy with resident and family on admission, readmission and as needed. Staff will continue to counsel resident on a daily basis to ensure the safety of smoking in the facility is complied. Resident has been referred to psychologist and psychiatrist due to his noncompliance with the facility policy of non-smoking, the resident will be educated and offered smoke cessation, visually observe residents clothing and surroundings regularly for signs of unsafe smoking including smoke, ashes and burns on hands and clothing. A nursing progress note dated 10/3/24 documented staff approached Resident #41 regarding the aroma and visible smoke emanating from the resident's room. The resident was reminded that the facility was smoke free and instructed not to smoke in the facility. The resident acknowledged awareness of the policy and stated that smoking would not occur indoors in the future. A facility investigation dated 11/4/24, completed by the facility Administrator, documented on 11/1/24 around 4:15 PM, Resident #41 was smoking in the gazebo and put out a cigarette in the leaves behind the gazebo starting a fire. The root cause analysis determined Resident #41 was a smoker, frequently used the patio and put ashes on the gazebo and the ground surrounding it. The dry air and warm environment contributed to the cigarette butt lighting the dry leaves on fire. The immediate action was the patio was closed on the weekend and reopened Monday 11/4/24. The corrective action was that Resident #41's patio privileges were revoked until further notice. There was no documented evidence of any updates made to the smoking care plan after 6/28/24. 2) Resident #89 had diagnoses that included, but not limited to, Unspecified Atrial Fibrillation (heart arrythmia), Dyspnea (difficulty breathing), and Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (lung disease that affects oxygen intake and breathing). Physician Orders dated 8/22/24 documented to administer Oxygen at 2 liters via nasal cannula for oxygen saturation below 90% as needed. The Comprehensive Care Plan for Resident #89 documented a Focus of Respiratory Disorders-Shortness of Breath dated 8/26/24. There were no related diagnoses listed. There were no interventions or goals documented on the care plan including oxygen use. The Annual Minimum Data Set (an assessment) dated 12/4/24 had no documentation of oxygen therapy. Observations: During an observation on 12/17/24 at 07:59 AM, Resident #89 was observed with Oxygen 3 liters in use via nasal cannula, no respiratory distress noted. During an observation on 12/18/24 at 08:39 AM, Resident #89 was observed with Oxygen 3 liters in use via nasal cannula, no respiratory distress noted. During an observation on 12/19/24 at 11:52 AM, Resident #89 was observed with Oxygen 3 liters in use via nasal cannula, no respiratory distress noted. During an interview on 12/19/24 at 09:29 AM, Unit Manager #1 reviewed and confirmed that Resident #89's order for Oxygen was 2 liters as needed for oxygen saturation below 90%. In response to no specific care plan present for oxygen use, they stated that they do not complete the initial care plans.They stated they add to them but do not initiate or develop the care plans. In addition, Resident #89 had no interventions or goals related to monitoring behavior or the effectiveness/response to gradual dose reductions of psychotropic medications on their Psychotropic Medication Care Plan. The Annual Minimum Data Set (an assessment tool) dated 12/6/24 documented the resident had severely impaired cognition, with diagnoses including Antipsychotic, Antianxiety, Antidepressant, and Anticonvulsant use. Resident # 89's Physician order documented dated 8/22/24 documented Resident #89 was receiving Remeron 15mg give one tablet orally once daily for depression. The Physician order dated 12/5/24 documented Lorazepam 0.5mg orally twice daily. The Physician order dated 12/9/24 documented Seroquel 25mg give one tablet orally daily. Psychiatric Nurse Practitioner progress note dated 12/9/24 documented a Gradual Dose Reduction. Psychiatric Nurse Practitioner progress note dated 12/11/24 documented resident energy level and discontinuation of Seroquel. Psychiatric Nurse Practitioner progress note dated 12/18/24 documented review of medications with no side effects noted and other medication changes. Resident #89's Comprehensive Care Plan dated 12/7/24 had no documented interventions or goals listed on the use of psychotropic drugs. During an interview on 12/19/24 at 10:00 AM, the Staff Educator stated that they provide the education to the staff on care planning. They stated that the Registered Nurse is supposed to initiate the care plans and the Licensed Practical Nurses or Registered Nurses can update the interventions on the care plans. Incidents, new focus and changes in the residents are communicated to the Registered Nurse Supervisor or other Registered Nurses in facility so that the care plans can be updated. During an interview on 12/19/24 at 10:05 AM, Registered Nurse Supervisor #1 stated that the Registered Nurse Supervisors are responsible for the initiation of Care Plans on admission and for updates to interventions if something changes when they are on duty. They stated that they believe the Minimum Data Set Registered Nurse also updates care plans on a regular basis. During an interview on 12/19/24 at 10:14AM, the Director of Nursing stated that routine updates of care plans are completed by nursing. The Director of Nursing stated it is a joint effort from all nurses right now. The process would be for the Unit Managers to check the care plans routinely. Presently they only have one Unit Manager. If the Unit Manager is a Licensed Practical Nurse, and a focus needs to be added, they would be expected to notify a facility Registered Nurse. Stated that the Registered Nurse Supervisors do initiate care plans on admission and updates should be completed routinely and checked at care plan meetings. 3)Resident #48 had diagnoses that included, but not limited to Unspecified Dementia, Pain, and Generalized Anxiety Disorder. The admission Minimum Data Set (an assessment tool) dated 6/12/24 documented no behaviors and dependent on staff for hygiene, bathing, dressing, required maximum assistance with transfers. Overall goal for discharge unknown. The Comprehensive Care Plan for Resident #48 dated 6/7/2024 documented on a Discharge Care Plan that resident was a Long Term Care resident. Resident #48 was discharged home on [DATE]. There were no documented nursing progress notes, social works notes or goals of a discharge to the community after admission on [DATE] Nurse Practitioner Medical progress note dated 11/25/24 documented no discharge anticipated at this time. Physician note dated 11/27/24 had documented resident was discharged on 11/27/24 with recommendation to follow up and with Primary Care Physician for medication review and continuation of medical management and preventative care in 3-7days. There was no other physician note for discharge prior to the physician note on 11/27/24. There was no physician discharge orders. Nursing progress notes had no documented evidence of notes related to discharge or discharge planning prior to discharge on [DATE]. Social Services progress notes had no documented evidence of notes related to discharge or discharge planning prior to discharge on [DATE]. During an interview on 12/19/24 at 01:08 PM, the resident's daughter stated that the resident was now home, like a new person, doing well, and has a private aide that cares for her. During an interview on 12/22/24 at 12:33PM, the Director of Nursing stated that the discharge planning was ongoing for Resident #48. Stated that the Home Care Certified Nursing Assistant and daughter were present at the time of discharge to review discharge instructions. The Director of Nursing stated that they were definitely working on the discharge prior to the resident leaving facility. The Director of Nursing did not provide an explanation why there was no documentation regarding discharge planning for Resident #48 During an interview on 12/22/24 at 1:51PM, the Director of Social Services stated that the resident went home with Home Care Agency services in place. Discussed case, expressed knowledge regarding discharge, and stated they worked on the planning prior to resident going home. Acknowledged that there were no notes in the electronic medical record regarding discharge. Stated they were committed to doing better. 10NYCRR 415.11(c)(2)(i-iii)
CONCERN (E)

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

Deficiency F0725 (Tag F0725)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interviews, and record review conducted during a Recertification Survey from 12/15/24-12/22/24, the facili...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interviews, and record review conducted during a Recertification Survey from 12/15/24-12/22/24, the facility did not ensure sufficient nursing staff to provide nursing and related services to attain or maintain the well-being of each resident in accordance with the facility assessment. This was evident for 17 of 90 shifts from 11/20/2024-12/20/2024 during the staffing review. Specifically, the facility triggered a 1-star rating in the payroll-based journal report. A review of the Facility Assessment documented minimal staffing levels required to provide residents quality of care and services. The facility's actual staffing reports revealed that they did not meet those staffing levels the facility did not provide actual staffing as documented in their Facility Assessment. The findings are: A review of the Facility assessment dated [DATE], documented the minimum staffing levels for the building are: 1 Registered Nurse per shift: 7AM-3PM, 3PM-11PM, 11PM-7AM 5 Licensed Practical Nurses per shift: 7AM-3PM, 3PM-11PM, 11PM-7AM 12 Certified Nursing Assistants on 7-3 and 3-11, 6 on 11-7 4 Licensed Practical Nurses on weekends during the 7AM-3PM and 3PM-11PM shifts, and 2 during 11PM-7AM shift. 10 Certified Nursing Assistants on weekends during 7AM-3PM and 3PM-11PM, and 6 on 11PM-7AM shift. Staffing Audits provided and reviewed, documented for the weeks of 11/20/24, 11/27/24, 12/4/24 and 12/11/24 the facility failed to meet sufficient staffing level. A review of the actual staffing sheets revealed the following number of staff on duty. • On 11/20/24 3PM-11PM (Evening) had 9 Certified Nurse Aides • On 11/21/24 3PM-11PM had 11 Certified Nurse Aides • On 11/22/24 7AM-3PM(Day) shift had 4 Licensed Practical Nurses. • On 11/23/24 3PM-11PM had 8 Certified Nurse Aides. • On 11/24/24 3PM-11PM had 8 Certified Nurse Aides. • On 11/25/24 7AM-3PM had 11 Certified Nurse Aides. • On 11/26/24 3PM-11PM had 11 Certified Nurse Aides. • On 11/28/24 7AM-3PM had 9 Certified Nurse Aides. • On 11/29/24 11PM-7AM (Night Shift) had 4 Certified Nurse Aides. • On 11/29/24 7AM-3PM had 3 License Practical Nurses. • On 11/29/24 3PM-11PM had 4 Licensed Practical Nurses. • On 12/1/24 3PM-11PM had 9 Certified Nurse Aides. • On 12/1/24 11PM-7AM had 5 Certified Nurse Aides. • On 12/13/24 7AM-3PM had 9 Certified Nurse Aides. • On 12/13/24 3PM-11PM had 9 Certified Nurse Aides. • On 12/14/24 11PM-7AM had 4 Certified Nurse Aides. • On 12/16/24 7AM-3PM had 8 Certified Nurse Aides. During an interview on 12/16/24 05:26 PM Resident #12 stated that sometimes it takes 2 hours for them to answer my bell they do not have enough staff. During a meeting of the resident council with the surveyor on 12/16/224 at 1:25 PM the consensus from the residents present at the meeting was that staffing could be better. Multiple residents present stated that the staff do not come right away when they ring the call bell. Additionally, the residents stated they also often come in the room in response to bell, shut off the bell, state they will be back but then don't come back. During an interview on 12/21/24 at 12:00 PM the Human Resource Director stated that the facility tries hard to meet the staffing levels required by their faciliy assessment. Although they use agency staff as needed to meet the staffing needs this is also a challenge. Agency staff often do not have set schedules, as they determine when they want to work. In order to recruit staff they do offer bonuses. They stated that they use nurses to cover if we they are short Certified Nurse Aides. The management team is always on the units helping, and answer bells and get the nurse when needed. During an interview on 12/21/24 12:22 PM the Administrator stated they were aware that staffing has been difficult. They have been running ads to hire staff. They offer bonuses to increase recruitment. They do use agencies to fill opennnursing positions. They stated that administration makes frequent rounds on the units to ensure the residents are receiving care. 10NYCRR 415.13(A)(1) (i-i
CONCERN (E) 📢 Someone Reported This

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

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

Infection Control (Tag F0880)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

Based on observation, record review and interview conducted during a Recertification survey from 12/15/24-12/20/24, the facility did not ensure infection control prevention practices were maintained t...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, record review and interview conducted during a Recertification survey from 12/15/24-12/20/24, the facility did not ensure infection control prevention practices were maintained to prevent the development and transmission of communicable diseases and infection and did not ensure there was a system for preventing, identifying, reporting, investigating, and controlling infection and communicable disease for all residents. Specifically,1) there was no evidence that a Water Management Plan was in place to prevent and control Legionella, a Facility Risk Assessment was completed, or that Legionella testing was performed within the last year, 2) the facility did not effectively implement accurate tracking and monitoring of infection and outbreak among residents to prevent further spread of infection and early identification of outbreaks and 3) the facility did not provide documentation of screening, administration or declination and education provided for 3 of 10 staff (Certified Nurse Aide #9, Registered Nurse Supervisor #2 and Receptionist #3) reviewed for influenza vaccination and 10 of 10 staff reviewed for pneumococcal vaccination ( Registered Nurse Supervisor #2, Receptionist #3, Licensed Practical Nurse # 21 Certified Nurse Aide #9, #22, #23, #24, Physical Therapist #25, [NAME] #26 and Maintenance Staff #27). The findings are: 1) The facility's Policy and Procedure for Legionella updated on 6/2019 documented routine Legionella culture sampling and analysis will be performed every year, maintenance department employees will take a water sample from each of three zones annually, specified records will be retained, including the environmental assessment, the sampling and management plan, and any associated sampling results on the facility's premises for a minimum of three years and such records will be available to the Department of Health upon request. Review of the facility's Legionella records revealed the last lab sample for Legionella detection was collected on 02/08/2023 with an analyzed date of 02/21/2023. The report indicated Legionella was not detected. There was no documented evidence for Legionella testing within the last year. There was no documented evidence for completion of an Environmental Risk Assessment within the last year. There was no documented evidence that a Water Management Plan was in place to prevent and control Legionella. On December 19, 2024, at approximately 9:08 AM, the Administrator stated lab results provided for review were for the last test completed, and there had not been any Legionella testing done in 2024. On December 19, 2024, at approximately 2:30 PM, the owner stated they would search for the risk assessment and the water management plan and would provide it for review. 2) The facility policy for Infection Control Surveillance, revised 9/8/2021 documented the Quality Assurance Performance Improvement Committee will review all resident infections as well as the usage of antibiotics, monthly so as to identify any trends and areas for improvement. The information is reported quarterly, as needed Director of Nursing or designee will establish Quality Assurance Performance Improvement projects to identify root cause of infections and update the facility action plans. The Infection Control Nurse/Staff Educator will identify the rate of infectious diseases and identify any increases in infection rates and will be addressed. Facility acquired infections will be tracked and reported by the Infection Control Nurse/Staff Educator quarterly at the Quality Assurance Performance and Improvement meeting. There was no documented tool to track current infection identified in the facility which may include resident symptoms, dates of initial surveillance, follow through of lab specimens, lab results, antibiotics and isolation precautions. During an interview with the Director of Nursing on 12/20/24 at 3:31 PM they stated they were the Infection Preventionist and were responsible for the Infection Control Program at the facility. The Director of Nursing stated they were aware the tracking should have been done. They did not know what infections were going on in the facility or if there was a cluster or an outbreak of a particular organism. 3) During a review of staff immunization records for influenza vaccine status, 3 of 10 staff reviewed (Certified Nurse Aide #9, Registered Nurse #2 and Receptionist #3) did not have documentation of influenza status including, administration date, declination or if education was provided. In addition the facility did not provide documentation of pneumococcal screening, education or declinations for Registered Nurse Supervisor #2, Receptionist #3, Licensed Practical Nurse # 21 Certified Nurse Aide #9, #22, #23, #24, Physical Therapist #25, [NAME] #26 and Maintenance #27. During an interview with the Director of Nursing on 12/20/24 at 3:31 PM they stated they knew keeping track of immunization records was important but fell behind due to staffing issues. The Director of Nursing stated they did not have a master copy of staff who received or declined influenza vaccine and had not been screening or offering pneumococcal vaccination. 10NYCRR 415.19(a)(2)
CONCERN (F)

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

Comprehensive Care Plan (Tag F0656)

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 interview during the recertification and extended survey conducted 12/15/2024-12/22/202...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, record review, and interview during the recertification and extended survey conducted 12/15/2024-12/22/2024, the facility did not develop and implement a comprehensive person-centered care plan to meet the resident's medical, nursing mental and psychosocial needs for 4 of 8 residents (Resident #15, #84, #29, and #75) reviewed. Specifically, Resident #15's comprehensive care plans did not include Dementia Care, Psychotropic Drug Use, or a Diabetic care plan; 2) Resident #84's comprehensive care plans did not include an at risk for pressure ulcer care plan; 3) Resident #29's comprehensive care plans did not include a smoking care plan; 4) Resident #75's comprehensive care plans did not include respiratory/oxygen use care plan. Findings include: Review of the facility policy titled Comprehensive Care Plans last reviewed 9/23/24, documented that [NAME] Hall Rehabilitation Center is dedicated to providing personalized, high-quality care for our residents using a comprehensive resident assessment and care planning process. This process is designed to maximize and maintain each resident's functional potential and quality of life. A Comprehensive Care Plan (CCP) is crucial to achieving this, and we are committed to developing a CCP for each resident by the 21st day of admission, updated quarterly, annually, upon readmission, and with any significant change of condition. 1.Resident # 15 was admitted with diagnoses including Left Cerebrum traumatic, Diabetes and Alzheimer's. A Quarterly Minimum Data Set (an assessment tool) dated 10/02/24 documented the resident was moderately impaired for decision making, required set up assistance for eating and partial to moderate assistance for other activities of daily living. Resident #15 had documented behaviors 1-3 days in the look back period of physical behaviors directed at others. The resident received antipsychotic, antianxiety, and hypoglycemic agents in the 7 days look back period. A review of the physician orders dated 11/25/24 documented the following medications: Lorazepam 0.5mg 3x daily, Seroquel 12.5mg 2 times daily, and Insulin.) how often) A review of Resident #15's Care Plans revealed the Dementia, Diabetes, and Psychotropic Drug care plans were fully developed with no goals or interventions documented. During an Interview on 12/19/24 12:09 PM with the Staff #2 Registered Nursing Supervisor they stated the nurse should have developed a plan of care to include goals and interventions. They do not know why these care plans were not completed. During an Interview on 12/19/24 12:28 PM with Staff #12 Licensed Practical Nurse stated we know which residents have dementia by their diagnosis list. There should be a Dementia or impaired cognition care plan for residents with dementia or Alzheimer's. 2. Resident #84 was admitted with diagnoses including Dementia, Hip Fracture, and respiratory failure During an observation on 12/18/24 07:03 PM the resident was noted in bed, the resident's feet were not off loaded, bilateral heels intact, no unhealed pressure ulcers.(you observed all unhealed pressure ulcers?) The 5-day Minimum Date Set (an assessment tool) dated 6/29/24 documented, the resident was moderately impaired for decision making. The resident required substantial to maximal assist with all activities of daily living. The skin assessment documented the resident was at risk for developing pressure ulcers had a surgical wound, but no unhealed pressure ulcers. A review of the Braden Score dated 9/2/24 (score to assess the resident's risk for developing pressure ulcers) documented the resident was at risk for developing pressure ulcers. A review of the physician orders dated 6/26/24 documented weekly skin checks on bathing days. A review of the Care Plans noted there was no at risk for pressure ulcer care plan from readmission in June 2024 to present with physician orders for weekly skin checks. During an interview on 12/19/24 10:03 AM with the Director of Nursing they stated the resident had an at risk for skin breakdown care plan, which was last reviewed in June. When the resident returned from the hospital the care plan was not reactivated. They do not know why and could not explain why it was not initiated in September with the last Minimum Data Set Assessment. During an interview with Staff #2 Registered Nursing Supervisor on 12/19/24 at 11:38 AM, they stated care plans are developed by the Registered Nurse. When a resident goes out to the hospital and they return, the care plans need to be reviewed and reinstated. As part of the readmission assessment the Registered Nurse should review the medications, do a Nursing assessment and review, and revise the Plan of Cares. During an interview with the Director of Rehabilitation on 12/20/24 03:34 PM stated we would put in a care plan in for potential for skin breakdown as an IDT, not sure if a care plan was put in place. The care plan should have included turning and positioning as well as off-loading heels. During an interview with the Nurse Practitioner # 1 on 12/20/24 04:44 PM, they stated the resident was at risk for developing pressure ulcers and protocols should have been put in place to off load their heels and turn and position every 2 hours. The Registered Nurse should have developed a care plan. 3. Resident #29 was admitted to the facility with diagnoses including Schizophrenia (serious mental illness), Diabetes, and anxiety disorder. The 10/14/24 Quarterly Minimum Data Set (assessment tool) documented that Resident #29 demonstrated intact cognition and was dependent on staff for activities of daily living. The Resident utilizes a wheelchair for mobility. During an observation of the patio on 12/15/24 at 4:18 PM Resident #29 was observed on the patio and a strong odor of cigarette smoke was present. No staff members were observed providing supervision on the patio. During an observation on 12/16/24 at 1:15PM, with the Director of Maintenance, Residents #29 and #54 were observed smoking in the gazebo located on the patio without supervision. Resident # 29 stated that they discard the ashes in the snow. Review of the electronic health record revealed Resident #29 had no care plan for smoking or non-compliance and no smoking assessment. During an interview on 12/19/24 at 10:05 AM, the Registered Nurse Supervisor #1 stated that they were responsible for the initiation of Care Plans on admission as well as updates to interventions and when there is changes such as falls and new orders. During an interview on 12/19/24 at 10:14 AM, the Director of Nursing stated that routine updates of care plans were completed by nursing. They stated that the Registered Nurse Supervisors initiate the care plans on admission. Stated that the updates should be completed routinely and checked at care plan meetings. 10NYCRR 415.11(c)(1)
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

FACILITY Extended Survey Based on observation, record review and interview conducted during a recertification, abbreviated, and extended survey from 12/15/24-12/22/24 (complaint # NY00359302), the fac...

Read full inspector narrative →
FACILITY Extended Survey Based on observation, record review and interview conducted during a recertification, abbreviated, and extended survey from 12/15/24-12/22/24 (complaint # NY00359302), the facility did not ensure that operative oversight for an effective system was in place to maintain health, safety, and the highest practicable well-being of residents. reviewed for accidents. Specifically, 1) the facility failed to provide adequate supervision to prevent accidents from smoking for 1 out of 3 residents reviewed for accidents. The facility Administrator did not ensure that smoking was not allowed in the facility grounds. 2) The facility Administrator did not ensure that employees were periodically instructed and followed the general fire procedures in accordance with the facility's Fire Emergency Plan, or that it conducted the required number of fire drills per quarter. 3) The Administrator did not ensure that its emergency preparedness plans were updated and that staff were trained annually. 4) In addition the facility did not ensure that staff were offered the updated COVID-19 vaccinations. 5) The facility did not ensure adequate nursing staffing levels to meet the resident needs as documented in their facility assessments. The findings are: The facility was cited for the following areas of non-compliance. Details of these citations can be found in this Statement of deficiencies. F689- The facility failed to provide adequate supervision to prevent accidents related to smoking for 6 of 6 residents (#2, #6, #9, #29, #41 and #54) identified as smokers. Specifically, Resident #41 was a known smoker in a non-smoking facility and the facility failed to complete safety assessments or develop and implement a plan of care to ensure their safety, when it was known that the resident continued to smoke outside of the facility. On 11/1/2024 a fire was started on the outside patio when Resident #41 threw a cigarette butt into dry leaves. There were no facility staff supervising the resident during this smoking activity. 0711 Based on record review and staff interviews, the facility did not ensure that employees are periodically instructed and follow the general fire procedures in accordance with the facility's Fire Emergency Plan. This is evidenced by the fact that staff members did not respond appropriately to an actual fire emergency that occurred on 11/01/2024 at approximately 4:15 PM; the facility failed to activate the fire alarm and to contact the fire department upon discover of the fire emergency. 0712-Based on record review and staff interview, the facility did not ensure that fire drills were conducted quarterly on each shift, and that written records included which emergency fire conditions were simulated during each fire drill in accordance with NFPA 101: Life Safety Code. 0741-Based on observation, record review and staff interviews, the facility did not ensure that smoking was not allowed in the facility grounds for a smoke free facility. Specifically, the facility is a nonsmoking facility and smoking was witnessed during the survey. E004-Based on document review and staff interviews, the facility did not ensure that its Emergency Preparedness Plan was reviewed and/or updated at least annually. E0037-Based on document review and staff interviews, the facility did not ensure that emergency preparedness training was provided to all staff at least annually. E0039- Based on document review and staff interviews, the facility did not ensure that the emergency preparedness testing requirements were in compliance with the requirements set forth in 483.73(d)(2). Specifically, the facility did not participate in an additional full-scale exercise that is community-based or when a community-based exercise is not accessible, an individual, facility-based exercise. F725-The facility did not ensure sufficient nursing staff to provide nursing and related services to attain or maintain the well-being of each resident in accordance with the facility assessment. This was evident for 17 of 90 shifts from 11/20/2024-12/20/2024 during the staffing review. Specifically, the facility triggered a 1-star rating in the payroll-based journal report. A review of the Facility Assessment documented minimal staffing levels required to provide residents quality of care and services. The facility's actual staffing reports revealed that they did not meet those staffing levels the facility did not provide actual staffing as documented in their Facility Assessment. F887-Based on interview and record review during the recertification survey conducted 12/15/24-12/22/24, the facility did not ensure each staff member was screened, offered the COVID-19 vaccine, and provided education regarding the benefits, risks and potential side effects associated with the vaccine for 10 of 10 staff reviewed for COVID vaccines. Specifically, there was no documented evidence of immunization records for COVID-19 vaccine for Registered Nurse Supervisor #2, Receptionist #3, Licensed Practical Nurse # 21 Certified Nurse Aid #9#22, #23,#24, Physical Therapist #25, [NAME] #26 and Maintenance staff #27. During an interview on 12/15/2024 at 10:30 AM, the Administrator stated it was a non-smoking facility and they were aware there were residents that smoked. They stated residents that smoked were care planned for non-compliance with the smoking policy. They stated the patio was unsupervised, and the residents could come and go independently. The Administrator provided a list of 6 residents including Residents #2, #6, #9, #29, #41, and #54 who were identified as smokers. During an interview on 12/15/24 at 1:46 PM the Registered Nurse Supervisor stated this is a non-smoking facility when the resident go out with their family they smoke, they are not supposed to smoke on the patio, but some of the resident smoke on the patio. During an interview on 12/16/24 at 1:15 PM The Maintenance Director, stated that he does not know if the wooden gazebo is fireproofed. During an interview on 12/20/24 at 3:21 PM with the Director of Nursing who is also the Infection Preventionist on record, they stated they have not been offering and keeping track of COVID-19 vaccines for staff and had problems with staffing, so have not gotten around to getting the COVID-19 status for staff. The Director of Nursing stated they got pulled from one project to the other and had not gotten back to organize the offering of COVID-19 vaccines for staff. I do not have any staff declination forms for the COVID-19 vaccine to show you. 10NYCRR 483.70(1)
CONCERN (F) 📢 Someone Reported This

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

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

Deficiency F0837 (Tag F0837)

Could have caused harm · This affected most or all residents

Based on observation, record review, and interviews conducted during the recertification, abbreviated (NY00359302), and extended survey from 12/15/24 to 12/22/24 it was determined the facility did not...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, record review, and interviews conducted during the recertification, abbreviated (NY00359302), and extended survey from 12/15/24 to 12/22/24 it was determined the facility did not ensure a process or frequency for the reporting by the Administrator to the governing body. The method of communication was not documented, and the governing body failed to establish and implement procedures for a clear line of communication regarding the management and operation of the facility. Specifically, the facility failed to provide adequate supervision to prevent accidents from smoking for six residents who were known smokers. Several observations documented residents smoking on the patio and gazebo, despite the facility being a nonsmoking facility. A fire occurred on 11/1/24, on the patio due to a discarded cigarette butt. Findings include: The facility was cited under Tag F 689 at Immediate Jeopardy scope and severity J. The facility did not provide documented evidence of a Quality Assurance Performance Improvement plan or action to address identified issues related to smoking. The facility also did not have proper or thorough documentation or evidence of Quality Assurance Performance Improvement meetings to address residents smoking unsupervised on the patio and gazebo. During an interview on 12/15/24 at 10:30 AM, the Administrator stated that the facility was a non-smoking facility but acknowledged that residents smoked in the facility though their smoking was not in compliance with the facility's policies. The administrator stated that no Quality Assurance Performance Improvement meeting was held to address the issue of smoking, but that the residents that smoked were care planned for non-compliance. The Administrator stated that the patio and gazebo areas were unsupervised, and the residents could come and go at their discretion. The Administrator provided a list of 6 residents, resident #2, #6, #9, #29, #41, and #54 who were identified as smokers. During an interview with the Director of Nursing on 12/18/24 at 3:00 PM they stated that the facility is a non-smoking facility, that the residents that smoke have a non-compliance care plan, that they were not aware that the residents were smoking in their rooms, and that the smoking issue was not reported to the Quality Assurance/Performance Improvement committee. During an interview with the Medical Director on 12/22/24 at 1:00 PM they stated that they were not aware of residents smoking in the facility or that there had been a smoking related fire at the facility. The Medical Director stated that there were no agenda items related to smoking presented to the Quality Assurance/Performance Improvement committee. During an interview with the owner of the facility on 12/22/24 at 2:30 PM they stated that they were aware that residents smoke at the facility. The owner stated that the issue of smoking at the facility was not brought to the attention of the Quality Assurance/Performance Improvement committee. The owner added that they have some problematic residents which they have been trying to discharge. During a follow up interview on 12/22/24 at 4:00 PM the Administrator stated that the smoking issue was not brought to the attention of the Quality Assurance/Performance Improvement committee. 10NYCRR 415.26(b)(3)(1)
CONCERN (F)

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

Deficiency F0887 (Tag F0887)

Could have caused harm · This affected most or all residents

Based on interview and record review during the recertification survey conducted 12/15/24-12/22/24, the facility did not ensure each staff member was screened, offered the COVID-19 vaccine, and provid...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on interview and record review during the recertification survey conducted 12/15/24-12/22/24, the facility did not ensure each staff member was screened, offered the COVID-19 vaccine, and provided education regarding the benefits, risks and potential side effects associated with the vaccine for 10 of 10 staff reviewed for COVID vaccines. Specifically, there was no documented evidence of immunization records for COVID-19 vaccine for Registered Nurse Supervisor #2, Receptionist #3, Licensed Practical Nurse # 21 Certified Nurse Aid #9#22, #23,#24, Physical Therapist #25, [NAME] #26 and Maintenance staff #27. Findings include: The facility policy titled COVID-19 Vaccination for Residents and Staff dated 5/15/2021 documented the purpose of COVID-19 vaccination is to minimize the risk of acquiring, transmitting, or experiencing complications from COVID-19 by offering residents and staff members immunization to COVID-19. Before offering COVID-19 vaccine all staff members are provided education regarding the benefits and risks and potential side effects associated with the vaccine. Dear Administrator Letter dated 9/13/2023 documents: The purpose of this letter is to remind nursing homes of the expectation that they exercise diligence, act proactively and document efforts to ensure that all residents and staff who are eligible and consent to COVID-19 vaccination remain up to date with all Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) recommended COVID -19 vaccine doses. In addition, consistent with regulation nursing homes must: 1) Offer all consenting, unvaccinated existing personnel and residents an opportunity to receive the first or any recommended next or booster dose of the COVID-19 vaccine. (10NYCRR:66-4.1(a) 2) Ensure that all new personnel, including employees and contract staff, and every new resident and resident readmitted to the nursing home, has an opportunity to receive the first or any recommended next or booster dose of the COVID-19 vaccine within fourteen days of having been hired by or admitted or readmitted to the nursing home. (10NYCRR:66-4.1(b) 3) Provide all personnel and residents who decline to be vaccinated a written affirmation for their signature, which indicates that they were offered the opportunity for a COVID-19 vaccination but declined. Such affirmation must state that the signatory is aware that, if they later decide to be vaccinated for COVID-19, it is their responsibility to request vaccination from the facility. The facility shall maintain signed affirmations on file at the facility and make such forms available at the request of the Department. (10NYCRR:66 4.1(c)(2) There was no documented evidence the facility had documentation of screening, education offering, current COVID-19 vaccine booster status or a signed declination form from: Registered Nurse Supervisor #2, Receptionist #3, Licensed Practical Nurse # 21 Certified Nurse Aid #9 #22, #23,#24, Physical Therapist #25, [NAME] #26 and Maintenance staff #27. During an interview on 12/20/24 at 3:21 PM with the Director of Nursing who is also the Infection Preventionist on record, they stated they have not been offering and keeping track of COVID-19 vaccines for staff and had problems with staffing, so have not gotten around to getting the COVID-19 status for staff. The Director of Nursing stated they got pulled from one project to the other and had not gotten back to organize the offering of COVID-19 vaccines for staff. I do not have any staff declination forms for the COVID-19 vaccine to show you. 10NYCRR 415.19 (a)(1-3)
Apr 2024 2 deficiencies
CONCERN (D) 📢 Someone Reported This

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

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

Assessment Accuracy (Tag F0641)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review and interviews during an abbreviated survey (NY00335594), the facility did not ensure the Minimum Data Se...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review and interviews during an abbreviated survey (NY00335594), the facility did not ensure the Minimum Data Set (an assessment tool) accurately reflected the resident's status for 1 (Resident#1) out of 3 residents reviewed. Specifically, Resident #1's Quarterly Minimum Data Set, dated [DATE] had no documented evidence of the resident's rejection of care, having a pressure ulcer, and complaints of occasional mild pain. Findings include: Resident #1 had diagnoses that included non-pressure ulcer other part of the right foot with fat layer exposed, cellulitis, other chronic pain, lymphedema, depression, opioid dependence in remission, muscle weakness and osteomyelitis. Review of the Quarterly Minimum Data Set, dated [DATE] documented in Section E0800 (titled Rejection of care presence and frequency) revealed that the resident did not exhibit the behavior of rejection of care that is necessary to achieve goals for health and wellbeing, such as assistance with activities of daily living. Staff assessment for pain Sections J0800 and J0850 revealed that the resident had no documented indicators of pain in the last 5 days. Section M0210 revealed that the resident did not have any unhealed pressure ulcers and Section M300 had no documented skin conditions. A behavior care plan dated 8/9/2023 and last updated 3/7/2024 documented Resident #1 does not allow staff to change their adult depends, refuses daily showers, and refuses to have their leg and foot assessed and cleaned. The Social Worker and staff will continue to educate and encourage, to assist the staff with their cares by being willing to care for themself. A risk for pain care plan dated 7/31/2020 and last revised 3/7/2024 documented the resident is at risk for alteration in comfort due to pain, related to chronic pain and lymphedema diagnoses. A pain assessment dated [DATE] documented, Resident #1 had mild occasional pain. During an interview on 3/28/2024 at 10:50 AM, the Minimum Data Set Coordinator stated they are responsible for updating the Minimum Data Sets and that the Sigma care (an electronic medical system) notifies them when someone is due for the Minimum Data Set, then they schedule it. The Minimum Data Set coordinator stated once the assessment is scheduled, the corresponding sections will be ready to be completed by the appropriate staff. The Minimum Data Set coordinator stated Sections C, D, E and Q are completed by Social Services; Section K is the dietary section and is completed by the dietician. The Minimum Data Set coordinator stated during morning report any issues with residents are discussed and they also use that information during the 7-day look back to complete the Minimum Data Set. During an interview on 3/29/2024 at 12:20 PM, the Social Service Director stated their responsibility on the Minimum Data Set is the resident assessment, for which they conduct an interview and complete the behavior/mood assessment. If the resident provides them with this information, they will review the progress notes and interview staff to obtain the details. The Social Service Director stated Resident #1 told them they were not allowing the staff to change their bandages. The Social Service Director stated they update the care plans along with the assessments and they try to review the care plans within 90 days. If there is no longer an issue in a certain area for the resident, the care plan will be discontinued. If the resident meets a goal, the care plan is resolved.This process is new to them and they are trying to get better at it. During a follow up interview on 4/18/2024 at 10:10 AM, the Minimum Data Set coordinator stated they only review the Minimum Data Set sections that they complete, and they review the other sections of the Minimum Data Set to make sure they are completed. They stated there is no safeguard in place to ensure the other sections are completed accurately. All sections of the Minimum Data Set should be accurate as staff members receive training on how to complete the sections. The Minimum Data Set Coordinator stated if the resident does have behaviors, nursing or social work should be entering this in their notes. The Minimum Data Set is coded incorrect based on the information available. The Minimum Data Set Coordinator stated all the staff knew Resident #1 constantly refused cares but if there is no documentation then they cannot code that in the Minimum Data Set. The Minimum Data Set coordinator reviewed Resident #1's record and stated there is a wound care note documenting a refusal on 12/20/2023, and this would support the rejection of care section in the Minimum Data Set. They stated they will review and make this correction to the 12/22/2023 Minimum Data Set now. Further review of Resident #1's record by the Minimum Data Set coordinator revealed documentation on 12/13/2023 of a non-pressure wound Stage 3, and they stated this should have been coded in the Minimum Data Set assessment. The Minimum Data Set coordinator stated this was out of the look back period of 7 days, but it should have been coded as Resident #1 was receiving treatment. They stated the Treatment Administration Record does not reflect the wound treatment clearly so they will go back and review the orders. 10NYCRR 415.11(b)
CONCERN (D) 📢 Someone Reported This

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

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

Deficiency F0657 (Tag F0657)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on record review and interviews conducted during an abbreviated survey (NY0035594), the facility did not ensure comprehensive care plans were reviewed/updated quarterly and as needed in a timely...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on record review and interviews conducted during an abbreviated survey (NY0035594), the facility did not ensure comprehensive care plans were reviewed/updated quarterly and as needed in a timely manner. This was evident for 1 (Resident #1) out of 3 residents reviewed for care planning. Specifically, Resident # 1's Care Plans for Pain, Osteomyelitis, Lymphedema, Pressure Ulcer, and Behavior were not updated quarterly and after a comprehensive assessment. Findings include: The facility care plan policy last reviewed on 3/4/24 documented comprehensive care plans (CCP) must be updated quarterly, annually and upon readmission, and with a significant change of condition. Resident #1 had diagnoses that included non-pressure ulcer other part right foot with fat layer exposed, cellulitis, other chronic pain, lymphedema, depression, opioid dependence in remission, muscle weakness and osteomyelitis. Review of the quarterly Minimum Data Set (an assessment tool) dated 12/22/2023 documented a score of 13/15 denoting intact cognition, impairment on both side of upper and lower extremities. Requires set-up assistance for eating and is dependent for toileting, bed mobility and transfers. Resident is always incontinent of bladder and occasionally incontinent of bowel. Resident is at risk for pressure ulcers, pressure reducing device in chair and bed. Application of non-surgical dressing other than to feet and ointments/medications applied other than to feet. Review of a care plan dated 3/30/20 and last updated on 9/11/23 documented that the resident had an Infection, Chronic Osteomyelitis, resident has dx of chronic osteomyelitis, and is currently receiving long-term oral doxycycline. Review of a care plan dated 7/31/20 and last revised 3/7/2024 documented that the resident was at risk for pain and at risk for alteration in comfort due to pain related to chronic pain and lymphedema. Review of a care plan dated 9/6/21 and last revised 8/9/2023 documented that the resident had a behavior of non-compliance with cares and medications, problem resists care for showering and bathing despite education, refuses to get into their bed and will sleep in their wheelchair, refuses to elevate legs secondary to bilateral lower extremity edema, refuses morning medications. The Resident refuses showering despite education and interdisciplinary (IDT) interventions. The Resident prefers only bed baths. The education of benefits of showering as opposed to bed baths. Per their request they will be given bed baths unless they request different. Review of a care plan dated 8/9/2023 and last updated 3/7/2024 documented behaviors, problem, resident does not allow staff to change their adult depends, refuses daily showers, refuses to have their leg and foot assessed and cleaned. The Social Worker and staff will continue to educate and encourage to assist the staff with their cares by being willing to care for themself. Review of a care plan dated 12/3/23 last updated on 3/7/24 documented, Edema/history of lymphedema- Resident presents with a PMH of edema of Lymphedema, which may cause edema/ increased swelling to arms and legs, placing him at risk for adverse event including compromise to skin, fluid overload and cellulitis. Review of a care plan dated 12/3/23 last updated on 3/7/24 documented, Edema/hx of lymphedema- Resident presents with a PMH of edema of Lymphedema, which may cause edema/ increased swelling to arms and legs, placing him at risk for adverse event including compromise to skin, fluid overload and cellulitis. Review of a care plan dated 7/18/23 last updated on 3/7/24 documented presence of pressure ulcer resident has a skin breakdown as evidenced by (breakdown to both upper thigh/posterior/Bilateral lower extremity). Further review of the behavior care plans revealed there were no interventions documented for the behaviors identified. During an interview on 3/14/2024 at 2:50 pm the Director of Nursing stated the Registered Nurses on the unit are responsible for updating the care plans, they are supposed to be updated on a quarterly basis. Stated prior to having adequate registered nurse staff on the units, due to staffing issues, the registered nurse supervisors were to update the care plans for the residents. During an interview on 3/14/2024 at 3:10 PM Staff #4 (Licensed Practical Nurse unit manager-1st floor) stated the care plans are updated on the unit by both unit managers (Licensed Practical Nurse and Registered Nurse unit manager). Stated the system gives them an alert in red or green, meaning due or overdue. If it does not get done in time the alert will go to the red side meaning, get it done now. During an interview on 3/14/2024 at 3:15 PM Staff #5 (Registered Nurse unit manager-1st floor)-stated the care plans are due quarterly or annually for residents that have been here for some time. Stated for new admissions the care plans are updated within 5 days after their admission. On our dashboard in the system, we get notices that the care plans are due, they are either in red or green, green meaning it is due or red meaning it is overdue. During a follow up interview on 3/14/2024 at 4 pm the Director of Nursing stated the dates shown for the care plans are the only dates they were reviewed. 10NYCRR 415.11(c)(2)(i-iii)
May 2023 1 deficiency
CONCERN (D) 📢 Someone Reported This

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

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

Quality of Care (Tag F0684)

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 an abbreviated survey (NY00311935), the facility did not ens...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview, and record review conducted during an abbreviated survey (NY00311935), the facility did not ensure a resident received treatment and care in accordance with professional standards of practice necessary to maintain or improve the resident's highest practicable physical, mental, and psycho-social well-being. This was evident for 1 of 3 residents (Resident #1) reviewed for quality of care. Specifically, it cannot be determined that Resident #1 who had a deteriorating pressure ulcer of the right heel was assessed weekly by a qualified professional between 9/29/22 and 11/23/22. In addition, there was no evidence that the physician was notified of the deteriorating status of the wound, or any new interventions were applied to stabilize the pressure ulcer during this period. The findings are: The facility Policy and Procedure titled Administration of Treatments with a revision date of 5/30/2022 documented the purpose of the policy is to provide proper and timely care to residents in keeping with accepted nursing practice. Nurses should document in Nurse's Notes when treatments are done, result of treatment, how resident tolerated treatment. Resident #1 was first admitted to the facility on [DATE] and had diagnoses which included but not limited to type 2 diabetes mellitus with diabetic neuropathy, chronic atrial fibrillation, and hypertension. Review of the admission Minimum Data Set (MDS - a resident assessment tool) dated 7/13/22 documented Resident #1 had a BIMS score of 9, indicating moderate cognition impairment. Resident #1 required two-person physical extensive assist for bed mobility and toileting. Resident #1 was at risk for developing pressure ulcers, had 1 unhealed pressure ulcer, had 2 unstageable pressure injuries presenting as deep tissue injury (DTI), and had Moisture Associated Skin Damage (MASD). The Braden assessment dated [DATE] documented Resident #1 was at mild risk (17) for pressure ulcers. Review of [NAME] Wound Physicians progress note dated 9/21/22 documented Resident #1 wound size 1.5 x 2.0 x Not Measurable cm. Resident #1 was not seen on 9/28/22 due to hospitalization for Covid. Resident #1 returned to the facility on 9/29/22. There were no weekly wound care progress notes between 9/29/22 and 11/23/22. Review of wound physician progress note dated 11/23/22 documented Resident #1 wound as unstageable DTI of the right heel full thickness. Wound size was 5.5 x 6.4 x Not Measurable cm and assessed with thick adherent black necrotic tissue (eschar) 100%. Wound progress was noted as deteriorated. Review of the facility Wound Round log for dates 10/17/22, 10/24/22, 11/4/22, and 11/18/22 documented wound progress as not improving. There was no log documented for 11/11/22. There is no documented evidence of who assessed the resident, any changes made in treatment to address deterioration, and if the MD was notified of the condition of the wound Review of the October 2022 and November 2022 Treatment Administration Record (TAR) documented no evidence that changes were made to pressure ulcer treatment. Review of Pressure Ulcer/Injury Comprehensive Care Plan (CCP) dated 7/26/22 documented Resident #1 was at risk for skin breakdown. Resident #1 will be maintained with current skin integrity as evidenced by freedom from skin breakdown. Treatment Interventions included Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA) evaluation of skin condition daily during care, off load extremities, and provide incontinent care. The care plan did not address the wound care consult treatment recommendations. During an interview on 5/18 at 12:46 PM, the administrator stated if the resident was not seen by the wound care physician it may have been due to Covid. However, there is no evidence in the EMR that the resident had Covid during this period. During an interview conducted with the Unit Manager (UM) on 5/18/23 at 12:47 PM, UM stated they could not find any documentation regarding Resident #1 having covid after 10/12/22. Resident #1 was on quarantine following hospitalization from 9/29/22 to 10/12/22. As per the UM, residents should still be assessed by an RN or physician weekly even if they have tested positive for COVID. During a follow up interview on 5/19/23 at 8:44 AM, UM confirmed there are no progress notes in the medical record written by RN or NP measuring wound size and documenting condition of wound. There are also no progress notes informing MD that the condition of the wound worsened. During a follow up interview conducted with the UM on 5/25/23 at 11:52 AM, the UM stated the floor nurses are responsible for completing the Wound Round Progress log. The floor nurse also assesses the wound with the wound care doctor. However, there were no physician notes to corroborate the dates of the Wound Round Progress logs on (10/17/22, 10/24/22, 11/4/22 amd 11/18/22) completed for Resident#1. 483.25 (b)(1)
May 2023 1 deficiency
CONCERN (D) 📢 Someone Reported This

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

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

ADL Care (Tag F0677)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview, and record review conducted during an abbreviated survey (NY000311884), the facility did not en...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview, and record review conducted during an abbreviated survey (NY000311884), the facility did not ensure a resident who was unable to carry out activities of daily living (ADLs) received the necessary services to maintain personal hygiene. This was evident for 1 of 10 residents (Resident#2) reviewed for ADL's. Specifically, Resident #2 was observed lying in a heavily saturated adult brief on 05/01/2023 at 2:45pm. The Certified Nurse Aide (CNA#1) assigned stated that they had not changed resident#1 since the beginning of their shift. CNA #1' shift began at 7 AM on 05/01/2023. Resident #2 reported that they had not been changed for several hours. The findings are: The facility Policy and Procedure titled Safe Staffing Standards with a revision date of 08/09/2022 documented CNA's are available on each shift to provide the needed care and services of each resident as outlined on the resident's comprehensive care plan. Resident #2 was readmitted to the facility on [DATE] and had diagnoses which included bipolar disorder, anxiety disorder, and multiple sclerosis. Review of the Quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS - a resident assessment tool) dated 01/20/2023 documented resident #2 had a BIMS score of 15, indicating no cognition impairment. Resident #2 required one-person physical extensive assist for bed mobility, transfers, and toileting. Review of the ADL Comprehensive Care Plan (CCP) dated 04/27/2022 documented resident #2 had self-care deficit in bed mobility, transfers, and toileting related to cognitive status and multiple sclerosis requiring daily support of staff. Resident #2 will be maintained at optimal hygienic cleanliness as evidenced by freedom from odor, soil, and wetness daily. Interventions included staff to complete cares as needed. Review of the Continence Bladder and Bowel CCP dated 04/19/2022 documented resident is incontinence of bladder and bowel related to multiple sclerosis. Resident #2 will be kept clean and comfortable. Interventions included provide assistance with toileting. During an observation conducted on 05/01/2023 at 2:13 PM, upon entering resident #2's room a pungent smell of urine was noted immediately. Resident #2 was observed with thick/soaked incontinent brief (jelly like appearance) with a blue line indicating they were very wet. Resident #2 stated they were feeling uncomfortable, and no one had come in to change them for several hours. During an observation on 05/01/2023 at 2:54 PM, CNA #1 was observed providing incontinence care to resident #2 at 2:54 PM, after interview with surveyor. During an interview on 05/01/2023 at 2:42 PM, CNA #1 stated they were assigned to provide cares to resident #2 during the 7 AM to 3 PM shift. When asked when was the last time the resident was changed, CNA #2 responded they had not changed resident #2 during their shift. CNA #2 stated they were heading to change the resident but saw they have been interviewed by the surveyor and did not want to interrupt. CNA #1 stated resident #2 did not refuse cares today. CNA #1 stated residents should be changed every 2 hrs. and as needed. CNA #1 could not provide an explanation as to why they had not changed the resident since 7 AM. During an interview on 05/01/2023 at 3:28 PM, the Unit Manager (UM) stated nurses are responsible for ensuring the CNAs are completing their tasks. The UM stated leaving a resident to sit in urine is an issue. The only way a resident is not changed is if the resident is stating they don't want to be touched. If a resident refuses, staff should continue to attempt or have another staff attempt. A resident should not be left sitting in urine for long periods. During an interview on 05/01/2023 at 4:04 PM, LPN #2 stated nurses are responsible for overseeing the CNAs. CNAs should communicate with the nurse if they are unable to complete a task. LPN #2 stated the original assigned floor nurse left at 2 PM and they were covering the remainder of the shift. LPN #2 was not aware resident #2 had not been changed for several hours. LPN #2 state no resident should be left to sit in urine. During an interview on 05/10/2023 at 11:34 AM, the Nurse Practitioner (NP) stated that residents should not sit in a wet brief for long periods. Residents should be changed when soiled, at least once per shift. For a resident who is not mobile, the urine tends to sit longer in the bladder which can cause an infection. Urinary Tract Infection (UTI) can develop if there is a bacteria overgrowth. NP did not confirm if soiled adult briefs could contribute to a UTI stating there are various reasons for a UTI to develop. 415.12 (a)(3)
Apr 2022 8 deficiencies
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0558 (Tag F0558)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on observation, record review and interview conducted during a recertification survey 4/18/2022-4/29/2022, the facility did not ensure residents who were unable to carry out activities of daily ...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, record review and interview conducted during a recertification survey 4/18/2022-4/29/2022, the facility did not ensure residents who were unable to carry out activities of daily living (ADLs) received the necessary services/ equipment for 1 of 6 residents (Resident #90) reviewed for ADLs. Specifically, for Resident #90, who was dependent on staff for Activities of Living (ADL) care (transfer) the facility did not ensure the resident was transferred out of bed in a timely manner with the use of a Hoyer lift in accordance with the resident's preference. The Findings Are: The Policy and Procedure titled AM and PM Care dated 6/2021, documented unless restricted by doctor's orders, all residents must be up and out of bed each day as much as allowed by medical condition. All necessary equipment needed to care for each resident should be readily available on the nursing unit. Resident #90 was admitted to facility on 3/10/20 with a diagnosis of Chronic Pain, Lymphedema, Muscle Weakness. The Quarterly 3/23/22 Minimum Data Set (MDS) documented the Resident had a Brief Interview of Mental Status (BIMS) of 11 and is able to communicate his needs. Resident received extensive assist with ADL's. Review of Physician Orders dated 1/19/21 documented transfer via hoyer lift with 2 person assist. The Comprehensive Care Plan (CCP) for ADL Function, last reviewed 3/23/2020, documented resident has self-care deficits in the following areas: transfer, toilet use requiring daily support. During an interview with Resident #90 on 4/21/22 at 9:48 AM, they stated they wanted to get out of bed today but were told there were no Hoyer pads. During an observation on 4/21/22 at 9:49 AM, Resident #90 pressed the call bell and Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA #12) responded. The Resident was observed asking to get out of bed. CNA #12 stated they would find the Residents assigned CNA #1 and let them know the Resident wanted to get out of bed. During an interview on 4/21/22 at 11:20 AM, Resident #90 stated they were just taken out of bed via hoyer lift. During an interview with the Registered Nurse (RN) #1 on 4/21/22 at 1:05 PM, RN #1 stated that they were sorry it took so long for Resident #90 to get out of bed. RN #1 stated when they went to get Hoyer pads there were 6 Hoyer pads downstairs in housekeeping and the housekeeping staff said nobody had come down at all to pick up a hoyer pad. RN #1 brought Hoyer pads to the unit and proceeded to get Resident #90 out of bed. During an interview with Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA) #12 on 4/22/22 at 1:30 PM, CNA #12 stated when they went into Resident #90's room and the resident requested to get out of bed, CNA #12 informed the Resident they would tell the assigned CNA #1. CNA #12 stated they went to find assigned CNA #1 who was by the shower room with another resident. CNA #12 stated the assigned CNA #1 stated they would go get a Hoyer pad and get the Resident out of bed. CNA #12 stated they do not know what happened after that.
CONCERN (D)

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

Quality of Care (Tag F0684)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview and record review conducted during a recertification survey and abbreviated survey (NY00289709),...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview and record review conducted during a recertification survey and abbreviated survey (NY00289709), conducted 4/18/2022-4/29/2022, the facility did not ensure that the necessary care and services were provided to promote the highest practicable well-being for 1 of 6 residents (resident #109) reviewed for non pressure related skin ulcer/wound and 1 of 5 residents (Resident #112) reviewed for accidents. Specifically, 1. heel booties were not applied as per physician order for a resident at high risk for skin breakdown (#109) 2. the facility did not ensure ongoing monitoring was provided for ( R#112) to ensure timely medical intervention and or hospitalization following a fall. The findings are: Resident # 109 was admitted to facility 6/4/2021 with diagnoses including of Diabetes Mellitus II, Osteoarthritis, and Dementia, required extensive assist of 2 for bed mobility, bathing and dressing and an extensive assist of 2 with Hoyer for transfers The 2/26/22 Quarterly Minimum Data Set (a resident assessment and screening tool) documented the resident scored 0 out of 15 on the Brief Interview of Mental Status (a test used to measure orientation and memory recall) indicating he had a severe cognitive deficit. Review of 4/14/2022 physician's order documented ensure heel booties are in place every shift. Resident #109 was observed on 4/26/22 at 4:35 PM and 4/27/22 at 9:00AM in their room in bed laying down leaning to the right side with no pillows or heel booties to offload heels On 4/28/22 at 1:50 PM resident observed in the dining room in a geri chair with neck collar on leaning to right side with head leaning forward, resident heels were not offloaded with pillow. No heel booties in place. On 4/28/22 at 5:34 PM resident observed in dining room in geri chair with neck collar, in a crunched forward position and heels were not offloaded with pillow. No heel booties in place. Review of the April 2022 Treatment Administration Record (TAR) revealed nursing staff signed that the heel booties were in place on 4/26/22 all shifts, 4/27/22 all shifts, and 4/28/22 all shifts. Assigned CNA #10 interviewed on 04/29/22 at 09:19 AM Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA #10) stated the resident had heel booties and the hospice staff removed them. CNA #10 stated the heel booties are in the room but not on him. During an interview with Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) #8 on 04/29/22 at 09:28 AM, LPN #8 stated CNA #13 removed the booties because they were heavy and looked uncomfortable for the resident. LPN #8 stated they were unable to clarify if removing the heel booties was a new order from hospice. During an interview with LPN #7 on 04/29/22 at 03:09 PM, LPN #7 stated they documented in the TAR on 4/26/22 and 4/2722 that booties were on. LPN #7 stated on the 4/26/22 they saw them on resident #109 at about 9AM and on 4/27/22 cannot determine what time they saw them on. LPN #7 stated they were unaware of any changes with removing the heel booties or the order for the booties. LPN #7 stated hospice nurse would usually communicate to unit nurse of any changes but did not receive any communication about removal of the heel booties. 2. The Policy and Procedure titled Accident Incident Report dated 4/2021 documented it is the purpose to investigate and document all accidents incidents and develop corrective measures to prevent recurrence. Resident # 112 had diagnoses including but not limited to Morbid Obesity, Hemiplegia following Cerebral Infarction and Diabetes Mellitus. The Minimum data set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] documented a Brief interview for mental status (BIMS) score of 3 (Severe Cognitive impairment). Bed Mobility extensive assist with two person's physical assist. Transfer total assist with two-person physical assist using a mechanical lift A Comprehensive Care Plan (CCP) titled Risk for falls initiated 7/12/2018 documented fall risk score 24 Interventions call bell in reach, concave mattress in place to bed, ensure a safe clutter free environment. Review of a statement written by Registered Nurse (RN#1) documented on 1/9/2022 they were told Resident #112 was hanging off the bed, legs dangling, upper body still in bed. Resident was lowered to the floor returned to bed with Hoyer lift. A subsequent statement written by RN#1 documented on 1/9/2022 resident was found on the bedroom floor. Resident was on the bedroom floor Resident was assessed at present and had no pain no bruising all Range of Motion (ROM) Within Normal Limits (WNL), transferred to bed with Hoyer. Between 1/9/2022 and 1/14/2022 there was no documented evidence in the electronic medical record (EMR) that the resident sustained a fall on 1/9/22, that staff conducted post fall monitoring. No documented evidence the physician was notified regarding the fall. No documented evidence the resident's family was notified regarding the fall. The facility did not complete an incident and accident investigation at the time of the fall. On 4/25/22 at 5:00 pm, an interview was conducted with Registered Nurse (RN#1). They stated Licensed Practical Nurse LPN #2 was the supervisor on the night of the fall. While on unit #1 RN #1 was notified that a resident on unit #2 had a fall. Upon entry to the room the resident was on the floor, They conducted an assessment and with assistance the resident was transferred back to bed via hoyer lift. RN # 1 stated they wrote a statement and gave it to LPN#2, and that LPN #2 should have called the physician, family, and DNS. RN #1 stated LPN #2 was responsible for completing the incident report. RN #1 stated they checked on Resident #112 in the days after the fall, checked her skin and assessed the resident for pain but could not provide documentation to support the above. During an interview with the Medical Director on 4/21/2022 at 1:30pm, the Medical Director stated if they or the Nurse Practitioner was notified of a fall the resident would have been seen the following day and a progress note written. 415.12
CONCERN (E)

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

Resident Rights (Tag F0550)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

Based on observations and staff interviews conducted during a recertification survey 4/18/2022-4/29/2022, the facility did not ensure that each resident was provided with a dignified dining experience...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observations and staff interviews conducted during a recertification survey 4/18/2022-4/29/2022, the facility did not ensure that each resident was provided with a dignified dining experience, specifically, staff did not provide lunch meal trays in a timely manner for five residents (Residents # 32, #59, #44, #31, and #91). Specifically, the residents were not provided their lunch meal trays at the same time as their tablemates. The findings are: The facility policy and procedure titled Meals-Food Service updated 8/21 documents that unit managers will provide seating chart to dietary to ensure meals are served orderly and grouped together by room and/or dining room if resident eats in dining room by table. Staff to serve all residents seated in a group before moving to another table. The facility policy and procedure titled Dining Room revised 2/2022 documents that residents will be seated according to the seating plan in the dining area. Observations were made on 4/19/2022 and on 4/21/2022 during lunchtime in the second-floor dining room: On 4/19/2021 at 12:00 PM, observation revealed Resident #32 and Resident #59 waiting for their meal trays while their tablemates were already eating. At 12:12 PM, Resident # 59 received a tray. At 12:19 PM, observation revealed Resident #32 attempting to grab tablemate Resident #2's tray. At 12:20 PM, Resident #32 received a tray. On 4/21/22 at 12:00 PM, observation revealed Resident #44 and Resident #31 eating lunch but their tablemate Resident #23 did not get a tray until 12:22 PM. On 4/21/22 at 12:02 PM, observation revealed Resident #102 received a tray but tablemate Resident #91 did not get a tray until 12:28 PM. On 4/21/22 at 6:00 PM, an interview was conducted with LPN #1, who stated they send the trucks up from the kitchen by hallway (or district). They stated before COVID they used to bring dining room trays on one dining room cart. They stated they should have brought up the issue directly to the director of dietary, but they didn't. On 4/28/22 at 12:00 PM, an interview was conducted with the Food Services Director. They stated that this week the second-floor unit manager emailed a list of residents whose trays should be delivered directly to the dining room, and that they were working on it. On 4/27/22 at 1:00 PM, an interview was conducted with LPN #5 who was previously the second-floor unit manager in November and December of 2021. They stated that in November and December, the dining room was used inconsistently, and at times only a few residents ate there. They stated that in November and December, the staff used to seat residents at tables by hall, so their trays came up at the same time, or seated them at individual tables. They stated if there had been a consistently large number of residents eating in the dining room, they would have contacted the director of food services to send trays directly to the dining room for those residents who wanted to eat in the dining room. On 4/27/22 at 1:30 PM, an interview was conducted with the Director of Nursing (DON). They stated that prior to COVID, for residents who ate in the dining room, their trays used to come on one truck to the dining room but that during COVID outbreaks, most of the residents ate in their rooms. They stated that the last COVID outbreak was November 3, 2021, and they resumed communal dining on November 18th, 2021. They stated it is the unit manager's responsibility to communicate with the director of food services. 415.5(a)(b) (1-3)
CONCERN (E)

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

Investigate Abuse (Tag F0610)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review, observation, and interviews conducted during Recertification Survey and Abbreviated Survey (NY00288478) ...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review, observation, and interviews conducted during Recertification Survey and Abbreviated Survey (NY00288478) and (NY00292194) from 4/18/2022-4/29/2022, it cannot be ensured that the facility thoroughly conducted and completed an investigation to rule out abuse, neglect, and mistreatment for 1 of 5 residents (#275) reviewed for abuse and 1 of 5 residents (#112) reviewed for accidents Specifically, 1.a thorough Accident/Incident Investigation was not conducted for Resident #275 with a reported allegation of abuse and 2. a thorough Accident/Incident Investigation was not conducted for Resident # 112 with a Left Femur Fracture. The findings are: The facility Accident and Incident Reporting Policy dated 4/7/2021 is the policy of [NAME] Hall Rehabilitation Center to promote and maintain a safe environment, and to maintain reports and surveillance of all resident's accidents and incidents. The purpose of the policy is to investigate all accidents and incidents and develop corrective measures to prevent recurrence. After accident or incident, the Nursing Supervisor will initiate an investigation as to the cause of the unusual event, with immediate intervention to prevent re-occurrence and with documentation in the resident's care plan. Should further interventions be necessary, they will be added as needed. 1.Resident #275 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses of encephalopathy, COPD, Aphasia, Mild Protein-Calorie Malnutrition, Epilepsy, Chronic Pain. Review of 5-day MDS (Minimum Data Set) dated 12/13/2021 documented resident #275 had a BIMS score of 9, indicating a moderate cognitive impairment. Resident required extensive assist of 2 for transfers, bed mobility and toileting. Review of the Internal Investigation. dated 12/23/2021 documented resident sent to hospital to rule out deep vein thrombosis of her left lower extremity, while in emergency room noted with small amount of dried blood on corner of mouth and stated she was struck in the face. Internal investigation documented part of the immediate action was to call hospital, interview facility staff, and interview daughter. The Internal Investigation included only one statement in the investigation from LPN #3 and no additional statements. Documentation did not include evidence that the daughter and hospital were interviewed. The Internal Investigation conclusion documented the facility ruled out abuse but did not have a completed by signature/completion date. The facility did not provide written documented evidence that interviews and/or statements were obtained from staff who were assigned to care for the resident prior to the 12/2021 allegation. Review of Aggression Care Plan dated 4/21/2020 documented resident has displayed aggressive physical behavior toward staff, creating risk for injury to others and the Abuse Care Plan dated 3/17/2021 documented resident is at risk for abuse; monitor skin changes and report all to nursing supervisor every shift. Review of Nursing Progress note dated 12/23/2021 documents resident sent to hospital on [DATE] for evaluation, left toe infection, left foot gangrene Review of the 12/23/2021 Nursing Progress note late entry for 12/22/2021 documented resident seen by wound care doctor for wound rounds. Areas to left heel and great toe worsened, with increase in size old eschar. Resident complaint of (c/o) pain to left lower extremity when touched. Resident continue to decline to take her routine medication to include Eliquis, despite encouragement. Resident noted with ecchymotic areas to her upper extremity areas. During an interview with the Assistant Administrator on 04/27/202222 at 12:35 PM, The AA stated she was unaware of abuse until hospital called and informed of blood in buccal cavity. While the resident was hospitalized all staff were interviewed. The AA stated the Resident's physician was notified of what transpired at the hospital and that the facility was conducting an investigation, but the AA stated the physician did not believe it was abuse but may have been related to the resident's mental status and confusion. During an interview with the Director of Nursing (DON) on 04/27/2022 at 01:14 PM, the DON stated the hospital reported to the nursing supervisor of what the hospital found (dry blood of the lip and arm bruises) The DON stated they did not recall the date but believed it was in the evening because they were home. The DON stated they notified the administrator, spoke to the supervisor and told the nurses to document what was observed prior to the resident going to the emergency room (ER). The DON stated the results of investigation were unfounded related to the resident not having a visible bleed prior to being sent to ER. The DON stated they were responsible for the completion of the Internal Investigation and were not sure why the facility only had one staff statement and thought there were more staff statements. The DON stated they must have forgotten to sign and date the Internal Investigation. 2. Resident #112 was admitted to facility 6/4/2021 with diagnoses of Diabetes II, Osteoarthritis, Venous Insufficiency, and Dementia. Review of the Quarterly MDS dated [DATE] documented the resident had severe cognitive deficit received extensive assist of 2 for bed mobility, and extensive assist of 2 with Hoyer for transfers. Review of the Internal Investigation dated 3/3/2022 documented the resident was sent to the emergency room for fever and lethargy, there was no history of falls. No signs or symptoms of pain or discomfort. Internal Investigation documented corrective action: admitted to hospital for left hip fracture repair, resident room will be located close to nursing station, referred resident for rehab services. Hospital paperwork documents: X ray revealed osteoarthritic changes to the hip joint, left femur neck fracture (hip fracture), notified family, on 3/7/2022 resident had Left hip hemiarthroplasty. The internal Investigation did not include a completed by signature or a completion date. There was no conclusion documented to rule out abuse or neglect. Review of 7/25/2021 Abuse Care Plan dated documented the resident is at risk for abuse secondary to dementia; monitor for skin changes and report all to nursing supervisor every shift. Review of the Fall Care Plan dated 3/25/2022 documented resident at high risk for falls related to incidence of fall in the past thirty (30) days and recent right hip fracture surgery; anticipate resident needs with regard to Activities of Daily Living (ADL's). Review of theNursing Progress note dated 3/3/2022 6:15 AM documented resident noted with elevated temp/fever, clammy skin, intermittent jerky movements, tachypnea, and lethargic at approximately 3:30 am. Acetaminophen 650 mg By mouth (po) as needed ( PRN) administered. Vital signs recorded: Temperature 101.2 ,SPo2 92%, Blood Pressure 117/80. Temperature monitored and noted not resolving. Physician notified with resident's symptoms and ordered transfer to the hospital for further evaluation. Mobile life called transport. Resident's Significant Other informed of same. Resident on a stretcher with 2 Emergency Medical Services (EMS) staff left facility 5:30 AM to hospital. Review of the Nursing Progress note dated 3/13/2022 documented resident readmitted to facility from previous Hospital admission on [DATE] for Left hip displacement femoral neck fracture. On 3/7/2022 resident had a Left hip hemiarthroplasty. Resident's incision site has 13 plastic staples, site is clean, dry and covered and dressing is clean, dry and intact. Resident has a stage 3 on his coccyx with treatment in place. Resident is alert and oriented x 0. Interview with Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN #3) on 04/28/2022 at 03:25 PM, LPN #3 stated resident #109 was sent to hospital on 3/2/2022 at around 3AM for fever, lethargy and stated when they followed with the hospital the hospital next morning, they were not notified of fracture but later the facility was notified by the hospital the resident had a fracture of the left hip. Prior to going to the hospital the resident had no signs of distress and no complaints of pain (no signs of facial grimacing or moaning or anything of that sort). LPN #3 stated they had no reports of incidents or falls. Nothing observable on the skin that would alert them of any incident. LPN #3 stated the resident was total assist with all cares LPN #3 stated they are unsure of why an Incident/Accident Investigation was not done, but stated because there was no reported incident prior to the resident going to hospital that could be the reason. LPN #3 stated she was informed to start an investigation and get statements. During an interview with DON on 04/27/22 at 4:55 PM there was a discussion about the investigation process revealed that DON stated they were responsible for the completion of Internal Investigation including the outcome of the investigation and a date and signature. The DON stated they did not document the outcome, or sign and date the investigative summary. The DON stated it is the facility internal investigative form and they must have forgotten. During an interview with Administrator on 04/27/22 at 5:08 PM, Administrator stated they have seen discrepancies with the investigative process for incidents and accidents. The Administrator stated they were unsure why certain investigations were completed thoroughly and why some were not. The Administrator stated when they observe discrepancies with the Incident/Accident process, they have given the investigation back to be completed more thoroughly and get more statements as needed. 483.12(c)
CONCERN (F)

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

Food Safety (Tag F0812)

Could have caused harm · This affected most or all residents

Based on observation and interview conducted during a recertification survey from 4/18/2022 to 4/29/2022, the facility did not ensure that food was stored and prepared in a manner to prevent contamina...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation and interview conducted during a recertification survey from 4/18/2022 to 4/29/2022, the facility did not ensure that food was stored and prepared in a manner to prevent contamination. Specifically, undated rice and pastrami and a platter of cooked turkey were observed in the kitchen walk- in refrigerator and uncooked shrimp was observed being thawed in the sink in an unapproved manner. The findings are: The Facility policy and procedure titled Food Preparation, which is undated documents that foods are stored and properly labeled, and food removed from the freezer for thawing should be thawed under cold running water. During a kitchen tour on 4/18/22 at 10:00 am, undated rice, pastrami, and a platter of cooked turkey were observed in the walk- in refrigerator in the kitchen, and uncooked shrimp was observed being thawed in an unapproved manner. During a follow-up kitchen tour on 4/21/22 at 12:00 pm, a metal container with cooked rice was undated, a metal container with pastrami was undated, a platter of turkey was in the walk-in refrigerator and had no date, and five packages of shrimp were thawing in the sink. On 4/21/22 at 12:00 pm, an interview was conducted with the Food Service Manager, who stated the rice, pastrami and turkey should be dated, and stated the shrimp should be thawed under running cold water. On 4/21/22 at 12:10 pm, an interview was conducted with the cook who stated it is their personal turkey and they forgot it. 415.14
CONCERN (F)

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

Infection Control (Tag F0880)

Could have caused harm · This affected most or all residents

Based on observation and staff interviews conducted during a recertification survey 4/18/2022-4/29/2022, the facility did not ensure that it maintained an infection prevention and control program desi...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation and staff interviews conducted during a recertification survey 4/18/2022-4/29/2022, the facility did not ensure that it maintained an infection prevention and control program designed to provide a safe, sanitary environment and to help prevent the development and transmission of communicable diseases and infections. Specifically, two (2) Certified Nursing Assistants (CNAs #1 and #10) were observed, not performing hand hygiene during the resident's lunch. The finding is: The facility policy and procedure titled Hand washing revised 2/2022 documented the facility objective is to protect and prevent cross infection to the residents through the removal of dirty and transient flora by becoming aware of and developing the skill needed to wash hands before and after feeding residents, and if hands are not visibly soiled to use an alcohol based rub, decontaminate hands before direct contact with patients and after contact with inanimate objects in the immediate vicinity of the patient. The facility policy and procedure titled Dining Room revised 2/2022 documented the procedure for the dining room includes staff is to follow infection control guidelines for hand washing and use disposable towelettes when necessary. On 4/19/22 at 12:00 PM in the 2nd floor dining room, Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA #1) was observed touching a stationary dining room chair, CNA #1 then proceeded to the nursing station to remove their jacket, CNA #1 then returned to the dining room, placed a barrier pad on the seat of a dining room chair, sat down and assisted Resident #50 with eating their lunch. At no time did CNA #1 perform hand hygiene On 4/19/22 at 12:24 PM in the 2nd floor dining room, CNA #10 was observed wheeling a resident into the dining room, adjusted their dining room stationary chair, sat down, and assisted resident # 61 with eating their lunch. At no time did CNA #10 perform hand hygiene. On 4/28/22 at 10:30 AM, an interview was conducted with CNA #10, who stated s/he was educated with the previous staff educator on hand washing and PPE/infection control practices including by written presentation and by performing a return demonstration. S/he stated s/he should wash or sanitize his/her hands before feeding a resident or handling a meal tray. On 4/29/22 at 12:25 PM, an interview was conducted with CNA #1, who stated s/he was in-serviced on infection control practices and hand washing including performing a return demonstration for hand washing on orientation when s/he was hired. S/he stated s/he should use new gloves for handing each resident's tray. 415.19 (b)(4)
CONCERN (F)

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

Deficiency F0888 (Tag F0888)

Could have caused harm · This affected most or all residents

Based on record review and interviews conducted during a recertification survey 4/18/2022-4/29/2022, the facility did not maintain an Infection Prevention and Control Program (IPCP) to ensure resident...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on record review and interviews conducted during a recertification survey 4/18/2022-4/29/2022, the facility did not maintain an Infection Prevention and Control Program (IPCP) to ensure residents' health and safety and to prevent the transmission of COVID-19 infection. Specifically, the facility did not obtain and maintain vaccination medical records of a newly hired staff prior to starting on 4/13/22. In addition, this staff was present in the facility on 4/14/22, 4/15/22, and 4/16/22 and worked in areas where residents were at high risk for exposure to COVID-19. The findings are: Review of the facility policy and procedure, titled, COVID-19 Vaccination-Residents and Personnel, dated 5/1521, documented the facility maintains documentation related to staff COVID-19 vaccination that includes at a minimum the following: Staff were provided education regarding the benefits and potential risks associated with COVID-19 vaccine, staff were offered the COVID-19 vaccine or information on obtaining COVID-19 vaccine, The facility policy and procedure, titled, COVID-19 Vaccination-Residents and Personnel, dated 5/1521, also documented during the pre-employment screening process, the facility shall solicit information from the prospective personnel regarding their COVID-19 vaccination status, including whether any doses of the vaccine dose were previously administered, and whether the prospective personnel are interested in obtaining the COVID-19 vaccine. The facility's COVID-19 policy does not reflect current standards of practice. Per the revised CMS guidelines (QSO-20-39-nh-revised 3/10/22), all nursing staff should be vaccinated against COVID-19 as a requirement for participating in the Medicare and Medicaid programs. On 4/22/22 at 1:26 PM, an interview was conducted with Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) #4. in response to the vaccination policy for facility staff, LPN#4 stated, Unvaccinated staff are not allowed to work here. LPN#4 then stated I don't think housekeeper#1 is scheduled to come in. Housekeeper#1 was notified today by Maintenance Supervisor or HHuman Resources (HR) that he/she must be vaccinated or not return to work. When asked for the reason for the oversight, LPN#4 stated The hiring process got broken when the Assistant Director of Nursing (ADON) took a leave of absence. The ADON oversaw infection control. The ADON went out on leave in the middle of March. The facility currently does not have a designated infection preventionist. On 4/22/22 at 1:40 PM, an interview was conducted with the Maintenance Supervisor who confirmed housekeeper#1 started working at the facility on 4/13/21. Maintenance Supervisor stated Housekeeper #1 started about 2 weeks ago and was asked for vaccination proof during the interview. The Maintenance Supervisor stated the housekeeper #1 really needed a job, needed the money and they felt really bad for the House keeper #1. The first day HR #1 started they were asked for vaccine proof. Housekeeper #1 reported they were not vaccinated and would get vaccinated and would provide a copy. As per Maintenance Supervisor, Housekeeper#1 worked wherever needed throughout the building. On 4/22/22 at 1:50 PM, an interview was conducted with Human Resources (HR) Director regarding the process for obtaining vaccination information for newly hired staff. The HR Director stated, HR does the Criminal History Record Check (CHRC). The in-service coordinator does the Covid stuff. HR is not medical so they wouldn't have anything to do with medical stuff. The HR Director stated the Assistant Director of Nursing (ADON) was tasked with keeping up with staff vaccinations. The HR Director was unable to confirm who is currently responsible for monitoring staff medical records in the absence of the ADON. On 4/26/22 at 1:51 PM, an interview was conducted with the Director of Nursing (DON) who stated LPN#4 and the Facility Consultant are updating the tracking form. The DON stated they wre not sure which staff is responsible for staff medical record keeping. On 4/26/22 at 1:52 PM, an interview was conducted with the Facility Consultant (FC) The FC stated they are informed of new hires, and update the system. The facility established an in-house database (MySNF) to keep track of staff vaccinations and they are the only staff who has access to this system. The Facility Consultant stated the system breaks down who is vaccinated, partially vaccinated, or who needs boosters. There is no notification given for staff who are out of compliance, the dashboard has to be checked regularly. The Facility Consultant was not aware of an unvaccinated staff who was recently hired. The Facility Consultant stated staff have to be vaccinated to work at the facility and they believe they must have at least the first dose before their start date. Staff are encouraged to receive the second dose within 30 days, the facility wants them to be vaccinated right away but the current guidance allows more than 30 days. 415.19 (a)(1-3)
MINOR (B)

Minor Issue - procedural, no safety impact

Deficiency F0582 (Tag F0582)

Minor procedural issue · This affected multiple residents

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review and interviews conducted during a recertification survey 4/18/2022-4/29/2022, the facility did not ensure...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review and interviews conducted during a recertification survey 4/18/2022-4/29/2022, the facility did not ensure appropriate liability and appeal notices to Medicare beneficiaries were provided. Specifically, the facility did not provide residents with the Skilled Nursing Facility Advance Beneficiary Notice (SNF ABN- form CMS-10055) at the termination of their Medicare Part A benefits. The residents remained in the facility. This was evident for 2 of 4 residents reviewed for Beneficiary Protection Notification Rights specifically, (Residents #21 and # 82). The findings are: Review of the Notice of Non-Medicare Coverage (NONMC) Policy dated 3/2021 documented the facility will provide notification on Non-Medicare coverage in accordance with regulatory requirements, which is at least 48 hours prior to cessation of Medicare coverage. The purpose is to provide an opportunity for the resident/concerned parties to appeal the appeal decision to terminate Medicare coverage, if desired. The (NONMC) Policy also documented the MDS Coordinator or Designee will provide written notice of non-coverage to resident or responsible party at least 48 hours prior to the end of Medicare coverage, with explanation as needed, and ensures that the notice has presentation date, presentation time, and signatures of resident or authorized representative. Resident #21 was admitted [DATE]. There was no documented evidence that a NONMC form was sent by mail or certified mail to retain signature of resident or resident's designated representative, informing them of their potential liability for payment or their right to appeal. Review of the NONMC dated 3/25/22 for resident #82, documented the effective date of coverage for services ended 3/18/22. As per the NONMC, the family was given notice from the fiscal department on 3/25/22 via telephone. The form was not signed and dated by the resident or resident representative. Review of social service progress note in the Electronic Medical Record ( EMR), documented no evidence of family notification for Resident #21 regarding change in coverage or discharge planning. Review of the social services in the EMR documents no evidence of a care plan meeting taking place for Resident # 82 or the family being notified of services ending 3/18/22. On 4/25/22 at 10:59 AM an interview with SW #1 was conducted. SW #1 could not provide a reason for why the NONMC was sent out late. SW #1 stated I wasn't here. The problem is if I'm out sick then it doesn't get done. SW #1 was also unable to confirm if the resident and family was given proper notice as there is no documentation in the EMR. SW responded I don't remember. In response if there was a discussion with the family regarding changes in resident#82 services, SW #1 stated they recall having several conversations with the family about changes to resident #82 medical coverage. However, there is not documentation in the EMR to corroborate this information. On 04/29/22 at 12:15 PM, an interview conducted with the Social Worker (SW). They stated that they are responsible to offer beneficiary notices to residents after the interdisciplinary team makes their decision. They also stated that team meets once per week to discuss the Medicare residents. They discuss when the resident started, when skilled services are ending, and how many days the resident has left. further stated that rehab will give them the list of residents who need to receive notices, and then they follow-up as directed. The SW acknowledged they did not offer resident #21 (or designated representative) the NONMC. The SW stated they do not mail any the NONMC and just makes a phone call and does not get a documented signature from designated representative on the NONMC. The form was not signed and dated by the resident or resident representative. 415.3(g)(2)(i)
Jun 2021 14 deficiencies
CONCERN (D)

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

Resident Rights (Tag F0550)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observations, interviews and record review on a recent recertification survey, the facility did not ensure residents ha...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observations, interviews and record review on a recent recertification survey, the facility did not ensure residents have a right to a dignified existence for two of three residents screened for dignity. Specifically, several observations were made of Resident #85 and #5 with his/her Foley bag uncovered so that passing by staff and residents can see his/her urine in the tubing and bag and for Resident #85, staff were observed performing a dressing change exposing him/her to passing by staff. The findings are: The facility policy for Resident Care and Quality of Life/Dignity dated 10/02/20 documents in the policy statement each resident shall be care for in a manner that promotes and enhances his/her sense of well-being, level of satisfaction with life, feeling of self-worth and self-esteem. Staff are to assist with bodily privacy helping the resident to keep urinary catheter bags covered. Resident #85 was admitted with diagnoses including Type II Diabetes Mellitus, Hypertension, Atrial Fibrillation and was deaf/mute. MDS (Minimum Data Set) dated 2/13/21 indicated the resident was cognitively intact with a BIMS(brief interview for mental status) score of 15/15, and needed extensive assist with bed mobility, dressing and personal hygiene. Resident #85 was observed from the hallway on 6/16/21 at 11:00 AM in bed by the door with the Foley bag positioned on the bed hanging near the side bedrail. Additional observations were made on 6/16/21 at 12:28 PM, 1:33PM, and at 02:46PM. At these times the Foley bag was not covered with a dignity bag and was visible to passing staff and visitors. Resident #85 was interviewed on 6/16/21 at 1:30PM through written communication on a dry erase board and indicated that he/she did not like that his/her urine bag was left for all to see. Resident #85 covered the Foley tubing which lay on the sheets and hung off the bed with his/her sheets and mouthed the words embarrassing. Certified Nursing Assistant ( CNA#1) was interviewed on 6/18/21 at 01:30PM and stated there should be Dignity bags on all Foley bags and he/she does not know why this one was not covered. He/She has received training about the Dignity bags and knows the residents need it at all times. An interview was conducted with the Director of Nursing (DON) on 6/16/21 at 02:51 PM who stated the Foley bags are to be covered at all times. During another interview on 6/23/21 at 02:26PM the DON reported the nurses are responsible for ensuring the CNA's are covering the bags during their rounds. An observation was made on 6/16/21 at 11:05AM from the hallway of Resident #85 laying in bed with the DON in attendance at bedside performing PICC (Peripherally Inserted Central Catheter) line care. Treatment supply tray, large syringes, dressing debris, gloves and the residents exposed arm/shoulder were visible to other residents self-propelling in their wheelchairs, Physical Therapy (PT) staff ambulating residents and Maintenance staff passing by his/her room door. The curtain was visible but not drawn for privacy. The DON was interviewed 6/16/21 at 11:30AM after the procedure and stated he/she was nervous and forgot to close the curtain and knows this should have been done but missed that step. Resident #5 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses of Malignant (Primary) Neoplasm, Dependence on Renal Dialysis, Vesicovaginal Fistula and Anorexia. The MDS dated [DATE], documented that the resident had a BIMS score of 6/15, and required extensive one to two person assistance with most activities of daily living (ADL). On 6/15/21 at 11:44 AM Resident # 5 was observed from the hallway sleeping in bed. From the hallway, it was noted that an uncovered Foley bag, with urine in it was hanging uncovered on the side of the bed facing the open door, clearly visible to passerby in the hallway. On 6/16/21 at 3:32 pm, Resident #5 was observed from the hallway to be sleeping in bed in his/her room. The Foley bag filled with urine was hanging uncovered on the side of the bed facing the open door and clearly visible to the passerby in the hallway. During an interview conducted on 06/23/21 at 12:47 PM with Licensed Practical Nurse Unit Manager (LPNUM#1), he/she stated the [NAME] bag is supposed to be covered by a privacy bag even if the resident is in the room if the resident and the bag are visible from the doorway. She/he stated that both Certified Nursing Assistants (CNA) and nurses are responsible for ensuring the privacy cover is applied. CNA#2, interviewed on 6/24/21 at 11:35 AM, stated h/she was aware that Dignity covers are supposed to be applied over Foley bags at all times, and could not say why this one was not applied. LPN#1, stated during an interview on 6/24/21 at 11:55 AM that all staff should be ensuring dignity bags are applied, ultimately, it is the responsibility of the CNAs and the nurses are responsible for supervising CNAs. He/She stated residents should have the dignity bag on even in his/her room. H/She could not explain why Resident' #5's Foley bag was not covered. DON, interviewed on 6/23/21 at 2:26 PM stated dignity covers should be applied to Foley bags by either CNAs or LPNs, but the LPN is ultimately responsible for ensuring that the dignity cover is in place. §483.10(a)(1)
CONCERN (D)

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

Transfer Notice (Tag F0623)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

FACILITY Based on observations, interviews and record reviews on a recent recertification survey, the facility did not ensure that the Office of the Long Term Ombudsman was made aware of transfers and...

Read full inspector narrative →
FACILITY Based on observations, interviews and record reviews on a recent recertification survey, the facility did not ensure that the Office of the Long Term Ombudsman was made aware of transfers and discharges for the months of April, May and June 2021. Specifically there were 68 discharges/transfers made from 4/1/2021-6/22/2021 without notification to the Ombudsman. The findings are: An interview was conducted with the Ombudsman on 6/15/2021 who reported that she has not received discharge/transfer lists or copy of the letters since the end of April 2021. An interview was conducted with the Facility Administrator on 6/18/2021 at 11:53PM who reportd there was no Social Worker currently working at the facility. The last Social Worker left the faciity on April 30, 2021 and a new one was set to start on 7/1/2021. The facility Administrator indicated they have been using the Director of Activities in place of the Social Worker and does not think the Ombudsman notification was being done by the Social Worker. An interview was conducted with the Director of Activities 6/18/2021 12:47PM who reportd he/she was hired in January 2021 as the Activity Director and when the Social Worker left at the end of April h/she was tasked with doing Social Work activities and also perform as the Director of Activities. The Director of Activities indicated h/she does not notify the Office of the Long-Term Ombudsman. He/she was never told he/she needed to do this task. §483.15(c)(3)
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 staff interview during the recertification survey the facility did not ensure that each ...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, record review and staff interview during the recertification survey the facility did not ensure that each resident received an accurate assessment reflective of the resident's current status. This was evident for one (Resident #62) resident reviewed for Minimum Data Set (MDS) accuracy. Specifically, Annual Assessment of the MDS dated [DATE] and Quarterly assessment 05/05/21 did not document the Resident's Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score. The finding is: Resident #62 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] and had diagnoses including Psychotic Disorder, Schizophrenia and Major Depressive Disorder. An admission MDS assessment dated [DATE] documented the resident was cognitively intact with some mood and behavior issues. The Quarterly MDS assessment dated [DATE] did not have a BIMS score documented. Further record review revealed the resident did not a BIMS score for the following assessments: Annual assessment 11/02/20, Quarterly assessment 02/02/21 and 05/05/21. The MDS did not document resident cognition since 7/15/20. Review of the Electronic Medical Record reveald the resident had a care plan for Cognition that did not contain intervention [NAME] goals. An interview was conducted with the Administrator on 6/21/21 at 12:45pm regarding who was responsible for completing the cognition assessment portion of the MDS He stated he thought the Activities Director would be doing that since she is the Acting Social Worker until the new Social Worker starts early July. He was asked if he was aware there was an issue with that section of the MDS not being done. He stated he didn't think so. An interview was conducted with the Director of Nursing (DON) on 6/21/21 at 12:51pm He was asked who was responsible for completing the cognition section of the MDS and stated he was not aware it had not been done. 483.20
CONCERN (D)

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

ADL Care (Tag F0677)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

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

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview and record review conducted during a recent recertification survey, the facility did not ensure that each resident who is unable to carry out activities of daily living (ADL) receives the necessary services to maintain grooming and personal hygiene for 2 (Resident #85, and #42) of 3 residents reviewed for ADL's staff provided incomplete AM (morning) care. Specifically, staff did not give Resident #85 a shower for more than ten days, shave and provide oral and nail care and Resident # 42 did not receive showers. The findings are: 1. Resident #85 was readmitted to the facility on [DATE] and had diagnoses of Type II Diabetes Mellitus, Hypertension, Atrial Fibrillation, Peripheral Vascular Disease. Minimum Data Set (MDS-a resident assessment tool) dated 2/13/21 documented the resident was cognitively intact and required extensive assistance for all Activities of Daily Living (ADLs.) An undated facility policy and procedure titled Showers documented residents requiring or requesting showers will be showered. An undated facility policy for nail care was reviewed and stated all residents will receive nail care on an ongoing basis to assure clean clipped nails. The comprehensive care plan with an initiated date of 3/28/21 and revised date of 6/17/21 documented the resident has an ADL self-care deficit related to medical condition, impaired hearing(deaf), psych social well-being mood and behavior and requires extensive assistance of one staff for personal hygiene and bathing/ showering. Interventions include shower per schedule, fingernails per policy and encourage maximal independence. The CNA(Certified Nurses Assistant) care guide to provide care, documented the resident required extensive assistance of one staff for personal hygiene and bathing/ showering and the ADL for bathing is on Monday and Thursday. From 6/8/21-6/18/21 there was no documentation that a shower had been given. The bathing section of the CNA guide indicated a bed bath had been given on 6/10/21. CNA care guide/assignments also reviewed revealed there was no documentation in the Personal Hygiene section(which included oral care, shaving, nail care) of the guide for 6/8/21 3-11 not documented, 6/9/21 7-3 not documented, 6/10/21 11-7 not documented, 6/12/21 3-11 not documented,6/13/21 3-11 not documented, 6/14/21 3-11 not documented, 6/14/21 7-3 not documented, 6/14/21 11-7 not documented, 6/15/21 11-7 not documented, 6/16/21 7-3 not documented, 6/17/21, 7-3 not documented, 6/18/21 7-3 not documented. During an observation on 6/16/21 at 1:33 PM, the resident had long fingernails with dark brown debris beneath multiple fingernails on both hands. The resident was observed to have facial hair long enough that the skin beneath the hair was not visible and extended down the neck to the collar bone. Flakey skin was noted on the resident's shirt just under his/her neck. During an observation on 6/18/21 at 3:10PM the resident was in bed with arms outside of sheets. Fingernails were observed to be long with brown debris under nails, facial hair was long. An observation and interview was made with the resident on 6/23/21 at 10:30AM. The resident pointed to his/her nails which appeared to be the same length with brown debris and pointed to mouth and mouth need to be cleaned. An interview was conducted with the resident #85 during screening on 6/16/21 at 2:05PM, through dry erase board and lip reading stated h/she wants to be shaved, does not like the beard, face is dry, itchy and flaky. The resident opened his/her mouth and pointed to teeth and used the left index finger to show a horizontal movement across teeth, that he/she wanted brushed. On board wrote need a shower, shave and clean fingernails. He/she stated was told too busy, not enough nurses to get help. An interview was conducted with CNA#1 on 6/16/21 at 2:04PM and stated Resident #85 needs assistance with all care and can do very little for himself and relies on help for showering, shaving and teeth care. CNA#1 stated he/she relies on the nurses to tell him/her what needs to be done with the residents. He/she spends a lot of time everyday with feeding and changing the residents. He/she often runs out of time to do the little things like teeth and shaving. Sometimes showers are pushed over to the next shift or next day or are just skipped until the next shower day. During an interview on 6/16/21 at 3:28PM with LPNUM #1 revealed routine a.m. care includes washing the resident's face, hands, groin and buttocks area, brush teeth or denture care(oral care) and shave for men. The LPNUM stated the resident's fingernail care is done on a as needed basis and the CNA is responsible to complete fingernail care. Orange sticks to clean under nails and [NAME] boards to file the nails at the very least. Toenails are not cut by the CNA's but provided by professional services. When asked why nail care, shaving, oral care and shower has not been performed, the LPNUM#1 stated staffing is bad and the girls have so much to do. Personal hygiene, which includes brushing teeth, bathing is common sense. It has been difficult to get everyone on board to provide good consistent care. A lot of care is not documented in the CNA care guides and CNA's are not getting the credit for what they are doing. Nurses are responsible for ensuring the CNA's are providing the care and if men need to be shaved then it is easy to see by observation it needs to be done. The LPNUM stated he/she is constantly reminding CNA's as a whole to do their job. It's an issue and has been discussed with the DON. 2. Resident#42 admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses of Morbid Obesity Due to Excess Calories, Venous Insufficiency (Chronic) (Peripheral), and Functional Urinary Incontinence. The Minimum Data Set (MDS, an assessment tool) dated 4/23/2021, documented that the resident had a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS, used to determine attention, orientation and ability to recall information) score of 15/15, associated with intact cognition (00-7 severe impairment, 08-12 moderate impairment and 13-15 cognitively intact). Resident requires extensive one to two-person assistance with most activities of daily living (ADL). Bathing is coded as activity itself did not occur during the entire period with one person physical assist. On 6/16/21 at 11:01 am, during the screening process, the resident stated she hasn't been getting showers, which she is scheduled for on Wednesdays 3pm-11pm. CNA bathing care guide from 4/22/21 to 6/22/21 reviewed and documents 6 occasions when bathing is coded as not documented. CNA assignment revealed CNA#3 was assigned to Resident # on 3 of those 6 occasion. On 06/22/21 at 04:21 PM, during an interview conducted with CNA#3, stated he/she provides bed baths to the resident on her scheduled days when he/she is assigned to the resident. He/she documents it in the resident's Electronic Medical Record. CNA#3 could not explain why bathing was not documented on several occasions when he/she was assigned to the resident. During an interview conducted on 06/22/21 at 04:11 PM with RN Supervisor #1 of the 3-11pm shift, she/he stated he/she is supposed review CNA accountability daily to ensure the tasks are being done and signed for by the CNA, but because of staffing shortages she/he has been so swamped with many responsibilities that she/he just don't have the time to review CNA documentation. On 06/23/21 at 12:15 PM, during an interview with the DON he/she stated that Not Documented means it had not been done and the resident should be showered on her/his scheduled days. The DON stated the nursing supervisor on the floor is responsible for ensuring that CNA tasks have been completed. 483.24(a)(2)
CONCERN (D)

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

Quality of Care (Tag F0684)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, record review, and interview conducted during the recertification and abbreviated surveys the facility did...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, record review, and interview conducted during the recertification and abbreviated surveys the facility did not ensure that 2 of 5 residents (Resident #66 and Resident # 53) reviewed for quality of care received treatment and care in accordance with professional standards of practice. Specifically, 1. 2. The findings are: 1.Resident #66 was admitted to the facility on 5.13.21 with diagnoses of: Type II Diabetes with Neuropathy, Congestive Heart Failure, Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease and Schizophrenia. Review of the resident's medical record reveals the resident is cognitively intact as indicated by the Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) with a score of 15:15. Review of the physicians admitting orders were evaluate skin weekly: document findings in administrator note and document findings in weekly Activities of Daily Living ( ADL) note, notify shift supervisor and obtain treatment order for MD if indicated. Review of the resident electronic medical record (EMR) revealed the resident had no documentation indicating skin evaluations were done weekly. There were no weekly ADL notes related to checking the residents skin and there were no Treatment Administration Records(TAR) for May or June in EMR. The Resident had a Care Plan for Skin Integrity initiated on 6.14.21. The problem: at risk for skin issues had no interventions or goals. During observations on 06/17/21 at 02:03 PM, 6/18/21 at 10:30AM resident #66 was observed self propelling in her wheelchair and had scratch marks on her arms and legs. During interview with the resident on 06/21/21 at 10:24 AM the resident stated she was waiting for an order for A & D cream for the dry skin but she would prefer to have a cortizone cream for the itch. During an interview on 06/21/21 at 11:02 AM with Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN#5) when asked for the treatment record or ADL notes for the resident. she stated the resident doesn't have any treatment orders. 2. Resident #53 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses of Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus, Peripheral Vascular Disease, and Schizophrenia, Unspecified. The 4/20/2021 MDS documented that the resident had a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS, used to determine attention, orientation and ability to recall information) score is UTD (unable to determine), previous BIMS score documented on 10/22/20 specified BIMS score of 14/15, associated with intact cognition (00-7 severe impairment, 08-12 moderate impairment and 13-15 cognitively intact). Resident required extensive two-person assistance with bed mobility, transfer, dressing, and toilet use. Resident had functional limitation to range of motion in upper extremity. Review of physician orders initiated on 11/9/20 and renewed on 6/4/21 revealed an order for Orthopedic consult for possible brace or splint for the right hand. Review of the electronic and physical chart record review from 11/9/20 to 6/22/21 revealed no documentation that the resident was seen by an orthopedist, as ordered by the physician. On 6/15/21 at 12:27 pm Resident#53 was observed in bed sleeping, right hand contracted, no device in place. On 6/16/21 at 11:25 pm, Resident#53 was observed in the dining room in his wheelchair. Resident's right hand was contracted and cradled in his left hand, no device in place On 06/24/21 at 11:35 am, Resident#53 was observed in the common area in a wheelchair, eating a snack. Right hand contracted, no device in place. In an interview conducted on 06/22/21 at 02:34 PM, LPN UM#1 stated she/he is responsible for informing the Medical Records Clerk (MRC) of the physician orders for a consult. The MRC was responsible for scheduling consult appointments. LPN UM#1 could not explain why the Orthopedic consult had not been scheduled/followed up on, stating it must have been an oversight on her part. On 6/22/21 at 2:37 pm, the MRC stated she/he was not made aware of the Orthopedic consult order for Resident#53. On 06/23/21 at 02:33 PM, the Director of Nursing (DON) stated the nursing department (supervisor or above) enter the consult order in resident's electronic medical record (EMR) and the unit manager was ultimately responsible for follow through on the consult. The DON stated the fact that Resident#53 had not been seen by the ordered consultant is a big problem. On 06/24/21 atv12:46 PM, the Medical Director stated during the interview she only started working at the facility in May of 2021 and was still getting caught up on the residents. She stated that the order for the Orthopedic consult was put in based on the previous physician's recommendation. The Medical Director stated the expectation is that physician orders should be addressed within a week and the physician should be notified of any delays. 483.25
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0760 (Tag F0760)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record reviews and interviews during a recertification survey, for 2 of three residents reviewed for medication adminis...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record reviews and interviews during a recertification survey, for 2 of three residents reviewed for medication administration (#85) (#64), the facility did not ensure residents were free from significant medication errors. Specifically, Resident #85 had three omissions of Intravenous antibiotics and Resident (64) Insulin amounts were not documented on the Medication Administration Record (MAR) for a resident receiving sliding scale insulin. The findings are: The facility policy for Medication Administration last revised 10/13/21 stated the doctor will notified with any omissions/refusals in medications immediately. The DNS will be notified following the physician. Documentation of omissions in resident Electronic Medical record (EMR) as well as progress note will be done at the time of the omission/refusal. Resident #85 has diagnoses of Type II Diabetes Mellitus, Osteomyelitis, Atrial Fibrillation, Peripheral Vascular Disease. Minimum Data Set (MDS-a resident assessment tool) dated 2/13/21 documented the resident was cognitively intact. The Physician's Orders dated 6/8/21 indicated the physician prescribed Vancomycin 500mg Intravenous Piggy Back (IVPB) by intravenous route every 12 hours for 35 days in dextrose 5% solution for Osteomyelitis and MRSA(Methicillin Resistant Staph Aureus) infection to be given through a PICC (peripheral Inserted Central Catheter) line in the right antecubital area. The MAR (Medication Administration Record) revealed Resident #85 started the medication on 6/8/21 at 10:00PM. The 6/11/21 10:00AM dose and 6/14/21 10:00PM dose were not administered as evidenced by no signature in the MAR designated box. In addition, 6/17/21 10:00AM time slot contained a signature with an asterisk, followed by a note on the MAR it was not given and was held per Medical Doctor (MD) order. The Physician Orders were reviewed and indicated there was no evidence of a Physician Order to hold the medications on 6/11/21 and 6/14/21. An order for 6/17/21 stated hold 6/17/21 10:38AM- 1:00PM. There was no reason documented for the MD hold order. Nurses Progress notes were reviewed from 6/11/21-6/17/21. There was no documented evidence as to why the doses for 6/11/21 10:00AM and 6/14/21 10:00PM were not given. In addition, there was no documentation why the Physician held the 10:00AM Vancomycin dose. Furthermore, none of the nurses progress notes indicated the physician was made aware of the missed doses. The LPNUM#1 was interviewed on 6/22/21 at 1:49PM and stated the Vancomycin doses on 6/11/21 and 6/14/21 appear to be omissions and could not say for sure the doses were given. The signature on the 6/17/21 10:00AM dose was hers/his and the dose was not given because the resident went out to a doctor's appointment. When the resident left for the appointment, h/she did not inform the Physician or document it in a note he/she just entered the code hold per MD order. LPNUM#1 stated h/she does not hang the Vancomycin but will alert the DON to do it when it is due. The DON was not notified at the above time and LPNUM #1 stated there was no contact with the Physician. An interview was conducted with the Medical Director on 6/22/21 at 10:58 AM and stated he/she has been at the facility since May 1, 2021 has recently been made aware that nurses are using the hold per MD order code without notifying her/him and there are a lot of missed medications. If he/she was made aware of the 6/17/21 10:00AM missed dose she/he would have changed the time and allowed it to be given later and states there was a lot of leeway with the time. An interview was conducted with the DON on 6/22/21 2:00PM about the hold orders and missing medications and states he is also relatively new at the facility and is working closely with the Medical Director. Nurses wil be held accountable to call the Physician and document why medications are missed. The DON was the designated nurse to administer the Medication on 6/11/21 10:00AM dose and states he is pretty sure he gave it but was not aware it was not signed for on the MAR. The facility policy for Verification of Physician Orders revised 6/27/2011 documents after orders are renewed, the next three District Nurses on the next three shifts are to verify the orders for a total of 3 checks. Checks include appropriate dosage, route and stop date if applicable. Resident #64 was admitted with diagnoses of Type II Diabetes Mellitus, Hypertension and malignant neoplasm of lung, throat and brain. MDS dated [DATE] indicates the resident did have a brief interview for mental status, has no mood or behavior issues, requires extensive assistance of 1 for bed mobility and toileting, supervision only with transfer to chair and tray set up for meals The Physician Orders dated 5/26/21 document Humulog KwikPen U-100 100u/cc three times a day before meals. Everyday at 7:30am, 11:30am, 4:30pm according to the following protocol: Fingerstick 0-150 units, 151-200=2 units, 201-250=4 units, 251-300 =6 units, 301-350 =8 units, 351-400=10 units, 401-500=12 units. Call MD if >400<60. The MAR was reviewed from 6/1/21 -6/18/21. The 7:30AM blood sugars are documented with a signature but there is no box allocated for the Insulin dose in the 7:30AM slots. The 11:30 and 4:30PM time slots have a box for sugar and signature, below that a box for dose, below that a box for site. There were 13 times the blood sugars are documented out of range but the dose of insulin was not entered in the dose box. An interview was conducted with Unit LPN #1 on 6/22/21 2:30pm who states the nurses did not mark the box in the EMR that would allow the dose box to be activated for the 7:30AM doses. This is usually done when the initial nurse entering the medication sets up the grid in the EMR. There should have been a box checked in EMR when the order was entered. The nurses perform a three shift review of all new medicationa entered to identify these types of issues. An interview was conducted with the LPNUM#1 on 6/18/21 at 3:08 PM and states she is not sure why the 7:30AM blood sugar values are missing insulin amounts on the MAR but is sure nurses are giving insulin for out of range blood sugars. There is no way to tell how much insulin was actually given. An interview was conducted with the LPNUM#1 6/22/21 at 2:10PM who stated that when orders are received by the physician they are then placed on the MAR. If it is a new order like this one the nurses are expected to check what is on the MAR with the Physician Orders for accuracy. If this was done, the first nurse would have realized the mistake. §483.45(f)(2
CONCERN (D)

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

Food Safety (Tag F0812)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on observation, record review and staff interview conducted during a recertification survey, the facility did not ensure that juice thickeners in the nourishment refrigerators located on the nur...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, record review and staff interview conducted during a recertification survey, the facility did not ensure that juice thickeners in the nourishment refrigerators located on the nursing units (2 of 2 resident floors), on the refreshment cart and in the kitchen storage room, were stored in accordance with acceptable standards of food safety practice. The finding is: On 6/16/21 at 8:50 AM an examination of the first floor unit refrigerator was conducted and it was noted that there were two containers of Ready Care thickener cranberry cocktail in the refrigerators and the containers had a use by date of 12/24/20 and 6/8/21. In an interview with the Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) # 1 at the time of the findings, LPN #1 stated that dietary staff is responsible for removing the outdated foods in the refrigerator. On the second floor at 9:00 AM, outdated Nectar consistency thickener was noted with a use by date 4/9/21. This container was noted on the morning juice cart brought from the kitchen. A review of the the directions on the container of Ready Care Thickener are to refrigerate before serving. In an interview at the time of the finding, LPN # 2 stated that the juice carts are brought to the floor around 7 - 8 AM and the juices are placed in the refrigerator around 11:30 AM. A tour of the storage room with cook # 1 at 9:15 AM, it was noted that a white box had a hand written date of 5/24/21 and 3 boxes of Ready Care thickener cranberry cocktail had a use by date of 4/9/20. It was also noted that a container of Ready Care thickener cranberry cocktail had a date of 6/15/21 in the box. A container of Nectar with a hand written date of 5/24/21 and the best by date was 4/9/21 was also noted. In an interview with cook #1, cook #1 stated that the food is not being properly rotated before it goes to the floor and a better system will be in place. [NAME] # 1 also stated that there is not a particular person to receive deliveries from vendors. Whoever receives and unloads the delivery writes the date on the boxes. [NAME] #1 further stated that the dates on the package should be noted when receiving deliveries. In a subsequent interview with the Director of Dietary #1 at 10:05 AM, the Director of Dietary # 1 stated the date received from delivery is the date written on the package and if a package is not dated the person will write the date they actually observed the package. Dietary Director # 1 stated that it is the senior kitchen aide responsibility to removed outdate foods from the pantries on the resident units. Director of Dietary # 1 provided the policy and procedure for foods stored in pantries. 415.14(h) 1
CONCERN (D)

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

Social Worker (Tag F0850)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on observation, interview and record review conducted during a Recertification Survey completed on 6/24/21, the facility with a licensed bed capacity of 134 was operating without a Social Worker...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, interview and record review conducted during a Recertification Survey completed on 6/24/21, the facility with a licensed bed capacity of 134 was operating without a Social Worker (SW) from 4/30/21 to present. The findings are: The Facility Survey Report (FSR) dated 6/16/21 included the question: Has your facility ensured that employees and other persons providing resident services in your facility are licensed, registered or certified in accordance with applicable laws? The answer was checked Yes. Under the heading of Director of Social Work in the FSR, the facility checked off consultant. Independent Contractor Agreement with the (Social Worker) SW Consultant, dated 1/1/2021, documents the following: The facility has engaged the services of this contractor sufficient consultation to maintain compliance with the state and federal standards for providing counseling services to its Social Work staff. In an interview conducted on 06/18/21 at 11:53 AM with the Administrator he/she stated the facility's previous SW left on 4/30/21 and that the Director of Activities (DOA) has been filling the SW role under the supervision of the Consultant, who meets with the DOA over the phone on as needed basis, but acknowledged he was not aware of a specific instance the Consultant spoke with the DOA or assisted the DOA with the SW responsibilities/duties. The Administrator stated the DOA has no SW credentials. In a follow up interview on 06/18/21 02:06 PM, the Administrator stated there was no formal documentation of the expectations or specific duties/responsibilities for the DOA's role as a covering SW. In an interview with the DOA on 06/18/21 at 12:39 PM, he/she stated she/he has been working in the SW capacity at the facility since May 2021. She/he did not receive a list of duties/expectations of SW duties but is a basing it on his/her prior job experience. He/she stated she does not have SW education or licensure. She/he stated that when she/he does not know something, she/he calls her/his SW friend for help. She/he stated: I guess there is a consultant SW, but I don't' know who that is. The DOA stated that she has not been in any contact with the Consultant since she began working in the SW role. In a phone interview conducted on 06/21/21 at 04:10 PM with the Consultant, she/he stated she/he is contracted by the facility only to provide clinical supervision to the staff SW and categorically denied that she acted as a consultant SW in the absence of SW at the facility. The Consultant stated that the Administrator had asked the Consultant for assistance with SW responsibilities after the facility's SW had resigned at the end of April 2021, however the Consultant had declined, because she/he is 4 hrs away from the facility and has never met any residents or staff at the facility. The Consultant stated she has never spoken to the DOA. In an interview conducted on 06/23/21at 02:25 PM, the Director of Nursing (DON) stated he/she doesn't know anything about the Consultant SW or the services she/he is contracted to provide. He/she stated the Administrator was responsible for ensuring interim SW services were provided. The Human Resources (HR) Coordinator, interviewed on 6/23/21 at 12:30 pm, stated their last SW had resigned effective 4/30/21 and they are expecting the new SW to start on 7/1/21. 415.5(g)(2)
CONCERN (D)

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

Infection Control (Tag F0880)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on observation, record review and staff interview, the facility did not ensure that a Legionella Risk Assessment and Water Management Plan was provided in accordance with Section 483.80. Specifi...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, record review and staff interview, the facility did not ensure that a Legionella Risk Assessment and Water Management Plan was provided in accordance with Section 483.80. Specifically, the facility policy and procedures did not contain the required elements; a risk assessment, control measures to maintain the physical, chemical, and temporal conditions of the system, and a system description analysis of hazardous conditions or corrective actions. The findings are: During the Life Safety recertification survey conducted on 6/17/21 at 1:15 PM, documentation review of the facility's Legionella folder revealed a water sample lab report for legionella with a collection date 6/17/2020 and a process date 6/25/2020 reported that Legionella was not detected. A review of the facility Policy and Procedures for legionella updated on 6/2020 did not include a risk assessment for Legionella, control location, control measures, control limits, a system for monitoring hazardous conditions or a corrective action plan. In an interview at 1:50 PM with the Director of Facilities, the Director of Facilities stated that a Legionella Risk Assessment is not available, and the facility is currently working on the risk assessment. 483.80 (a) (1) (2) (4) (e) (f)
CONCERN (E)

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

Grievances (Tag F0585)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview and record review conducted during a Recertification Survey and Abbreviated Survey (NY00268466) ...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview and record review conducted during a Recertification Survey and Abbreviated Survey (NY00268466) completed on 6/24/21, the facility did not make information on how to file a grievance available to the residents. This was evident for 11 of the 11 residents who attended the Resident Council Meeting. Additionally, the facility did not ensure that a grievance was resolved in a timely manner for one (Resident #90) of three residents reviewed for personal property. Specifically, the lack of a thorough investigation and resolution into a resident's report of missing property. The findings are: The policy and procedure titled Grievances, revised on 3/2021, documents that at the time of admission the Social Worker (SW) or designee will review the admission Packet with the resident/concerned party, which is inclusive of the Grievance Policy and Procedure and that the initiated Resident Grievance Form must be submitted to the Director of Social Work/Designee, who will log the complaint in the Grievance Log. The Social Worker/Designee will present all Grievance Forms to the Administrative Team in the Morning Report meeting that is held subsequent to receiving the grievance. On 6/17/21 at 1:37 PM, a Resident Council Meeting was held with the Presidents of the Resident Council, Resident #81, and Resident # 8 and (Residents# 37, 40, 45, 46, 59, 66, 74 80, 91). Residents stated the Council Meeting has not been held in over a year due to COVID. When the members were asked if they were aware of how to file a grievance, residents unanimously agreed and or stated they did not know how to file a grievance or who the grievance official was. Resident grievance forms and/or logs were requested for review, but could not be provided by the facility. The admission Packet, provided by the Admissions Director on 06/18/21 at 12:14 PM was reviewed and did not contain the facility's Grievance Policy and Procedure. Observations made on both floors of the facility revealed no posted information about the grievance process or the grievance policy and procedure. On 06/18/21 at 02:06 PM, during an interview with the Administrator, he/she stated he/she is not familiar with the grievance process or who was responsible for following up on resident grievances, stating everyone is responsible. Director of Activities (DOA), interviewed on 06/18/21 at 12:39 PM, stated she/he has been covering some of the Spcial Worker (SW) responsibilities since May 2021. She/he did not receive a list of duties/expectations of SW responsibilities from the leadership when she/he began covering the SW role. The DOA stated she/he did not know who was responsible for addressing grievances. During an interview conducted on 06/18/21 at 02:27 PM, the Director of Nursing (DON) stated the SW was the grievance official (GO), however he could not say who the GO is in the absence of the SW. The DOA and Administrator were interviewed 06/18/21 02:43 PM, and both stated that since the last SW resigned on 4/30/21, there has not been a GO assigned and there has been no documented grievance investigations and/or follow up of resident concerns. Resident #90 41 admitted on [DATE] with Diagnoses of Muscle Weakness (generalized); Acute Embolism & Thrombosis of Deep Vein and Low Extremity, and Borderline Personality Disorder. The Minimum Data Set (MDS, an assessment tool) dated 9/17/2020, documented that the resident had a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS, used to determine attention, orientation and ability to recall information) score of 15/15, associated with intact cognition (00-7 severe impairment, 08-12 moderate impairment and 13-15 cognitively intact). During an interview conducted on 06/21/21 at 02:23 PM, the DON stated they don't have a record of complaint or investigation of the missing property for this resident. S/He stated that when a resident is being discharged , the CNA will obtain an inventory with a list of belongings the resident came with and ensure everything on the list is packed up. Resident/family sign the inventory sheet when they pick up the belongings. The DON stated there were no resident inventory sheets or documentation that the belongings had been picked up for Resident #90 for the time period addressed in the complaint. On 06/23/21 at 10:03 AM, LS accompanied the surveyor to the laundry room where h/she located 2 bags of Resident #90's belongings. H/she stated the bags have been there for a while, but h/she was not aware of the family looking for them or that they had come to the facility and were not provided the belongings. On 06/23/21 at10:39 AM, the Administrator stated the facility is aware they have a problem with resident's clothing going missing and not documenting their efforts to find them and they are addressing it. 415.3(c)(1)(i)
CONCERN (E)

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

Comprehensive Care Plan (Tag F0656)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Resident #14 Resident #14 has diagnoses Dementia, Hypertension, Type II Diabetes Mellitus, Depression, Seizure Disorder. MDS 2/2...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Resident #14 Resident #14 has diagnoses Dementia, Hypertension, Type II Diabetes Mellitus, Depression, Seizure Disorder. MDS 2/24/21 BIMS (brief interview for mental status was not assessed) extensive assist of two persons with all care except eating which is limited assist of one person. Medications include Zolpidem 5 mg at bedtime, Abilify 2mg daily Nursing Care Plan for Psychotropic Drug Use and Dementia initiated 12/13/20 did not have goals or interventions. An interview with the LPNUM#2 was conducted 6/22/21 at 11:40am and stated care plans need to be updated quarterly and yearly but it has been a problem. The RN initiates and signs off on the care plans. The LPNUM#2 is working on getting the unit and nurses to work together on these things. The nurses are doing all the work and not giving themselves credit for it. §483.21(b) Based on interview and record review conducted during a recertification survey, the facility did not ensure the development and implementation of comprehensive person-centered care plans (CCP) to attain or maintain the residents' highest practicable physical, mental, and psychosocial well-being. Specifically, the facility did not ensure a person-centered care plan was developed (1) for 2 of 5 residents (#56, #83) reviewed for Activities; (2) for 1 of 8 residents (#76) reviewed for Activities of Daily Living (ADL); (3) for 2 of 6 residents (#14, #76) reviewed for Dementia Care; and (4) 1 of 5 residents (#14) reviewed for Unnecessary Medications Review. The findings are but not limited to: The Facility Policy & Procedure on CCP updated on 03/2017 documented that the CCP will be periodically reviewed and revised by a team of qualified persons after each assessment or reassessment but at least quarterly, every ninety (90) days. Dates on the care plan will reflect the date reviewed or the date that changes are made to the care plan. The CCP will be reviewed and revised as follows: quarterly, annually and / or following a significant change. Resident #56 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses that included Orthostatic Hypotension, Hypertension and Alzheimer's Disease. The Quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS, an assessment tool) dated 05/01/2021 documented that the resident required extensive two-person assistance for dressing; limited two-person assistance for bed mobility, locomotion off the unit, toilet use and personal hygiene; supervision one-person assistance for transfer; supervision two-person assistance for locomotion on the unit; supervision set up help only for eating. There was no documented evidence that an Activities Care Plan was initiated for Resident #56. Resident #83 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses that included Alzheimer's Disease, Chronic Kidney Disease and Dysphagia. The MDS dated [DATE] documented that the resident required extensive two-person assistance for bed mobility, transfer, locomotion on and off the unit, dressing, toilet use and personal hygiene; supervision and set up help for eating. There was no documented evidence that an Activities Care Plan was initiated for Resident #83. Resident #83 had a Psychotropic Meds Care Plan initiated on 12/13/2020 with no content (no goals, no interventions, no evaluation). Resident #76 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses that included Acquired absence of left leg above knee, Epilepsy and Dementia. The MDS dated [DATE] documented that the resident was on Antidepressant for 7 days; no gradual dose reduction (GDR) documented. Resident #76 had an Activities of Daily Living (ADL) Functional / Rehabilitation Potential Care Plan initiated on 01/29/2021 with no content (no goals, no interventions, no evaluation). Resident #76 had a Cognitive Loss / Dementia Care Plan initiated on 03/06/2021 with no content (no goals, no interventions, no evaluation). An interview conducted with Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) #1 and LPN #2 on 06/23/2021 at 10:30 AM revealed that LPN's in the facility do not initiate or update care plans except for the Unit Manager (UM) position (LPN UM or RN UM). An interview conducted with the LPN UM #2 on 06/23/2021 at 12:28 PM revealed that he/she was responsible for initiating and updating the care plans. The LPN UM #2 stated that care plans are reviewed quarterly or every 90 days, annually and when there are changes to the residents condition. The LPN UM #2 stated that she had been [NAME] with the care plans because of Covid. An interview conducted with the Activities Director / Acting Social Worker on 06/23/2021 at 1 PM revealed that he/she is responsible for initiating and updating the Activities and Dementia Care Plan. He/She stated that the care plans are updated quarterly or every 90 days, annually and when there is a sick change. He/She also stated that care plans not being updated is a reflection of two things, lack of leadership and lack of staff in this facility. An interview conducted with the Director of Nursing (DON) on 06/24/2021 at 1:30 PM revealed that he/she noticed that care plans were not being updated, care plans initiated with no content and no care plans at all. The DON stated that the LPN Unit Managers initiate and update the care plans in this facility. The DON stated that he/she updates the care plans himself, but he's/she's been focusing on episodic care plans, adding risk for abuse care plans, and eliminating care plans that does not apply anymore. Staffing is an issue but there has been a big boost of old staff coming back and he/she plans to prioritize the care plans with their help. 415.11(c)(1)
CONCERN (E)

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

Deficiency F0657 (Tag F0657)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

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

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review and interview conducted during a recertification survey, the facility did not ensure that the Comprehensive Care Plan (CCP) were reviewed and revised in a timely manner. Specifically, (1) the CCP was not reviewed and revised for 2 of 7 (#36, #44) residents investigated for Accidents; (2) The CCP was not reviewed and revised for 2 of 5 (#4, #28) residents investigated for Activities; (3) the CCP was not reviewed and revised for 4 of 8 (#4, #28, #56, #83) residents investigated for Activities of Daily Living (ADL) Functional / Rehabilitation Potential; (4) the CCP was not reviewed and revised for 3 of 6 (#28, #69 #83) residents investigated for Dementia Care; and (5) the CCP was not reviewed and revised for 1 of 3 (#4) residents investigated for Urinary Catheter or UTI. The findings are but not limited to: The Facility Policy & Procedure on CCP updated on 03/2017 documented that the CCP will be periodically reviewed and revised by a team of qualified persons after each assessment or reassessment but at least quarterly, every ninety (90) days. Dates on the care plan will reflect the date reviewed or the date that changes are made to the care plan. The CCP will be reviewed and revised as follows: quarterly, annually and / or following a significant change. Resident #44 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses that included Wedge Compression Fracture of T11-T12 vertebra, Muscle Spasm, Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus, and Anxiety Disorder. The Quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS, an assessment tool) dated 04/24/2021 documented that the resident had short term and long-term memory problems and had severe cognitive impairment for daily decision making. The resident required supervision set up help only for bed mobility, locomotion on and off the unit, eating and toilet use; supervision two-person assistance with transfer. Resident #44 had a risk for fall care plan initiated on 02/01/2019 which was last updated on 04/22/2021. The resident had a recent fall dated 06/10/2021 with no documented evidence of a care plan review or revision post incident. Resident #4 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses that included Quadriplegia, Epilepsy and Major Depressive Disorder. The MDS dated [DATE] documented moderate cognition impairment for daily decision making. The resident required extensive two-person assistance for bed mobility; extensive one-person assistance for bathing, dressing and personal hygiene; total dependence with two-person assistance for transfer; total dependence one-person assistance for locomotion on and off the unit, and toilet use. Resident #4's Activities Care Plan was initiated on 01/15/2021 with no documented evidence of a review or revision at least quarterly. Resident #4's ADL Functional / Rehabilitation Potential Care Plan was initiated on 02/24/2017 and was last updated on 06/25/2020. Resident #4's Urinary Incontinence Care Plan was initiated on 03/09/2018 and was last updated on 10/10/2019. Resident #28 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses that included Dementia with Behavioral Disturbance, Schizoaffective Disorders, and Peripheral Vascular Disease. The MDS dated [DATE] documented severe cognition impairment for daily decision making. The resident required extensive two-person assistance for bed mobility; extensive one-person assistance for transfer, dressing, toilet use and personal hygiene; supervision one-person assistance for locomotion on and off the unit; supervision set up help only for eating. Resident #28's Activities Care Plan was initiated on 01/15/2021 with no documented evidence of a review or revision at least quarterly. Resident #28's ADL Functional / Rehabilitation Potential Care Plan was initiated on 06/13/2018 and was last updated on 10/21/2020. Resident #28's Cognitive Loss / Dementia Care Plan was initiated on 05/21/2018 and was last updated on 01/12/2021. An interview conducted with Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) #1 and LPN #2 on 06/23/2021 at 10:30 AM revealed that LPN's in the facility do not initiate or update care plans except for the Unit Manager (UM) position (LPN UM or RN UM). An interview conducted with the LPN UM #2 on 06/23/2021 at 12:28 PM revealed that he/she was responsible for initiating and updating the care plans. The LPN UM #2 stated that care plans are reviewed quarterly or every 90 days, annually and when there are changes to the residents condition. The LPN UM #2 stated that she had been [NAME] with the care plans because of Covid. An interview conducted with the Activities Director / Acting Social Worker on 06/23/2021 at 1 PM revealed that he/she is responsible for initiating and updating the Activities and Dementia Care Plan. He/She stated that the care plans are updated quarterly or every 90 days, annually and when there is a sick change. He/She also stated that care plans not being updated is a reflection of two things, lack of leadership and lack of staff in this facility. An interview conducted with the Director of Nursing (DON) on 06/24/2021 at 1:30 PM revealed that he/she noticed that care plans were not being updated, care plans initiated with no content and no care plans at all. The DON stated that the LPN Unit Managers initiate and update the care plans in this facility. The DON stated that he/she updates the care plans himself, but he's/she's been focusing on episodic care plans, adding risk for abuse care plans, and eliminating care plans that does not apply anymore. Staffing is an issue but there has been a big boost of old staff coming back and he/she plans to prioritize the care plans with their help. 415.11(c)(2) (i-iii)
CONCERN (E)

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

Deficiency F0725 (Tag F0725)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interviews and record review conducted during a Recertification Survey and Abbreviated Survey (NY00274235)...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interviews and record review conducted during a Recertification Survey and Abbreviated Survey (NY00274235), the facility did not ensure that sufficient staff was available to meet the needs of all residents. Specifically, the Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA) actual staffing levels were below the facility assessed minimum levels 24.3% of shifts for the months of April 2021, May 2021 and June 2021. The findings include: A review of the Facility Assessment Tool dated 04/01/2021 indicated that the facility had a 134-bed capacity, with an average daily census of 115-122, and a current census of 90. The Assessment documented that the following minimum staffing per shift: 1) Day Shift (7:00AM to 3:00PM): Director of Nursing (DON) = 1, Registered Nurse (RN)/Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN)Unit Manager =2, LPN Medication and Treatment Nurses = 5,Certified Nursing Assistants(CNAs) 9 2) Evening Shift (3:00PM to 11:00PM):RN Supervisor = 1, LPN Medication and Treatment Nurses = 5, CNAs = 9 3) Night Shift: RN Supervisor = 1, LPN Medication and Treatment Nurses = 3, CNAs = 5 Review of the Minimum Guidelines for CNA Staffing dated 03/2021 documented that a minimum of 9 CNAs (3 CNAs on the first floor and 6 CNAs on the second floor) were required for the Day and Evening shifts. A minimum of 5 CNAs (2 CNAs on the first floor and 3 CNAs on the second floor) were required for the Night shift. Review of the Facility Actual Staffing Schedule for April 2021 showed an average census of 94. Review of the Facility Actual Staffing Schedule for May 2021 showed an average census of 90. Review of the Facility Actual Staffing Schedule for June 2021 showed an average census of 93. Review of the Daily Staffing Sheet and Daily Nurse Staffing Postings from 04/01/2021 through 6/24/2021 (85 days) revealed that 24.3% of shifts (62/255) were under minimum staffing levels. Specifically, the AM Shift (7:00AM to 3:00PM) was understaffed 3.5% (3/85) of days, the PM shift (3:00PM to 11:00PM) was understaffed 9.4% (8/85) of days and the Night shift (11:00PM to 7:00AM) was understaffed 60% (51/85) of days. 1) During the 5/9/2021 AM shift, 9 CNAs were required, and 2 CNAs were on duty. 2) During the 4/3/2021, 4/20/2021 and 4/29/2021 PM shifts, 9 CNAs were required on each shift, and 3 CNAs were on duty each shift. 3) During the 6/8/2021 PM shift, 9 CNAs were required, 4 CNAs were on duty. 4) During the 6/1/2021, 6/10/2021 and 6/14/2021 PM shifts, 9 CNAs were required on each shift, and 5 CNAs were on duty each shift. 5) During the 6/15/2021 and 6/16/2021 AM shifts, 9 CNAs were required on each shift, 6 CNAs were on duty each shift. 6) During the 4/3/2021, 4/4/2021, 4/5/2021, 4/6/2021, 4/10/2021, 4/15/2021, 4/18/2021, 4/20/2021, 4/24/2021, 4/25/2021, 5/1/2021, 5/10/2021, 5/15/2021, 6/12/2021 and 6/15/2021 Night shifts, 5 CNAs are required, and 2 CNAs were on duty each shift. 7) During the 4/8/2021, 4/9/2021, 4/11/2021, 4/12/2021, 4/13/2021, 4/23/2021, 4/26/2021, 4/28/2021, 4/29/2021, 4/30/2021, 5/2/2021, 5/4/2021, 5/6/2021, 5/7/2021, 5/8/2021, 5/9/2021, 5/17/2021, 5/18/2021, 5/20/2021, 5/22/2021, 5/23/2021, 5/24/2021, 5/25/2021, 5/28/2021, 5/29/2021, 5/30/2021, 5/31/2021, 6/3/2021, 6/4/2021, 6/10/2021, 6/11/2021, 6/13/2021, 6/16/2021, 6/19/2021, 6/20/2021 and 6/21/2021 Night shifts, 5 CNAs are required on each shift, and 3 CNAs were on duty each shift. During individual interviews conducted at various times on 06/15/2021 through 6/17/2021, 7 out of 12 residents interviewed stated that they felt that the facility did not have sufficient staff. During the Resident Council Meeting held on 06/17/2021 at 01:37PM, 9 residents (Residents #37, #40, #45, #46, #59, #74, #80, #81 and #91) who attended the meeting stated that staffing in the facility was bad, that they do not get the help and care they need without waiting for a long time and staff do not respond to the call lights timely. An interview was conducted with the Human Resource (HR) Representative / Staffing Coordinator (HR/SC) on 06/21/2021 at 10:35AM. The HR/SC revealed that he/she was to base the staffing schedule on the minimum par level determined in the Facility Assessment. He/she stated that he/she really cannot follow the par level because there were not enough CNAs in the facility. During an interview with CNA #3 on 06/23/2021 at 10:55AM, he/she revealed that he/she worked both AM and PM shifts on 06/14/2021 and 06/15/2021. CNA #3 stated that the nurses help, but they have to do their own thing too. CNA #3 stated that the norm is that each CNA takes care of 20 residents, and they do the best they can but it's very stressful. CNA #3 stated that to get by he/she teams up with CNA #4 to care for residents that require extensive assistance but CNA #4 leaves by 9 PM. CNA #3 stated that once CNA #4 leaves, he/she can only care for residents who require one-person assistance. An interview was conducted with CNA #1 on 06/23/2021 at 11:05AM. CNA #1 stated that regarding the AM shift, one weekend last month (05/09/2021) I was the only one on the 2nd floor with 63 people and there was another CNA doing the 1st floor. I could only touch 13 people, some nurses wanted me to get the Hoyer residents up, of course I cannot do that. An interview was conducted with CNA #2 on 06/23/2021 at 11:30AM. CNA #2 stated, I am usually assigned in District 2 and I can only do the best I can to keep them clean, residents #4, #54, #69, #83, #33, #57, #75 are all Hoyer lift transfers and it means I have to find another person to help me get them out of bed. Some weekends are worst, having 5 CNAs on the 2nd floor is rare, it's usually 4 or 3 CNAs. Staffing is really a problem. An interview was conducted with the LPN Unit Manager (LPNUM #2) on 06/23/2021 at 12:28PM. LPNUM #2 revealed that he/she helps when staffing is short on the floor. LPNUM #2 further stated that if one LPN calls out then he/she completes the medication pass. LPNUM #2 also said that when the CNAs are short like it was on 06/15/2021, he/she has helped on the floor. LPNUM #2 stated that he/she had been [NAME] with the care plans because of COVID-19 and because she helps out when there are staffing issues on the floor. An interview was conducted with the Activities Director / Acting Social Worker (AD/SW) on 06/23/2021 at 01:00PM. The AD/SW revealed that he/she has observed that residents were not being transferred out of bed to join group activities. He/she stated that his/her office was at the end of the hall of District 2 and that he/she observed how residents were left in their beds, not getting out of bed all day in that district. He/she also stated that staffing in the facility has reached a critical point as he/she has observed times when there was one CNA caring for all 60 residents on the 2nd floor. He/she also stated that resident care plans not being updated is a reflection of two things: a lack of leadership and a lack of staff in the facility. An interview was conducted with the facility Administrator on 06/23/2021 at 03:22PM. The Administrator explained that he/she is aware that the minimum staffing levels documented on the Facility Assessment updated on 04/2021 for an average census of 90 residents was not being followed. The Administrator stated, I realize that staffing is an issue here, we've gotten nurses now but CNAs, we need more. We use every available resource we have, we used certain agencies and we have contracts with these agencies. What happens in general is that the nurses help with the ADLs (Activities of Daily Living). I believe this is happening; I've seen them helping but I cannot show you specifics. I know during a snowstorm there was 1 nurse and 1 CNA doing 60 residents. An interview conducted with the Director of Nursing (DON) on 06/24/2021 at 1:30PM. The DON revealed that that he/she is aware that the minimum staffing levels documented on the Facility Assessment updated on 04/2021 for an average census of 90 residents was not being followed. The DON stated that the facility has significant staffing issues and he/she has discussed this issue with the facility Administrator as well as the facility Owner. The DON stated that, staffing was worst when I got here 4 months ago, I hired 10 CNAs and 4-5 LPNs, but 3 UMs also left. The DON also stated that with the UMs leaving, he/she had noticed that care plans were not being updated, care plans were being initiated without content and/or no care plans were in place at all. 415.13(a)(1)(i-iii)
CONCERN (E)

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

Deficiency F0836 (Tag F0836)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

Based on observation and staff interview, the facility did not ensure that carbon monoxide detectors in buildings with fuel-fired appliances were installed in compliance with Section 915 of the 2015 e...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation and staff interview, the facility did not ensure that carbon monoxide detectors in buildings with fuel-fired appliances were installed in compliance with Section 915 of the 2015 edition of the International Fire Code as adopted by New York State. Specifically, a carbon monoxide detector was not installed in the generator room. The generator is located in the basement of the building and is fuel operated. The findings are: During the Life Safety recertification survey on 6/17/21 at 11:30 AM, a tour of the generator room located in the basement revealed that a carbon monoxide detector was not installed in the room. In an interview at the time of the finding, a maintenance staff member stated that a battery operated carbon monoxide detector was installed in the room and must have fallen off the wall. In a subsequent interview with the Director of Facilities at 11:35 AM, the Director of Facilities stated that that carbon monoxide detectors will be installed. 483.70 (b)
Understanding Severity Codes (click to expand)
Life-Threatening (Immediate Jeopardy)
J - Isolated K - Pattern L - Widespread
Actual Harm
G - Isolated H - Pattern I - Widespread
Potential for Harm
D - Isolated E - Pattern F - Widespread
No Harm (Minor)
A - Isolated B - Pattern C - Widespread

Questions to Ask on Your Visit

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

Our Honest Assessment

Strengths
  • • 44% turnover. Below New York's 48% average. Good staff retention means consistent care.
Concerns
  • • Multiple safety concerns identified: 1 life-threatening violation(s), Special Focus Facility, $311,517 in fines. Review inspection reports carefully.
  • • 51 deficiencies on record, including 1 critical (life-threatening) violation. These warrant careful review before choosing this facility.
  • • $311,517 in fines. Extremely high, among the most fined facilities in New York. Major compliance failures.
  • • Grade F (0/100). Below average facility with significant concerns.
Bottom line: This facility is on CMS's Special Focus list for poor performance. Consider alternatives strongly.

About This Facility

What is Campbell Hall Rehabilitation Center Inc's CMS Rating?

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

How is Campbell Hall Rehabilitation Center Inc Staffed?

CMS rates CAMPBELL HALL REHABILITATION CENTER INC's staffing level at 2 out of 5 stars, which is below average compared to other nursing homes. Staff turnover is 44%, compared to the New York average of 46%. This relatively stable workforce can support continuity of care. RN turnover specifically is 64%, which is notably high. RNs provide skilled clinical oversight, so turnover in this role can affect medical care quality.

What Have Inspectors Found at Campbell Hall Rehabilitation Center Inc?

State health inspectors documented 51 deficiencies at CAMPBELL HALL REHABILITATION CENTER INC during 2021 to 2025. These included: 1 Immediate Jeopardy (the most serious level, indicating potential for serious harm or death), 49 with potential for harm, and 1 minor or isolated issues. Immediate Jeopardy findings are rare and represent the most serious regulatory concerns. They require immediate corrective action.

Who Owns and Operates Campbell Hall Rehabilitation Center Inc?

CAMPBELL HALL REHABILITATION CENTER INC is owned by a for-profit company. For-profit facilities operate as businesses with obligations to shareholders or private owners. The facility operates independently rather than as part of a larger chain. With 134 certified beds and approximately 102 residents (about 76% occupancy), it is a mid-sized facility located in CAMPBELL HALL, New York.

How Does Campbell Hall Rehabilitation Center Inc Compare to Other New York Nursing Homes?

Compared to the 100 nursing homes in New York, CAMPBELL HALL REHABILITATION CENTER INC's overall rating (1 stars) is below the state average of 3.0, staff turnover (44%) is near the state average of 46%, and health inspection rating (1 stars) is much below the national benchmark.

What Should Families Ask When Visiting Campbell Hall Rehabilitation Center Inc?

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

Is Campbell Hall Rehabilitation Center Inc Safe?

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

Do Nurses at Campbell Hall Rehabilitation Center Inc Stick Around?

CAMPBELL HALL REHABILITATION CENTER INC has a staff turnover rate of 44%, 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 Campbell Hall Rehabilitation Center Inc Ever Fined?

CAMPBELL HALL REHABILITATION CENTER INC has been fined $311,517 across 43 penalty actions. This is 8.6x the New York average of $36,194. Fines at this level are uncommon and typically indicate a pattern of serious deficiencies, repeated violations, or failure to correct problems promptly. CMS reserves penalties of this magnitude for facilities that pose significant, documented risk to resident health or safety. Families should request specific documentation of what issues led to these fines and what systemic changes have been implemented.

Is Campbell Hall Rehabilitation Center Inc on Any Federal Watch List?

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