CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Notification of Changes
(Tag F0580)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview and record review conducted during a Standard survey completed on 3/29/19, it was determined that the facilit...
Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview and record review conducted during a Standard survey completed on 3/29/19, it was determined that the facility did not ensure that they immediately inform the resident; consult with the resident's physician; and notify, consistent with his or her authority, the resident's representative (s) when a significant change in the resident's physical, mental, or psychosocial status and there is a need to alter treatment significantly. Specifically, one (Resident #92) of one resident reviewed for notification of change revealed that the resident's family and physician were not notified the resident refused medications for 12 days in March 2019.
The finding is:
The policy and procedure (P&P) entitled Procedure for Medication Administration dated January 2018 documented if a resident refuses medication for three times to notify the provider so that a determination can be made on how to proceed. Further review of the P&P revealed that nursing staff is to document the resident's refusal and any effects of the refusal.
1. Resident #92 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses of diabetes, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, major depressive disorder, and heart failure. A review of the quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS - a resident assessment tool) dated 2/29/19 revealed that the resident was severely cognitively impaired, usually understood and usually understands.
A review of the resident's signed Physician Orders dated 2/21/19 revealed the resident was to receive the following medications daily:
- Lasix 40 milligrams (mg) by mouth once a day for chronic heart failure (CHF).
- Flomax 0.4 mg by mouth once a day for bladder neck obstruction.
- Dexamethasone 4 mg by mouth every other day for hypoxemia (abnormally low oxygen levels).
- Prilosec 20 mg by mouth once a day for acid reflux.
- Senna-Docusate 8.6 mg/50 mg by mouth at bedtime for constipation.
- Metformin ER 1000 mg by mouth once a day for diabetes mellitus.
- Crestor 30 mg by mouth at bedtime for high cholesterol.
- Potassium CL ER 20 meq (milliequivalent) by mouth once a day.
- Lisinopril 5 mg by mouth at bedtime for high blood pressure.
- Sotalol 80 mg by mouth once a day for atrial fibrillation (rapid heart rate).
- Oxcarbazepine 300 mg give two tablets (660 mg) by mouth once a day for seizures.
- Melatonin 3 mg by mouth at bedtime for sleep.
A review of the resident's March 2019 Medication Administration Record (MAR) revealed the resident refused all medications on 3/9/19, 3/10/19, 3/12/19, and between 3/14/19 to 3/22/19. A review of the corresponding Interdisciplinary (ID) Notes revealed that staff nurses put an ID note that the resident refused medications on 3/10/19, 3/14/19, and 3/21/19.
A review of an email sent to the nursing staff from the Director of Nursing (DON) dated 2/28/19 revealed that nursing staff is to document in the ID notes what medication the resident refused, why the resident refused the medication, the education provided to the resident, and how many attempts made to see if the resident would take the medications. Further review of the email revealed that if a resident refused medications for more than a dose or two, nursing staff is to contact the NP (Nurse Practitioner) or the Physician and document this.
An interview with Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) #2 on 3/27/19 at 10:17 AM revealed that if a resident refused medications, she would re-approach the resident a couple of times and see if they will take it. If the resident refused medications repeatedly, she would let the NP know.
An interview with the NP on 3/28/19 at 11:05 AM revealed she had found out about the refused medications on 3/27/19. The LPN's did not inform her of the refused medications and she talks to them every day about the residents. She stated that because the resident was on psychotropic medications the resident should have been titrated down, then titrated back up, and not started on same dose as before. The NP had spoken with the resident's daughter who told her that she and the resident had an argument on 3/9/19 and that's when the resident started to refuse the medications. The NP stated the resident had a history of refusing medications in the morning, so they switched the doses to the afternoon where the resident would take medications with no issues. The NP expected the nursing staff to call her immediately if a resident refuses three doses or three days of medications in a row.
An interview with LPN #1 Unit Manager on 3/28/19 at 11:18 AM revealed that the NP had spoken to her about the resident's medication refusals and that she was not aware of the refusals. The nursing staff can look up in the computer system whether a resident has not gotten medications through the monthly view. The LPN stated that she expected her staff to notify the Physician or the NP if the resident was refusing medications. Additionally, if staff did not notify the Physician or the NP, that staff could notify her, and she would let the NP know about the refusal of medications.
An interview with the Director of Nursing (DON) on 3/28/19 at 12:00 PM revealed that she expected her staff to put in an ID note about why the resident refused the medications. If the resident continually refused the medications, they should have called the NP or the Physician. Notifying the Physician of medication refusals was part of the medication pass training when a nurse is hired.
A telephone interview with LPN #3 on 3/29/19 at 3:51 AM revealed he would only look at the day's medications but would normally look at the whole month. The LPN did not know the resident had refused medications for a few days. He stated that if he was aware that the resident was not taking her medications, he would email his Unit Manager or let his Supervisor know.
A telephone interview with LPN #4 on 3/29/19 at 4:01 AM revealed that she attempted to give the resident her medications while the resident's daughter was there, and the resident refused. The LPN could not remember the day when she told the daughter, but the daughter got the resident to take her medications and asked the LPN how many days did the resident miss medications. The LPN stated when she looked up the resident's MAR in the computer, she saw the resident had not been taking her medications for a while. The LPN further stated she did not put in an ID nor did she notify the Physician or the NP, and she should have notified her Unit Manager and put an ID note into the computer.
A review of a facility investigation for the medication refusals given to the Surveyor on 3/29/19 revealed the resident refused medications from 3/9/19 to 3/22/19. The investigation documented the nursing staff did not document in ID notes the reason for the refusal, any evaluation of the resident, communication to the next shift, or to the Unit Manager or NP.
415.3(e)(2)(b)(c)
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Comprehensive Care Plan
(Tag F0656)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview and record review conducted during a Standard survey completed on 3/29/19, it was determined the facility did...
Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview and record review conducted during a Standard survey completed on 3/29/19, it was determined the facility did not develop and implement a comprehensive person-centered care plan for each resident, consistent with resident rights that includes measurable objectives and time frames to meet the resident's medical, nursing, and mental and psychosocial needs. One (Resident #14) of one resident reviewed for range of motion (ROM) did not have a care plan developed to address recommendations from therapy for passive range of motion (PROM (moving a joint through its range of motion without any exertion from the resident and is moved by another person).
The finding is:
A review of the policy and procedure (P&P) titled Nursing Range of Motion Exercises dated January 2015 revealed that range of motion exercises will be provided per OT/PT (occupational recommendations.
1. Resident #14 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses of depression, chronic pain, and muscle weakness. The Minimum Data Set (MDS, a resident assessment tool) dated 12/26/18 revealed that the resident was mildly cognitively impaired, understood by others, understands others, and requires an assist of two people for activities of daily living including dressing. Additionally, the MDS documented the resident had functional limitations of the upper and lower extremities.
The Comprehensive Care Plan (CCP) (identified as current) dated 10/3/18 documented under a section titled ADL (activities of daily living) Function/Rehab Potential it documented, Discontinue BUE (Both Upper Extremities) AAROM (Active Assist Range of Motion) QD (once a day) for BUE contractures (permanent shortening of the muscle or joint) shoulders as UE status will be addressed by OT (Occupational Therapy) at this time.
The undated Certified Nurse Aide (CNA) Worksheet Careplan (guide used by staff to provide care) (identified as current) with a print date of 3/28/19 did not include PROM as per the OT Discharge summary dated [DATE].
A review of the Interdisciplinary (ID) Notes dated 7/3/18 revealed that the resident was to be evaluated for an upper extremity exercise program.
An OT Daily Treatment Note dated 7/3/18 documented the resident's assessment identified two performance deficits of decreased grooming and inability to tolerate positioning out of bed due to pain and discomfort in both shoulders.
An OT Therapist Progress and Discharge summary dated [DATE] documented under Discharge Plans and Instructions that the recommendation from the OT that the resident was to resume passive range of motion once a day for shoulders contracture management and for the resident to do range of motion exercises that were taught to him with a TheraBand (an elastic resistance band).
An interview with the Director of Therapy (Registered Occupational Therapist, (OTR) on 3/28/19 at 3:50 PM revealed that when he makes a recommendation and adds an ID note in the Electronic Medical Record (EMR). The ID note automatically emails the Unit Manager to update the resident's care plan. The OTR stated that updating the care plan was the responsibility of the Unit Manager and he followed the procedure of the facility. Additionally, he does not follow up with nursing to see if the care plan was updated or implemented.
An interview with CNA #1 on 3/28/19 at 4:00 PM revealed the resident does his own therapy. She also stated they don't do any range of motion with the resident and nope, we don't touch him at all. He does his own therapy.
An interview with Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) #1 Unit Manager on 3/28/19 at 4:05 PM revealed that CNA #1 came to her and told her about the resident not receiving range of motion. The care plan was to be updated by the Unit Manager when they receive a recommendation from therapy. LPN #1 was not aware the care plan was not updated to include the need for PROM and the previous Unit Manager should have updated the care plan. She also stated she would expect her staff to do the range of motion exercises if it was on the care plan.
An interview with the Director of Nursing on 3/28/19 at 4:15 PM revealed that she expected her Unit Managers to update the care plan and she expected her staff to perform range of motion exercises as per the recommendations of therapy.
An interview with Registered Nurse (RN) #1 on 3/29/19 at 8:41 AM revealed that she used to be the Unit Manager on the unit where the resident resided. The RN did not recall receiving the email to update the care plan. She also stated she thought that therapy would have contacted her if there wasn't range of motion included on the care plan.
A follow up interview with Director of Therapy (OTR) on 3/29/19 at 8:47 AM revealed he followed the procedures of the facility and he wrote an ID note for the exercises to be added to the care plan. He also stated that he did not follow up with the Unit Manager concerning the range of motion.
415.11(c)(1)
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Accident Prevention
(Tag F0689)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on observation, interview, and record review conducted during a Standard survey completed on 3/29/19, the facility did not ensure that the resident environment remained as free of accident hazar...
Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, interview, and record review conducted during a Standard survey completed on 3/29/19, the facility did not ensure that the resident environment remained as free of accident hazards as is possible; and each resident received adequate supervision and assistance devices to prevent accidents for one (Resident #42) of three residents reviewed for accidents. Specifically, the lack of effective interventions for a resident who experienced repeated falls. Additionally, the facility did not effectively collaborate and follow up with therapy after the resident fell and sustained fractured a hip.
The finding is:
1. Resident #42 was admitted into the facility on 4/30/15 with diagnoses that included Alzheimer's Disease, anxiety, muscle weakness and repeated falls. The Minimum Data Set (MDS, a resident assessment tool) dated 12/19/18 documented the resident was severely cognitively impaired. The MDS documented the resident required supervision, oversight, encouragement or cueing with a one-person physical assist for transfers and locomotion on the unit.
An undated comprehensive Care Plan (CCP) (identified as current by the Director of Nursing) documented the resident had a potential for falls and actual falls. Interventions included PT/OT evaluations as needed, encourage to rest in chair when fatigued and 15-minute checks when in her room to ensure safety. The CCP also documented the resident was independent with transfers, and ambulation in room and corridors. Additional interventions included to place a sign on the room door so, she can identify her room and the sink light was to be turned on at night.
The Certified Nurse Assistant (CNA) Careplan (guide used by staff to provide care) dated 3/27/19 documented the resident was independent with transfers, and ambulation in her room and unit corridors.
Review of an Interdisciplinary Note dated 9/13/18 at 9:13 AM completed by Registered Nurse (RN) #1 (former Unit Manager) revealed, therapy recommendation for limited assist for transfers and ambulation. Resident is noncompliant and lacks self-safety awareness, resident refuses assistance and becomes agitated and combative with attempts. Care plan for resident to remain independent for transfers and ambulation on the unit and limited assist of 1 off unit. Resident remains 1:1 (one on one) while out of bed, out of room.
Review of a Resident Incident Report dated 9/16/18 at 5:25 AM revealed the resident was found sitting on her buttocks in her room with no apparent visible injuries. The recommendation documented was to continue to check on resident while door is shut to ensure safety, and 30-minute checks 10:00 PM to 6:00 AM for safety. An additional notation was made to continue with 15-minute checks while in room.
Review of a Nurse Practitioner's (NP) progress note dated 9/20/18 revealed the resident was seen for a routine monthly visit. Upon physical exam the resident had an abnormal gait, and stiffness in neck and extremities. There was documentation regarding the resident's recent fall.
Review of a PT- Therapist Progress and Discharge Summary dated 9/27/18 revealed the patient's skilled PT, focused on improving her balance for decreased fall risk with functional mobility and transfers. She continues to require supervision with 100 % (percent) verbal cues to complete functional mobility safely. The resident has poor safety awareness with no carry over of education. Recommended to staff that she should be a limited assist for all transfers and mobility due to poor safety awareness and high fall risk with a history of repeated falls.
Review of the Historical CCP dated 9/11/18 revealed there was no documented evidence the resident's care plan was revised to include the therapist's recommendations.
Review of a Resident Incident Report dated 11/24/18 at 8:00 PM revealed the resident was found in her room with the top half of her body on the mattress and the lower half on the floor. The mattress was also half off the bed. The report included recommendations to continue current fall plan of care (POC). Attached witness statements documented the mattress slid as the resident attempted to lie on it.
Review of an Interdisciplinary Resident Screen dated 11/30/18 completed by the PT revealed the resident was evaluated for an unwitnessed fall in her room with no injury. Therapy recommends limited assist for walking and transfers, unit manager changed resident to independent despite care plan recommendations.
Review of a NP progress note dated 12/18/18 revealed the resident continues to ambulate independently in the hallway and staff no longer have to be 1:1 with her on a continuous basis. Upon physical exam the resident had stiffness in her neck and extremities. There was no documentation regarding the resident's previous falls.
Review of a Resident Incident Report dated 1/13/19 at 10:15 AM revealed the resident was found sitting on the floor in her room, leaning slightly on her left hip. She was able to sit up and her range of motion was within normal limits. The resident was uncomfortable sitting on the floor rubbing her hips. There were no other apparent injuries. The recommendation documented was for the resident to be 1:1 for 24 hours while up or sitting on the bed while in room. This recommendation was discontinued on 1/15/19.
Review of the Interdisciplinary Resident Screen dated 1/15/19 revealed the resident was evaluated because she was found on the floor in her room on 1/13/19. She was last discharged from PT on 9/27/18 as a limited assist of one person with no devices. The screen further documented that therapy had no further intervention as resident was at her baseline. Care Plan states independent with ambulation and transfers despite PT recommendation.
Review of a NP progress note dated 1/9/18 revealed the resident was seen for monthly visit. The resident was now a 1:1 only while ambulating in the hallway. She ambulates independently. She continues to have chronic back pain that is fairly well controlled on Norco (a controlled pain medication). The progress note further revealed a hand-written entry by the MD dated 1/17/18 patient seen for complaints of (c/o) pain in her crotch discussed with NP and x-rays were ordered.
Review of the diagnostic Patient Report (x-ray report) dated 1/17/19 documented there was a possible hair line fracture of the right femoral neck. A repeat hip series on the right with a CAT (computerized axial tomography) scan was recommended for a definitive diagnosis.
Review of the Resident Incident Report dated 1/17/19 at 11:20 AM revealed the resident was found in her room on her knees with her upper body on the bed. Both knees were reddened. Recommendations included to encourage the resident to sit when fatigued. The report also documented due to dementia the resident was unable to understand to rest her leg and that walking calms her. The investigation documented the resident was last seen standing in her room.
Review of a NP progress note dated 1/18/19 revealed member with advanced dementia, sustained a fall 1/14/19 without any apparent injuries. Upon rounds with the MD yesterday member was c/o pain in crotch worse with walking. An x-ray was obtained and showed possible hairline fracture of the femoral neck. Risks discussed with the health care agent the resident was at risk for further falls and complete fracture and a Hospice consult was ordered.
Review of a Resident Incident Report dated 3/24/19 at 7:09 PM revealed staff reported the resident was ambulating, and roaming hallways of the unit per normal prior to being found on the floor in the hallway. There was a pinpoint open area to the left fifth digit. Recommendations documented that staff were educated on importance of keeping the hallway clear of any obstacles.
Review of the therapy notes dated 1/16/19 through 3/27/19 revealed there was no documented evidence the resident was screened by therapy after the fall on 1/17/19 and 3/24/19.
During an interview on 03/27/19 at 1:20 PM, the Director of Therapy (Registered Occupational Therapist (OTR)) stated the resident was discharged on 9/27/18 from PT. At that time recommendations were made for the resident to have limited assist of one person for ambulation and transfers. The resident was also seen by PT/OT on 11/23/18 and 1/15/19 due to a fall. It was recommended the resident be a limited assist with more supervision to prevent falls we can only recommend status of the resident. The resident has not been seen by PT or OT since 1/15/19. The resident was not screened after the fall on 1/17/19 and the Director of Therapy could not say why she was not screened. We try to at least screen after each fall, I'm assuming we were not informed of the fall that's why she wasn't seen after the fall on 1/17/19. The Director of Therapy does go to morning meetings and they discuss the incidents that occurred, but the Director of Therapy could not recall if the resident was discussed after she fell with a possible fracture on 1/17/19.
During an interview on 3/27/19 at 1:41 PM, Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) Unit Manager #1 stated on 9/16/18 the resident had a fall, and 30-minute checks were added from 10:00 PM to 6:00 AM. On 1/13/19 she fell, and the care plan change was for 1:1 supervision for 24 hours. On 1/17/19 the resident was lowering herself to the floor in her room. She complained of pain, an x-ray was done, and it showed a possible fracture of right hip. The care plan change was to encourage rest when fatigued and was put into place on 1/22/19. LPN #1 stated, if PT makes a recommendation the interdisciplinary team (IDT) usually will go with their recommendations, but an RN can change the status. The RN would have to do an assessment and document in the medical record the rational of why the resident's status was changed or why the recommendations from therapy were not followed. In December of 2018 the resident had her annual MDS assessment completed, and it stated she was independent with ambulation and transfer. There is no RN documentation as to why the PT recommendations were not followed to be a limited assist of one. She is still independent. The resident had another fall on 3/24/19 and the LPN stated she could not find any PT/OT recommendations. Additionally, the LPN did not know why the PT recommendations for the resident to be a limited assist of one after last evaluation in 11/2018 were not put in place, as there was no RN documentation as to why the resident could still be independent.
During an interview on 3/27/19 at 2:21 PM, the DON stated the resident was a fall safety risk and in September the IDT had a discussion. We kept her independent. It's her quality of life, walking keeps her calm. When asked if PT should see her after a fall she stated, depends on the situation, when she fell on the 1/17/19 she was kneeling on the floor, had an x-ray that showed a fractured femur. The DON was unable to find documentation that PT evaluated the resident and stated, yes PT should have seen her. The IDT reviews the 24-hour report in the morning and the Therapy Director decides if someone needs a screen or not and makes recommendations. After the resident fell on 1/17/19 she was put on hospice as the family didn't want anything else done.
During an interview on 3/27/19 at 3:03 PM, CNA #8 stated the resident frequently looks unsteady while ambulating. When he asks her if she wants to sit down, the resident says no.
During an interview on 3/28/19 at 8:43 AM, the Director of Therapy (OTR) stated the MD (medical doctor) signs the evaluations but not the screens. Nursing would have to notify the MD if there was a recommendation on a screen.
During an interview on 3/28/19 at 8:53 AM, the NP stated the providers sign the therapy evaluations but not the screens. She was unaware that OT saw the resident on 1/15/19 and recommended a limited assist for transfers and ambulation. The NP stated that she usually will follow the therapist's recommendations. She would have expected to be notified of the recommendations on a screen since, she does not review them or sign off on them. The NP also state she was unaware that PT/OT had recommended the resident to be limited assist of one person since September of 2018.
During an interview on 3/29/19 at 10:05 AM, the Physical Therapist stated if nursing was not following our recommendations she would expect to be notified and would also expect nursing to notify PT if the resident had a fall.
415.12(h)(2)
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0700
(Tag F0700)
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 Standard survey completed on 3/29/19 the facility must att...
Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview, and record review conducted during a Standard survey completed on 3/29/19 the facility must attempt to use appropriate alternatives prior to installing a side or bed rail. If a bed or side rail is used, the facility must ensure correct installation, use, and maintenance of bed rails. Assess the resident for risk of entrapment from bed rails prior to installation. Review the risks and benefits of bed rails with the resident or resident representative and obtain informed consent prior to installation. One (Resident #26) of one resident observed for side rail use had issues. Specifically, the facility did not ensure the resident was assessed for the use of the side rails upon admission and the facility did not notify the resident's representative of the use of the side rails or obtain informed consent.
The finding is:
The policy and procedure (P&P) entitled Side Rail Use dated 1/14/15 documented side rail safety assessments shall be completed upon admission. Residents who are care planned to use side rails shall be assessed quarterly and with each significant change in condition as long as they use side rails. A Registered Nurse (RN) shall complete a side rail assessment with in the electronic medical record (EMR) within one week of admission. The RN will list options or alternative equipment interventions to be taken to the interdisciplinary team (IDT) care plan meeting for discussion and implementation. The nurse manager or the charge nurse shall communicate to the resident and his or her family regarding the risks and benefits of the side rail use and what the plan shall be.
1. Resident #26 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses to include dementia, anxiety, depression and history of falls. The Minimum Data Set (MDS- a resident assessment tool) dated 1/17/19 documented the resident was usually severely cognitively impaired, understood and usually understands. The MDS under Section P documented the resident did not use side rails.
The comprehensive Care Plan (CCP) documented under the Activities of Daily Living (ADL's) function with a start date of 1/10/19 the resident used two, half side rails.
The Certified Nurse Assistant (CNA) Careplan (guide used by staff to provide care) dated 3/27/19 documented the resident used two, half side rails.
An Interdisciplinary Note dated 1/16/19 at 9:13 AM documented admission day seven status post (S/P) left hip fracture, transfers with two assist full mechanical lift, repositions self in bed uses side rails. The Interdisciplinary Notes from admission [DATE]) through 3/26/19 revealed there was no documented evidence that a side rail assessment was completed and no documented evidence the resident or the resident's representative was informed of the risks and benefits with using the side rails and informed consent was obtained.
Review of the Interdisciplinary Note dated 1/19/19 at 2:19 PM revealed the resident was alert with periods of confusion, able to make needs known, required assist of two staff with a mechanical lift for transfers and assist of one staff member for bed mobility.
Review of the OT (occupational)- Therapist Progress and Discharge Summary dated 2/21/19 revealed the resident required limited assist of one staff member for bed mobility. The Discharge Summary did not include the resident required the use of side rails.
During an observation on 3/27/19 at 8:31 AM revealed the resident was asleep in bed with two upper half side rails in the up position.
Review of the siderail assessment dated [DATE] at 9:42 AM revealed the resident has mild cognitive impairment, requires assist of one for bed mobility and the resident is at high risk for injury due to severe osteoporosis (a condition where bone strength weakens and is susceptible to fracture) or a history of fracture. The Siderail Assessment further revealed the resident requested two side rails up, and she was educated on potential for harm with use and verbalizes understanding.
During an observation on 3/28/19 at 2:42 PM revealed the resident was asleep in bed with two upper half side rails in the up position.
During an observation on 3/29/19 at 9:38 AM revealed the resident was asleep in bed with two upper half side rails in the up position.
During an interview on 3/29/19 at 8:47 AM (Friday) with the resident revealed she was folding wash cloths, she had breakfast and it was fair. At the time of the interview the resident could not recall what she had for breakfast, what day of the week it was and stated, It's Sunday. Additionally, the resident stated, It's February.
During an interview on 3/29/19 at 8:52 AM, CNA #9 stated the resident used the two upper side rails when she was in bed so, she does not fall out of bed and can sit up.
During an interview on 3/29/19 at 9:40 AM, Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) #7 stated the resident used the side rails when in bed so, she can roll over.
During an interview on 3/29/19 at 10:02 AM, RN Supervisor #8 stated since the resident's admission, she has used the side rails. Side rail assessments are to be completed upon admission and with the MDS. The resident was confused, and she probably was not capable of understanding the risk of entrapment. RN Supervisor #8 stated she completed the first side rail assessment on 3/27/18, someone should have done an assessment upon admission and she does not know why it wasn't done.
During an interview on 3/29/19 at 10:17 AM, LPN #1 Unit Manager (UM) stated side rail assessments should be on completed upon admission or per the family request. The resident was confused but the LPN UM #1 but felt the resident could understand the risks and benefits of using siderails, but her representative should have been notified since the resident lack's capacity.
During an interview on 3/29/19 at 11:57 AM, the Director of Therapy (Registered Occupational Therapist, OTR) stated that OT assesses residents for the use of side rails. The resident was not assessed by OT because she does not need them for bed mobility.
415.12(h)(1)
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Medication Errors
(Tag F0758)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on observation, interview, and record review conducted during the Standard survey completed on 3/29/19, the facility did not ensure residents who use psychotropic drugs receive gradual dose redu...
Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, interview, and record review conducted during the Standard survey completed on 3/29/19, the facility did not ensure residents who use psychotropic drugs receive gradual dose reductions, and behavioral interventions, unless clinically contraindicated, in an effort to discontinue these drugs for one (Resident #122) of five residents reviewed for unnecessary medications. Specifically, the issues involved the lack of gradual dose reduction (GDR) of Zyprexa (antipsychotic medication) without adequate justification for its continual use.
The finding is:
The policy and procedure entitled Unnecessary Drugs dated 8/6/15 documented an unnecessary drug is any drug when used for excessive duration, without adequate monitoring, without indication for its use, in the presence of adverse consequences which indicates the dose should be reduced or discontinued, or any combination of the stated reasons. Each resident receives only those medications, in doses and for the duration clinically indicated to treat the resident's condition. The potential contribution of the medication regimen to an unanticipated decline or newly emerging or worsening symptom is recognized and evaluated, and the regimen is modified when appropriate.
1. Resident #122 was originally admitted into the facility on 6/1/18 and has diagnoses which include dementia without behavioral disturbances, falls, anxiety. Review of the Minimum Data Set (MDS, a resident assessment tool) dated 2/27/19 revealed the resident was severely impaired for decision making.
The comprehensive Care Plan (identified as current) dated 6/1/18 documented the resident was on a psychotropic medication. Approaches included to administer and monitor for effectiveness and side effects. Assess, record and report to the physician any drug related effects that may affect cognition, behavior, or impairment of my ADL (activity of daily living) functioning.
Review of a psychiatric consult dated 9/5/18 documented the resident often becomes agitated and yells at staff. She has had episodes of physical aggression. There was no suicidal or homicidal ideation and there were no auditory or visual hallucinations. Recommendation included to continue Zyprexa 2.5 milligrams (mg) AM and 5 mg at HS (bedtime).
Review of the physician's orders dated 9/14/18 revealed orders for Zyprexa 2.5 mg at noon and 5 mg at HS for anxiety and dementia with behavioral disturbances.
Review of the current Physician's Order for Review dated and signed by the provider (Nurse Practitioner) on 1/16/19 revealed orders for Zyprexa 2.5 mg in the afternoon and 5 mg at bedtime.
Review of the monthly provider (medical doctor/nurse practitioner) notes from 12/4/18 through 3/22/19 lacked documentation regarding resident behaviors. The provider (MD/NP) note dated 3/23/19 documented the resident's mood was pleasant and the resident was cooperative.
Review of the Medication Administration Record (MAR) dated 12/4/18 through 3/28/19 revealed Zyprexa 2.5 mg in the afternoon and 5 mg at HS was administered to the resident.
Interdisciplinary Notes dated 11/27/18 through 11/27/18 noted the following behaviors: resistive and refusing care. Agitated and yelling at staff and residents, self-transferring with multiple falls, resident to resident altercation (no injury). Interdisciplinary notes dated 11/27/18 through 12/3/18 revealed the resident had fallen and was admitted to the hospital with a fractured hip. Review of interdisciplinary note dated 12/11/18 revealed the resident has had a significant change. Resident remains alert with confusion. Staff anticipating all needs. Spending most of her time in room and all meals in room. There was little interest in activities. On 12/13/18 there were new orders for Methadone (narcotic medication for severe pain) 5 mg BID (twice a day), Norco 5/325 mg (narcotic medication for moderate to severe pain) for hip pain with a plan to move to comfort care/Hospice.
Resident observed in bed 3/27/19 at 10:45 AM sleeping no behaviors noted. Resident observed 3/28/19 at 12:15 PM eating lunch in small private dining room assisted by staff. Resident was calm and pleasant, with no verbal or physical outbursts.
During an interview on 3/27/19 at 10:50 AM, Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) #2 stated the resident doesn't have behaviors any more. She has been calm, cooperative with care usually, and less disruptive throughout the day.
During an interview on 3/28/19 at 1:45 PM, LPN Unit Manager #1 stated the Zyprexa was trialed as a GDR in August 2018 to 2.5 mg BID but failed. In September it was increased to 2.5 mg in the AM and 5 mg in the evening and it's been that way ever since. Resident was not having behaviors like she too. She used to call out, yell, strike out, and was resistive with care. Resident had occasional outbursts related to care, especially when touched like for showers and treatments. They are easily manageable.
During an interview on 3/28/19 at 3:25 PM, the Pharmacist stated a recommendation for a GDR of the Zyprexa was made 8/18/18 but, failed. The resident has been on the current dose of Zyprexa since 9/5/18. The Pharmacist stated he didn't know the resident's behaviors had diminished. The next recommendation was made 2/20/19 and was declined by the NP #2 on 3/3/19. The resident had just been put on service of NP #2 on 3/1/19. NP #1 had been the residents primary NP up to 2/28/19.
During an interview with NP #1 on 3/29/19 at 9:38 AM stated she should have done a GDR after returning from the hospital in December. Residents behaviors decreased following the fall with fracture. We were focusing on comfort for her at that time. NP#1 stated she didn't think the family would have gone for it. When recommendations were made in February by the pharmacist for the GDR of the Zyprexa, it should have been done then. NP #2 declined to complete a GDR as the (name of company) prescriber (NP) was new to the resident.
415.12(1)(I)
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Infection Control
(Tag F0880)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview, and record review conducted during the Standard survey completed on 3/29/19, the facility did n...
Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview, and record review conducted during the Standard survey completed on 3/29/19, the facility did not ensure provision of a safe, sanitary and comfortable environment to help prevent the development and transmission of communicable diseases and infections for three (Residents #55, 67 and 326) of four residents reviewed for infection control practices during personal care. Specifically, the lack of maintaining proper handwashing during wound care observations (#55) and the lack of implementing and maintaining appropriate transmission - based precautions (#67, 326).
The findings are:
1. Resident #55 was readmitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses of peripheral vascular disease (PVD, poor circulation of the lower extremities, diabetes mellitus (DM), and hypertension (HTN, high blood pressure). The Minimum Data Set (MDS, a resident assessment tool) dated 1/30/19 documented the resident had severe cognitive impairment.
Review of the facility policy and procedure entitled Skin Wound Care Guidelines dated 1/14/15 revealed all wounds are considered contaminated and Standard Precautions will be followed during all wound care.
Review of the Treatment Record for March 2019, revealed the following treatments:
- Right 2nd Metatarsophalangeal (MTP - a joint in a toe), apply triple antibiotic ointment to the wound base daily, and cover with a dry dressing daily.
- Left heel, cleanse the wound with normal saline (NS), apply Santyl (sterile ointment to remove dead tissue) a nickel thickness to the wound base, then cover with a dry dressing daily.
- Right great toe, cleanse with NS, apply triple antibiotic ointment to wound base, cover with a dry dressing and wrap daily.
- Left great toe cleanse with NS and apply Skin prep (topical application that toughens the skin) to wound base daily.
- Right foot plantar (bottom aspect) aspect, cleanse the affected area (wound) with NS, apply Skin prep to wound base every shift
During an observation of wound care on 3/28/19 at 9:56 AM, Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) #6 completed the treatments with the assistance of Registered Nurse (RN) #5. LPN #6 completed the treatments to all five wounds per the treatment record without washing her hands. This included after glove changes and prior to moving from one wound to another wound. The wounds to the right foot and toes were dry. The left foot and toe wounds were open and moist. Additionally, the left heel wound had a small amount of yellow/ tan drainage. After completion of five wound care treatments LPN #6 washed her hands.
During an interview on 3/28/19 at 10:42 AM, RN #5 stated the nurse should have washed her hands before initiating any treatment to a wound, after removing old dressing, and at the end of each treatment before starting the next. RN #5 stated each wound should be treated separately to prevent any cross contamination of contaminants from one wound to the next.
During an interview on 3/28/19 at 1:45 PM, LPN #6 stated, I only washed my hands before the initial treatment and I think I used Germ X (a hand sanitizer) once during the first treatment but, didn't wash my hands between each area or when the old dressings were removed. LPN #6 stated that she washed her hands at the end of the entire treatment process after all five wounds were completed. LPN #6 stated she should have washed her hands before starting any treatment, when old dressings were removed, at the end of the treatment and before starting the next to prevent possible cross contamination.
During an interview on 3/28/19 at 10:54 AM, the Nurse Practitioner (NP) stated she was familiar with this resident and the multiple wounds being treated. NP stated at a minimum the nurse should wash at prior to starting a treatment, after removing the old dressing, after completion of the treatment and prior to going to the next wound. Each wound should be treated separately to prevent cross contamination.
During an interview on 3/29/19 at 9:04 AM, the Director of Nursing (DON) stated the nurse should be washing hands and donning (putting on) gloves at a minimum of before starting a treatment, when the old dressing was removed and at the end of the treatment. If a resident has multiple areas, each area was to be treated separately to prevent cross contamination.
During an interview on 3/29/19 at 9:44 AM, RN #2 Infection Control Nurse stated a nurse should wash hands prior to starting a treatment and whenever the nurse removes the gloves during the treatment. RN #2 stated each site is to be treated separately to prevent cross contamination.
2. Resident #67 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] and readmitted on [DATE] with diagnoses of PVD, diabetes mellitus (DM), and right leg below knee amputation. The MDS dated [DATE] documented the resident was cognitively intact.
The comprehensive Care Plan revealed a category dated 3/27/19 Infections- left foot has an infection of MRSA (Methicillin Resistant Staph Aureus, antibiotic resistant bacteria, infection), interventions included, contact precautions.
During an observation 3/25/19 in the morning the observation of the unit personal protective equipment (PPE) was organized outside the resident's door in bins containing supplies (gloves, protective clothing gowns and biohazard red garbage bags), staff staff stated the bins were being removed because the resident no longer needed to be on precautions.
During intermittent observation of the resident's room on 3/26/19 and 3/27/19 between approximately 8:00 AM and 3:00 PM revealed there were no precaution bins or precautionary signs near the resident's room.
During an observation on 3/28/19 at 8:36 AM, revealed a PPE set up outside the resident's room, organized in bins containing supplies (gloves, protective clothing gowns and biohazard red garbage bags).
During an observation of wound care on 3/28/19 at 8:36 AM, the NP, RN #3 Unit Manager (UM) and RN #4 UM, revealed they all were applying gloves and yellow gowns prior to entering the resident's room. Observation of the wound revealed a pinpoint open wound to the resident's left ankle and had small clear drainage.
Review of a left ankle wound culture final results dated 3/24/19 revealed a moderate growth of Methicillin Resistant Staph Aureus.
During an interview on 3/28/19 at 8:54 AM, the NP stated she was aware the actively draining abscess on the residents left ankle since 3/23/19 and believed it to be an active infection. The resident was on contact precautions and should have continued contact precautions and it is uncertain when or why precautions were discontinued.
During an interview on 3/28/19 at 9:05 AM, RN #3 stated precautions were discontinued Monday 3/25/19 because, the resident was on precautions for the Flu. The RN did not know a culture was obtained or that the resident had an infection in the left foot. She stated should have received the abnormal culture results, by various methods of communications; an e-mail or voice mail from the charge nurse who received the information and by reading the shift report, but she had not received any reports of the culture being obtained or results returned. In addition, RN #3 stated the NP noticed the precaution bins were not set up yesterday evening outside the resident's room, therefore the precautions and sign was initiated last evening; 3/27/19.
During an interview on 3/28/19 at 9:11 AM, RN #4 UM stated the abnormal culture results would have been discussed at morning report, but the team did not meet for morning report this week.
Review of a Report to the Administrator and DON Significant Change in Condition dated March 18, 2019 through March 27,2019 revealed there was no documented evidence a wound culture was obtained, or the culture results were received.
During an interview on 3/29/19 at 9:04 AM, the DON stated the culture information should have been on the 24-hour report sheet for the team to have identified it and discussed it, but the information was not written on the report and she did not know to follow-up to ensure contact precautions were in place. DON further started the NM was not aware the culture was obtained and had discontinued the contact precautions and should not have; there was a lack of communication.
During an interview on 3/29/19 at 9:44 AM, RN #2 Infection Control Nurse stated a resident who had a positive culture from a wound with active drainage, should have been on contact precautions. Staff should be wearing gloves and gowns during the treatment change to protect the nurses and to prevent cross contamination. If the area is not contained or has heavy drainage, then everyone who provides care to the resident needs to wear gloves and gowns to prevent cross contamination to others.
During an interview on 3/29/19 at 11:14 AM, RN #7 stated she received the culture results and ensured the resident was on contact precautions but did not write the information on the shift report or communicate the results to the nurse manager, because she got busy.
During an interview on 3/29/19 at approximately 11:30 AM, RN #6 stated she doesn't think she wore any protective equipment while completing the treatment on 3/27/19 because she doesn't believe there were any bins or signs indicating he was on contact precautions.
3. Resident #326 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses of clostridium difficile colitis (an infection of the colon by the bacterium, clostridium difficile - C. diff), Bacteremia (is the presence of bacteria in the blood), and diabetes mellitus type II. Per the Baseline Care plan the resident was alert and oriented, and able to make their needs knows.
During an observation on 3/25/19 in the morning during the observation of the unit personal protective equipment (PPE) was organized outside the resident's door in bins containing supplies (gloves, protective clothing gowns and biohazard red garbage bags) staff stated the bins were in place for transmission precautions due to the resident has C-diff.
During a personal care observation on 3/27/19 at 9:36 AM, certified nurse aide (CNA #3) applied gloves and a gait belt to the resident's waist (a belt used to provide assistance to transfer a resident). The resident required three attempts to stand with the assistance of CNA #3. While resident leaning forward CNA #3 switched a commode with the wheelchair, adjusted the resident's clothing and removed a saturated brief. CNA #3 did not apply a gown while providing toileting care to the resident.
Review of an undated, Care Plan revealed a category dated 3/8/19 Infections- has an infection interventions included, contact precautions.
Review of a microbiology lab reports dated 3/18/19 revealed a positive stool culture for toxigenic c. difficile.
Review of the Bowel and Bladder Detail Report dated 3/8/19 through 3/27/19 revealed the resident had incontinence episodes of bowels 12 days out of 20 days since her admission.
During an interview on 3/28/19 at 12:08 PM, CNA #3 stated she doesn't not put on a gown while caring for residents on transmission precautions for c-diff. CNA #3 stated she only wears gloves while caring for the resident.
During an interview on 3/28/19 at 12:10 PM, CNA #4 stated the resident was on transmission precautions related to c-diff and staff should be wearing gloves and gowns while providing care to prevent cross contamination.
During an interview on 3/28/19 at 12:13 PM, CNA #5 stated she would only apply gloves for a resident on transmission precautions for c-diff. Unless the resident was incontinent of bowels, then she would put on a gown.
During an interview on 3/28/19 at 12:20 PM, LPN #5 stated the staff should always be wearing gloves and a gown while proving care to a resident on transmission precautions for c-diff, whether the resident was incontinent or not, to prevent cross contamination from the resident to the employee's clothing.
During an interview on 3/28/19 at 12:29 PM, RN #4 UM stated the resident was on transmission-based precautions for c-diff and vancomycin-resistant enterococci (VRE) (a bacteria that causes infection when it invades the bloodstream) in the blood, therefore contact precautions was for both infections. The PPE set up includes yellow gowns, gloves and red bags. RN #4 UM stated the staff should be wearing gloves and gowns while providing care to the resident whether the resident was incontinent or not, to prevent cross contamination.
During an interview on 3/29/19 at 9:04 AM, the DON stated the staff are to be wearing gloves and gowns for any residents on precautions for c-diff, while providing morning care, bedtime care, any toileting care to protect the employee's clothing and to prevent cross contamination to other residents. Therefore, it is necessary for the staff to wear the PPE of gloves and gowns prior to providing toileting care.
During an interview on 3/29/19 at 9:44 AM RN #2 Infection Control Nurse stated the staff should be wearing the appropriate PPE; gowns and gloves while providing morning care, bedtime care and any toileting needs to a resident that is on precautions for c-diff, to prevent cross contamination to their clothing and others. RN #2 further stated PPE, such as gowns specifically protect the staff's clothing from being contaminated with infective organisms, thus preventing cross contamination to the employee and / or others.
Review of the facility policy and procedure entitled Procedure for Handwashing - use of Antimicrobial Hand Wipes dated 12/22/14 revealed:
- Hand washing is the simple, most important means of preventing the spread of infection in the facility. In addition to Standard Precautions, Contact Precautions must be implemented for residents known or suspected to be infected with micro-organism that can be transmitted by direct contact with the resident or indirect contact with environmental surfaces or resident-care items in the resident's environment.
Examples of infections requiring Contact precautions include, but not limited to:
- Gastrointestinal, respiratory, skin or wound infections with multidrug-resistant
- Clostridium difficile
- Gloves and handwashing in addition to wearing gloves as outlined under Standards Precautions, wear gloves when entering the room.
- Gowns to be worn when entering the room if anticipate that clothing will have substantial contact with the resident's environmental surfaces or items in the resident's room, or if the resident is incontinent, has diarrhea or wound drainage not contained by a dressing.
415.19(a)(2)(b)(4)