HERITAGE GREEN REHAB & SKILLED NURSING

3023 ROUTE 430, GREENHURST, NY 14742 (716) 483-5000
Non profit - Other 134 Beds HERITAGE MINISTRIES Data: November 2025 1 Immediate Jeopardy citation
Trust Grade
33/100
#515 of 594 in NY
Last Inspection: February 2024

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

Overview

Heritage Green Rehab & Skilled Nursing has received a Trust Grade of F, indicating significant concerns about the facility's performance and care quality. It ranks #515 out of 594 nursing homes in New York, placing it in the bottom half of facilities statewide, and #5 out of 5 in Chautauqua County, meaning there are no better local options. The facility is showing an improving trend, having reduced issues from 5 in 2024 to 2 in 2025, but still faces serious staffing challenges, as evidenced by its 1-star rating for staffing. Although there have been no fines reported, which is a positive sign, critical incidents occurred, including a failure to ensure timely medication delivery for residents with serious health conditions and administering a vaccine without consent, highlighting ongoing care and compliance issues. Overall, while there are some positive aspects, families should carefully consider the weaknesses present at this facility.

Trust Score
F
33/100
In New York
#515/594
Bottom 14%
Safety Record
High Risk
Review needed
Inspections
Getting Better
5 → 2 violations
Staff Stability
○ Average
45% turnover. Near New York's 48% average. Typical for the industry.
Penalties
✓ Good
No fines on record. Clean compliance history, better than most New York facilities.
Skilled Nurses
⚠ Watch
Each resident gets only 21 minutes of Registered Nurse (RN) attention daily — below average for New York. Fewer RN minutes means fewer trained eyes watching for problems.
Violations
⚠ Watch
15 deficiencies on record. Higher than average. Multiple issues found across inspections.
★☆☆☆☆
1.0
Overall Rating
★☆☆☆☆
1.0
Staff Levels
★★☆☆☆
2.0
Care Quality
★★☆☆☆
2.0
Inspection Score
Stable
2024: 5 issues
2025: 2 issues

The Good

  • Full Sprinkler Coverage · Fire safety systems throughout facility
  • No fines on record
  • Staff turnover below average (45%)

    3 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: 45%

Near New York avg (46%)

Typical for the industry

Chain: HERITAGE MINISTRIES

Part of a multi-facility chain

Ask about local staffing decisions and management

The Ugly 15 deficiencies on record

1 life-threatening
Aug 2025 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

Deficiency F0578 (Tag F0578)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on interview and record review conducted during a Complaint investigation (#NY00364661-530180), the facility did not ensure that a resident has the right to refuse treatment for one (1) (Residen...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on interview and record review conducted during a Complaint investigation (#NY00364661-530180), the facility did not ensure that a resident has the right to refuse treatment for one (1) (Resident #1) of six (6) residents reviewed for immunizations. Specifically, Resident #1 was administered the COVID-19 vaccine without consent.The finding is:The policy and procedure titled Standing Order for Provision of Influenza, Pneumococcal, and COVID-19 Vaccine, revised 01/06/2024 documented all residents will be screened upon admission to the facility to evaluate COVID-19 immunization status. Consent or declination of the COVID-19 vaccination will be obtained within seven (7) days of admission and documented in the medical record. Residents or responsible parties have the right to refuse any vaccination at any time, education and refusals will be documented in the medical record.The policy and procedure titled Medication Administration revision/reviewed dated 12/09/2024 documented to check the resident wristband or bracelet or badge before administering the medication to make accurate resident identification.Resident #1 had diagnoses that included dementia, depression, and hypertension. The Minimum Data Set (a resident assessment tool) dated 09/24/2024 documented the resident was cognitively intact.The undated COVID-19 Booster Immunization Screening and Consent Form, signed by Resident #1, documented the resident declined to receive the vaccine.The Interdisciplinary Note dated 09/27/2024 at 2:42 PM authored by Licensed Practical Nurse #2 documented vaccination was given to right arm, small red dot, slightly swollen and tender.The Medication Error Report dated 09/26/2024 documented Licensed Practical Nurse #1 failed to follow resident's rights of medication administration when they failed to identify the correct resident.During a telephone interview on 08/13/2025 at 10:08 AM, Licensed Practical Nurse #1 stated they did not check Resident #1's wristband, to ensure correct, prior to administering the COVID-19 vaccination.During a telephone interview on 08/13/2025 at 12:02 PM, Registered Nurse #1 Infection Preventionist stated they provide the education and obtain consents/declinations for the COVID-19 vaccination. Identifying the correct resident was one of the basic medication administration rights. Registered Nurse #1 Infection Preventionist stated Resident #1 received the COVID-19 vaccination, after signing a declination, which was a violation of Resident #1's rights.During an interview on 08/13/2025 at 12:18 PM, the Director of Nursing stated Resident #1 received the COVID-19 vaccination in error. Licensed Practical Nurse #1 did not verify the correct resident prior to the administration of the vaccination. The administration of the COVID-19 vaccination to Resident #1 violated their rights because the resident had signed a declination not to receive the vaccine.10 NYCRR 415.3(f)(1)(ii)
CONCERN (F) 📢 Someone Reported This

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

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

Deficiency F0725 (Tag F0725)

Could have caused harm · This affected most or all residents

Based on observation, interview, and record review conducted during a Complaint investigation (NY00384369-530162, NY00384458-530191, NY00385240-530194) completed on 08/15/2025, the facility did not en...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, interview, and record review conducted during a Complaint investigation (NY00384369-530162, NY00384458-530191, NY00385240-530194) completed on 08/15/2025, the facility did not ensure sufficient nursing staff to attain or maintain the highest practicable physical, mental, and psychosocial wellbeing of each resident. Specifically, the facility did not ensure there was sufficient nurse staffing to meet the needs of the resident in accordance with their preferences and plans of care.The finding is:Review of the Dear Administrator letter 23-11 dated 06/30/23 sent to the nursing home administrators informing them that starting 04/01/2022 nursing homes were required to have an average daily staffing of 3.5 hours of care per resident per day with 2.2 hours for Certified Nurse Aides and 1.1 hours for Licensed Practical Nurses or Registered Nurses.The Facility Assessment, review dated 04/28/2025, documented the assessment is required by the nursing home Requirements of Participation to identify and analyze the facility's resident population and identify the personnel, physical plant, environmental and emergency response resources needed to competently care for the residents during the day-to-day operations and emergencies, including nights and weekends. The facility is licensed for 134 beds with an average daily census of 111. The facility will ensure that there is sufficient and competent staff to provide nursing and related services to assure resident safety and attain or maintain the highest practicable physical, mental, and psychosocial well-being of each resident, as determined by resident assessments and individual plans of care.Additionally, the Facility Assessment documented the following total number needed or average or range of nursing staff including days, evenings, nights, and weekends:- Licensed nurses providing direct care 8-11- Nurse Aides 18-24The undated handwritten Emergency Staffing Policy Plan Initiated documented the facility required one Registered Nurse on any shift per day; three Licensed Practical Nurses on first and second shift, and two Licensed Practical Nurses on third shift; five Certified Nurse Aides on first and second shift, and two Certified Nurse Aides on third shift.Review of the All Punches Detailed report of nursing staff directly responsible for nursing care documented the following:- 06/09/2025 - resident census117; Licensed Practical Nurse and Registered Nurse hours 100.25 or .75 hours per resident per day; Certified Nurse Aide hours 115.5 or 1.0 hours per resident per day. Based on the census there was not the required number of Licensed Nurse or Certified Nurse Aide hours per day.- 08/09/2025 - resident census 109; Licensed Practical Nurse and Registered Nurse hours 56.75 hours or .5 hours per resident per day; Certified Nurse Aide hours 116.5 hours or 1.0 hours per resident per day. Based on the census there was not the required number of Licensed Nurse or Certified Nurse Aide hours per day.- 08/10/2025 - resident census 109; Licensed Practical Nurse and Registered Nurse hours 78.5 or .75 hours per resident per day; Certified Nurse Aide hours 110.5 hours or 1.0 per resident per day. Based on the census there was not the required number of Licensed Nurse or Certified Nurse Aide hours per day.The Aspen Complaints/Incidents Tracking System (ACTS) complaint #NY00384458, Internet Quality Improvement & Evaluation System (iQIES) complaint #530191, documented the complainant reported 06/09/2025 Resident #1 had not gotten out of bed for three (3) days, had been wearing the same clothes for three (3) days, and incontinent brief appeared to be from days earlier.During a telephone interview on 08/14/2025 at 10:00 AM, Licensed Practical Nurse #1 stated they recalled the complainant reporting the condition of Resident #1 on 06/09/2025. Licensed Practical Nurse #1 stated it had appeared that Resident #1 had minimal Care care over the past few days, the resident and their bed were soiled, the bottom sheet was wet and had dried stains. Licensed Practical Nurse #1 stated there wasn't enough staff to properly care for the residents.During an interview on 08/13/2025 at 1:28 PM, Resident #2 stated they filed a grievance with the facility and things have gotten a little better. Usually, they get into bed about 11:30 PM which they are fine with, sometimes 12:00 AM but it was better than 2:30 AM. Resident #2 stated all they ask of the staff was to give them a time frame as when they will be in to put them to bed. Sometimes they have to wait long to be changed or use the bed pan, about 45 minutes. Resident #2 stated they know the staff are busy due to the facility being short staffed. During an interview/observation on 08/15/2025 at 9:04 AM, Resident #3 stated they had waited over an hour that morning for assistance to the restroom because they were a two (2) assist with a mechanical lift and there were only two (2) Certified Nurse Aides on the unit, one (1) for each hall. Resident #3 stated they were unable to wait for staff assistance and soiled their brief making a mess in the bathroom when they were finally assisted. The toilet in the bathroom was observed to have feces on the seat.During an interview/observation on 08/15/2025 at 9:11 AM, the call light system at the nurse's desk indicated Resident #5's call light had been ringing for eight (8) minutes. Resident #5 was observed in bed and appeared uncomfortable; a mechanical lift was observed in the room. Resident #5 stated they needed to have a bowel movement and did not want to have an accident, they stated one (1) staff member had brought the mechanical lift in the room but needed to find another staff member to assist. Staff were observed to enter the room at 9:29 AM to assist Resident #5.During an interview on 08/14/2025 at 9:53 AM, Licensed Practical Nurse #4 stated the unit they were assigned to normally had three (3) Certified Nurse Aides on the day shift and staff were unable to complete their assigned duties. Licensed Practical Nurse #4 stated residents may only be checked on once a shift if they don't put their call light on and showers were not given.During an interview on 08/14/2025, Certified Nurse Aide #1 stated they do their best with the staffing that was provided and residents that require assistance of two (2) staff members often have to wait longer than they should for assistance.During an interview on 08/14/2025 at 10:59 AM, Certified Nurse Aide #2 stated they were supposed to be on orientation but were given a full assignment and had not yet gotten to assist all the resident on their assignment.During an interview on 08/14/2025 at 11:03 AM, Certified Nurse Aide #3 stated the facility was often short staffed. Sometimes there were only two (2) Certified Nurse Aides on the day shift, at those times they go through the list of residents and ensure each resident gets changed at least once during the shift. Additionally, they stated they were unable to complete scheduled showers when working short staffed.During an interview on 08/15/2025 at 9:31 AM, Registered Nurse #2 Unit Manager stated there were times there were only two (2) Certified Nurse Aides on the day shift and the necessities can get done at least once, but not everything can get done.During an interview on 08/15/2025 at 10:23 AM, the Acting Administrator stated staffing had been difficult and challenging for the facility due to call offs. The facility had been working with minimum staffing since June and three (3) to four (4) days per week they have to strongly encourage staff to work over their scheduled shifts to ensure the residents were taken care of.10 NYCRR 415.13 (b)(1) (i-ii) (2)(ii)
Feb 2024 5 deficiencies
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0578 (Tag F0578)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview, and record review conducted during the Standard survey completed on [DATE], the facility did no...

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 [DATE], the facility did not ensure the system developed for advanced directives was implemented in a manner that was consistent with resident's wishes for one (Resident #62) of one resident reviewed for advanced directives. Specifically, the facility did not ensure that all resident advanced directives identifiers were consistent with the resident wishes. Additionally, there was no development of a care plan for advanced directives. The findings are: The undated policy and procedure titled Medical Orders for Life Sustaining Treatment (MOLST) documented honoring patient preferences was a critical element in providing quality end of life care. Residents who wish to be a FULL CODE (cardiopulmonary resuscitation) per their Medical Orders for Life Sustaining Treatment (MOLST) form will have a blue sticker on their nameplate, physical chart, blue wristband and resuscitate listed in the electronic medical record. A resident who wishes to be a Do Not Resuscitate (DNR, allow natural death) per their Medical Orders for Life Sustaining Treatment (MOLST) form will have a white wristband, and Do Not Resuscitate in the electronic medical record. The Medical Orders for Life Sustaining Treatment (MOLST) should be scanned in and placed in the appropriate section of the electronic health records. The policy and procedure titled Basic Life Support (CPR- cardiopulmonary resuscitation, provision of emergency measures including artificial ventilation and chest compressions in the absence of breathing and/or heart rate) revised [DATE] documented a resident who desires cardiopulmonary resuscitation will be identified by a blue wristband, a small blue sticker on the chart and blue sticker on the name tag at the door of their room. The policy and procedure titled Do Not Resuscitate dated [DATE] documented a Do Not Resuscitate Order in the resident's medical record instructs the medical staff not to try to revive the resident if breathing or heartbeat has stopped. The policy and procedure titled Means of Identification of Residents revised [DATE], documented all residents will wear ID arm band unless contraindicated. Non-DNR (do not resuscitate) residents will wear a blue band or have a blue dot on their band. Resident #62 had diagnoses which included chronic heart failure, type 2 diabetes, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). The Minimum Data Set (a resident assessment tool) dated [DATE] documented Resident #62 was cognitively intact, was understood and was able to understand others. Review of the comprehensive care plan revealed the baseline care plan started on [DATE] did not document Resident #62's code status (advanced directives) and the goal documented their needs would be met in the first 48 hours from admission until the completion of their comprehensive care plan. The Care Plan printed [DATE] did not include the development of a care plan for advanced directives. Review of the Medical Orders for Life Sustaining Treatment (MOLST) dated [DATE] in the electronic medical record revealed a CPR Order: Attempt Cardio-Pulmonary Resuscitation. The order was last signed by the medical provider as reviewed on [DATE] with no change. Review of the Medical Orders for Life Sustaining Treatment (MOLST) dated [DATE] in the medical record (paper chart), revealed a DNR Order: Do Not Attempt Resuscitation. The Medical Orders for Life Sustaining Treatment was signed by Resident #62 and witnesses, Licensed Practical Nurse #9, and Nurse Practitioner #2. Review of the physician's orders dated [DATE] through [DATE] revealed there were documented orders for advance directives. Review of an interdisciplinary note dated [DATE] revealed there were new orders from Nurse Practitioner #2 for blood work and medication, however there was no documentation regarding the changes made with Resident #62's Medical Orders for Life Sustaining Treatment (MOLST). The medical provider service notes dated [DATE] and [DATE] did not document there was review of Resident #62's advanced directives and code status. During intermittent observations on [DATE] and [DATE] between 10:02 AM and 3:45 PM, Resident #62's nameplate outside their room had a small round blue sticker and Resident #62 was not wearing a wristband. During an interview on [DATE] at 3:24 PM, Secretary #3 stated residents that wear a blue wristband had full code status, and their nameplate outside their room would be blue. During an interview on [DATE] at 3:21 PM, Licensed Practical Nurse #6 stated they could access a resident's advanced directives from a resident's paper chart on the unit or in the electronic medical record. During an interview on [DATE] at 10:02 AM, Resident #62 stated their wristband broke over a week ago and hadn't been replaced even though they told someone, They must have forgot. During an interview on [DATE] at 2:43 PM, Certified Nursing Assistant #4 stated it was important to know whether a resident was a full code or had a do not resuscitate order, so the nursing staff could assist quickly, and a Code Blue (medical emergency) could be called. During an interview on [DATE] at 2:52 PM, Registered Nurse Unit Manager #2 stated advanced directives should be documented on the resident's care plan. A blue dot sticker indicated a full code status and per the resident's preference they should have a wristband on them or on their wheelchair. Registered Nurse #2 stated it was important to know if a resident was a full code so action could be taken immediately. Additionally, Registered Nurse #2 stated when there was a change with residents advanced directives, whomever gets that information should notify the charge nurse, secretary, and supervisor so the information could be acted on as promptly, so the resident's wishes would be honored. You don't want to code somebody that doesn't want to be. During an interview on [DATE] at 3:02 PM, Social Worker #1 stated unit secretaries were responsible for residents' wristbands and coding the residents' nameplates outside of their rooms. Social Worker #1 stated it was important for wristbands and nameplates to be coded correctly so staff knew what advanced directives each resident wanted. During an interview on [DATE] at 3:26 PM, the Director of Nursing stated once a MOLST (Medical Orders for Life -Sustaining Treatment) for cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) or do not resuscitate (DNR), were completed they should be entered, scanned, into the electronic medical record and current MOLST was then kept in the resident's paper chart. The Director of Nursing stated the MOLST (Medical Orders for Life -Sustaining Treatment) acts as the order for the residents advanced directives. The Director of Nursing stated residents wear a bracelet with their name, room number, date of birth and was colored coded. A blue band indicated full code status/cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR). A blue dot sticker on the nameplate outside a resident's room would indicate the resident wanted cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR). The Director of Nursing reviewed Resident #62's MOLST (Medical Orders for Life -Sustaining Treatment) in the electronic medical record and stated their order was for cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR). The Director of Nursing stated staff would go by the hard copy of the MOLST in a resident's paper chart, but that it would be adequate to pull up the MOLST in the electronic medical record, as it should be the most current. The Director of Nursing stated it was important for a resident's record, both the paper chart and electronic medical record to be accurate so a resident's wishes were honored. During an interview and observation on [DATE] at 3:43 PM, the Director of Nursing reviewed Resident #62's paper chart on the unit and stated the MOLST completed on [DATE] documented the resident had a do not resuscitate status (DNR). The current MOLST (Medical Orders for Life Sustaining Treatment) was not scanned into Resident #62's electronic medical record and should have been. The Director of Nursing removed the blue sticker from Resident #62's nameplate outside their room and stated cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) could have been performed against Resident #62's wishes. During an interview on [DATE] at 3:50 PM, Licensed Practical Nurse #9 stated they remembered Resident #62 changed their Medical Orders for Life Sustaining Treatment (MOLST). Licensed Practical Nurse #9 stated usually the secretary made the changes to the resident's wristband and sticker on nameplate. Licensed Practical Nurse #9 stated they did not recall if Resident #62's advance directive changes were communicated to the secretary and that the blue sticker on their nameplate should have been removed. During an interview on [DATE] at 1:12 PM, Social Worker #1 stated advanced directives should be a part of a residents' care plan to ensure that it was reviewed during interdisciplinary care plan meeting and reflected the resident wishes. 10 NYCRR 400.21
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

Based on observation, interview and record review conducted during a standard survey completed on 2/1/24, the facility did not ensure that the provider was notified of a need to alter treatment, or to...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, interview and record review conducted during a standard survey completed on 2/1/24, the facility did not ensure that the provider was notified of a need to alter treatment, or to commence a new form of treatment, for one (Resident #61) of one resident reviewed. Specifically, staff did not notify the provider when Resident #61's ACE wraps were not applied to both lower extremities on multiple occasions as ordered. The finding is: Per the Director of Nursing, the facility did not have a policy and procedure for the application of ACE wraps for edema (swelling caused be excess fluid accumulation). The policy and procedure titled Anti-Embolism Stockings, dated 1/14/2015, documented that the garment should be applied in the morning, before swelling occurs. Resident #61 had diagnoses including unspecified dementia without behaviors, localized edema, and type II diabetes mellitus. The minimum data set (a resident assessment tool) dated 1/3/24, documented Resident #61 was cognitively intact, usually understood and usually understands. Resident #61's Physician Orders dated 9/22/23 documented ACE wraps on in the morning, off at bedtime. The updated order dated 1/31/24 documented ACE wraps to BLE (both lower extremities), on in the AM and off in the PM for edema. Review of Resident #61's Treatment Record for December 2023 documented four refusals of the ACE wraps. The Treatment Record for January 2024 documented seven refusals of the ACE wraps on 1/17/24, 1/18/24, 1/23/24, 1/25/24-1/28/24 and eight occasions of treatment not administered of the ACE wraps on 1/8/24-1/11/24, 1/13/24, 1/15/24, 1/16/24 and 1/30/24. Review of the Interdisciplinary Notes dated 1/1/24 to 1/31/24, revealed the provider had not been notified that Resident #61's ACE wraps had not been applied on multiple occasions. During an observation and interview on 1/28/24 at 10:58 AM, Resident #61 was in the hall, seated in their wheelchair, with their bare feet on the floor. Resident #61's lower extremities appeared swollen and red. Resident #61 stated they were supposed to have their legs wrapped whenever they were up in their chair. There was a single ACE wrap located on the arm chair in Resident #61's room. During an observation and interview on 1/29/24 at 8:56 AM, Resident #61 was in their room, seated in their wheelchair with their bare feet on the floor. Both lower extremities appeared swollen and red. The single ACE wrap was sitting on the same chair in the room in the same position as the day before. Resident #61 stated the nurse did not apply the ACE wraps yesterday. During an observation and interview on 1/30/24 at 8:31 AM, Resident #61 was in their room in their wheelchair, with bare feet on the floor. Both lower extremities appeared swollen and red. Resident #61 stated they never refused to let the nurse apply the ACE wraps. The single ACE wrap was in the chair in their room. During an interview on 1/30/24 at 1:37 PM, Nurse Practitioner #1 stated that Resident #61 approached them at the nurse's station and asked them to apply their ACE wraps today. They went into Resident #61's room to apply the ACE wraps and found the single wrap. They then asked the nurse to get them a second wrap and applied them both to the resident's legs. Nurse Practitioner #1 stated they were not aware that Resident #61's ACE wraps had not been applied on multiple occasions. Nurse Practitioner #1 stated Resident #61 never refused the ACE wraps for them. During an observation and interview on 1/31/24 at 9:15 AM, Resident #61 was in their room in their wheelchair with their bare feet on the floor. The edema on both lower extremities appeared to be improved from previous observations. Resident #61 stated that they wore the ACE wraps all day on 1/30/24 and that the nurse was coming to put them on today after they finished breakfast. During an interview on 1/31/24 at 10:10 AM, Licensed Practical Nurse #2 stated that Resident #61's ACE wraps were important to keep excess fluid off their lower legs. They stated that Resident #61 refused their ACE wraps to be applied on multiple occasions. Licensed Practical Nurse #2 stated that they should notify the provider if a resident refused their treatment for more than seven days because they might want to change the order or have them discontinued. During an interview on 1/31/24 at 10:18 AM, Registered Nurse #2, Unit Manager, stated that the nurse should have notified them if the resident refused their ACE wraps on multiple occasions so they could speak to the resident and notify the provider. They stated that ACE wraps were important to reduce edema and to protect the resident's skin. During an interview on 1/31/24 at 12:41 AM, the Director of Nursing stated that ACE wraps were important to prevent fluid from pooling in the resident's lower extremities. They stated that the ACE wraps should be applied before the resident gets out of bed. The Director of Nursing stated that if a resident refused their ACE wraps on more than three occasions the nurse should report it to their manager or supervisor so the provider could be notified. During an interview on 2/1/24 at 9:53 AM, Nurse Practitioner #1 stated that they would expect to be notified after the second refusal of a resident's treatment. During further interview on 2/1/24 at 9:55 AM, Licensed Practical Nurse #2 stated they were not aware of the provider notification process for the facility. 10NYCRR 415.3(f)(2)(ii)(c)
CONCERN (D)

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

ADL Care (Tag F0677)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on observation, interview, and record review conducted during a Standard survey completed on 2/1/24, it was determined that the facility did not ensure that a resident who was unable to carry ou...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, interview, and record review conducted during a Standard survey completed on 2/1/24, it was determined that the facility did not ensure that a resident who was unable to carry out activities of daily living received the necessary services to maintain good grooming and personal hygiene for one (Resident #90) of five residents reviewed. Specifically, the resident was observed with ½ inch to one-inch-long whiskers on their chin and neck. The policy and procedure titled Activities of Daily Living dated 1/14/15 documented the nursing staff will assist the resident with any activities he/she was unable to perform by him/herself. Resident #90 had diagnoses of dementia and seizure disorder. The Minimum Data Set (a resident assessment tool) dated 12/13/23 documented Resident #90 was severely cognitively impaired and required substantial/maximal assistance of a helper with more than half the effort to perform personal hygiene. During an observation on 1/28/24 at 11:58 AM, Resident #90 had multiple ½ inch long, white hairs on their chin and one-inch-long white hairs on their neck. During an observation on 1/29/24 at 7:58 AM, Resident #90 had multiple ½ inch long, white hairs on their chin and one-inch-long white hairs on their neck. During an observation on 1/30/24 at 8:34 AM, Resident #90 had multiple ½ inch long, white hairs on their chin and one-inch-long white hairs on their neck. During an interview on 1/30/24 at 10:09 AM, Certified Nursing Assistant #1 stated Resident #90 had visible whiskers and needed to be shaved. During an interview and observation on 1/30/24 at 10:19 AM, Licensed Practical Nurse #1, stated none of the Certified Nursing Assistants had told them Resident #90 had refused to be shaved. They stated the resident had whiskers and should have been shaved as that was part of their regular grooming. During an interview on 1/30/24 at 11:58 AM, Registered Nurse Unit Manager #1 stated they expected their staff to shave a resident on their shower days and when it was needed. They stated staff was expected to report any refusals and document the refusals. During an interview on 1/31/24 at 9:40 AM, the Director of Nursing stated they expected staff to shave residents on shower days and when there were visible chin hairs. They stated it was a dignity issue for a resident not to be clean shaven. 10NYCRR 415.12(a)(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

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview, and record review conducted during a Complaint investigation (Complaint #NY00330011) during the...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview, and record review conducted during a Complaint investigation (Complaint #NY00330011) during the Standard survey completed 2/1/24, the facility did not ensure that each resident receives adequate supervision to prevent accidents for one (Resident #39) of three residents reviewed for elopement. Specifically, Resident #39, eloped from the facility on 12/16/23, did not have an elopement risk assessment completed since 2021, and had no care plan interventions to address their wandering behaviors prior to the elopement incident. The finding is: The policy and procedure, Unsafe Wandering Elopement Risk revised 11/3/2016, documented the facility was to provide a safe and secure environment for all residents. Unsafe wandering/elopement risk assessment will be done on all new admissions in conjunction with the initial Minimum Data Set (a resident assessment tool). Subsequent use would be in conjunction with any onset of wandering behaviors. Individualized care plans will be developed for each resident found at risk for unsafe wandering or elopement. The policy and procedure, Unsafe Wandering/Elopement Risk Assessment revised 1/14/15, documented any resident that triggers a yes response to any questions 5-9 will automatically have a wander guard/roam alert bracelet applied for a minimum of 30 days until nursing can adequately assess for unsafe wandering or exit seeking behaviors and the care plan would be individualized based on the findings of the assessment. The policy and procedure, Door Breach revised 7/23/15, documented staff were to account for the occurrence of all door alarms and to prevent any resident elopement. Resident #39 had diagnoses including unspecified dementia, cerebral infarction (a stroke), and type 2 diabetes mellitus. The Minimum Data Set, dated [DATE] documented Resident #39 was severely cognitively impaired, usually understood, usually understands, and exhibited no wandering behaviors. The Minimum Data Set, dated [DATE] documented Resident #39 exhibited wandering behavior 1 to 3 days, and they were independent with wheelchair mobility. The comprehensive care plan dated 12/18/23 documented Resident #39 tended to wander related to a history of checking doors. Interventions included to have all staff notify their unit if they are found in another area in the facility and ask staff to assist them back to their unit. The goal was for Resident #39 to be able to wander safely in their environment and to experience as much independence as possible while decreasing their risk for elopement and that they would not have any episodes of elopement through the next review. Review of the Health Electronic Response Data System, Facility Incident Report submitted on 12/17/23 at 2:35 AM, documented Resident #39 was last seen on 12/16/23 at 7:30 PM and was noted missing at 9:30 PM. Resident #39 was found outside Door #9 (located next to the reception desk) near the dumpster by Unit Assistant #1 on 12/26/23 at 9:45 PM. The system to prevent elopement was not functioning properly at Door #9. Review of Certified Nursing Assistant Worksheet Careplan (guide used by staff to provide care) dated 1/29/24 documented Resident #39 was independent with wheelchair locomotion on/off the unit. Review of Resident #39's Unsafe Wandering/Elopement Risk Assessments, revealed the last assessment completed was on 2/10/21 at 5:36 PM. There were no additional Unsafe Wandering/Elopement Risk Assessments completed until 1/31/24. During an observation and interview on 1/30/24 at 10:30 AM, Resident #39 self-propelled their wheelchair on the unit to exit door #3, a double door located at the end of the hallway that exited to the outside of the building and pressed on the push bars. Resident #39 stated they were making sure the doors were closed and if they're opened, I close them. During intermittent observations on 1/30/24 at 10:44 AM, Resident #39 self-propelled their wheelchair off the unit and stopped at the double doors labeled not an exit, which lead outside to a courtyard, and pushed on the door. The door was locked and did not open. At 11:32 AM, Resident #39 was sitting in their wheelchair at exit door #3 and pressed on the exit door push bars, the door didn't open. Staff were present in the hallway and did not redirect the resident away from the doors. During observations on 1/31/24 at 11:39 AM, Resident # 39 self-propelled in their wheelchair on the unit to exit door #3 and pressed on the left push bar. During a telephone interview on 1/30/24 at 3:41 PM, Unit Attendant #1 stated they did not know how long the exit door #9 alarm had been sounding prior to verifying which exit alarm was going off at the nurse's station on 12/16/23. Unit Attendant #1 stated upon arriving to exit door #9 they observed exit door #9 opened and they almost closed the doors, but then they saw Resident #39 walking behind their wheelchair outside toward the parking lot by the dumpsters. Unit Attendant #1 stated that Resident #39 stated they were going home. Unit Attendant #1 stated it was cold outside and Resident #39 was wearing a robe over their pajamas and was just wearing socks on their feet when they were located outside. Unit Attendant #1 stated after they assisted Resident #39 back into the facility, they reported the incident to Licensed Practical Nurse #3. During a telephone interview on 1/31/24 at 12:27 PM, Licensed Practical Nurse #3 stated on the night of 12/16/23, Unit Attendant #1 reported to them that they found Resident #39 outside and that exit door #9 wasn't locking or shutting tightly. Licensed Practical Nurse #3 stated they reported the incident to Licensed Practical Nurse #4 Supervisor, and Licensed Practical Nurse #4 Supervisor went and checked the exit door. Licensed Practical Nurse #3 stated that Resident #39 wandered, went anywhere they wanted to go in their wheelchair, and that they had observed Resident #39 go to exit doors a lot and they had pushed on the exit doors on the unit to get out before. Licensed Practical Nurse #3 stated they made it very well known, had expressed their concern regarding Resident #39 exit seeking to a prior Unit Manager and other nurses. Licensed Practical Nurse #3 stated they didn't understand why Resident #39 wasn't placed on the locked unit. During an interview on 1/30/24 at 5:08 PM, Licensed Practical Nurse #4 Supervisor stated they were notified on 12/16/23 that Resident #39 was found outside and brought back into the facility by Unit Attendant #1. Licensed Practical Nurse #4 stated they saw Resident #39 after they were brought back inside and Resident #39 stated to them that the door (exit door #9) wasn't locked and they went outside to try and fix it. Licensed Practical Nurse #4 stated they called the Director of Nursing and notified them of the incident and that exit door #9 wasn't latching/locking right. Licensed Practical Nurse #4 stated the facility had video surveillance, but didn't know if it was working and had no idea what a Wandering/Elopement Risk Assessment was. During an interview on 1/30/24 at 5:28 PM, the Director of Nursing stated Licensed Practical Nurse #4 Supervisor notified them by phone between 9:00-10:00 PM on 12/16/23 that Resident #39 had been found outside near the dumpster by Unit Attendant #1. The Director of Nursing stated the exit door alarm was sounding and that was what led Unit Attendant #1 to check the doors. The Director of Nursing stated they had the Licensed Practical Nurse #4 Supervisor check Resident #39's temperature, physical appearance for injuries and complete a roster check to verify and ensure the safety of all residents in the facility. The Director of Nursing stated they made the Acting Administrator aware as well at that time. The Director of Nursing stated they did not know the exact cause as to how Resident #39 was able to get out the exit door and they considered this incident an elopement. During an interview on 1/31/24 at 1:25 PM, the Registered Nurse #1 Unit Manager stated they thought the Unsafe Wandering/Elopement Risk Assessments were supposed to be completed annually. Registered Nurse #1 Unit Manager stated administration informed them yesterday that the Unsafe Wandering/Elopement Risk Assessments were supposed to be completed quarterly, with each Minimum Data Set and if needed due an incident of wandering/elopement. The Registered Nurse #1 Unit Manager stated unsafe wandering/elopement should be addressed in a resident's care plan to let staff know how to provide care, keep residents safe and recognize any changes in the resident's assessment. During a follow up interview on 1/31/24 at 1:51 PM, the Director of Nursing stated Unsafe Wandering/Elopement Risk Assessments should be completed by the nurse managers or designee quarterly and if prompted due to exit seeking behavior. The Director of Nursing stated Unsafe Wandering/Elopement Risk Assessments were completed for the safety of the residents, to ensure there aren't any changes/additional risks for elopement, and so care plans can be updated with needed interventions to prevent elopement. The Director of Nursing reviewed Resident #39's electronic medical record and stated 2/10/21 was Resident #39's last completed Unsafe Wandering/Elopement Risk Assessment. The Director of Nursing stated Resident #39 should have had other Unsafe Wandering/Elopement Risk Assessments completed, one should have been completed at the time of the incident on 12/16/23 and they didn't have an answer as to why additional Unsafe Wandering/Elopement Risk Assessments weren't completed. During an interview on 1/31/24 at 3:50 PM, the Director of Environmental Services stated they weren't aware of any issues to exit door #9 prior to 12/16/23. The Director of Environmental Services stated maintenance completed exterior door checks every week. The Director of Environmental Services stated there was functioning camera surveillance at the facility, but camera footage only went back 30 days. The Director of Environmental Services stated the distance from exit door #9 to the dumpsters was maybe 50-60 feet from the facility. During an interview on 1/31/24 at 4:09 PM, the Acting Administrator reviewed the elopement conclusion and stated they thought that this incident was an elopement and reported it. After reporting, they were instructed by regional staff that the incident should not have been reported to the Department of Health as it was not an undetected event because the door alarm to exit door #9 went off. The Administrator stated they did not speak to Unit Attendant #1; they received their statement and did not follow up with them. Additionally, at 5:17 PM, the Acting Administrator stated they did not review the camera surveillance from 12/16/23 as they weren't sure that much was available. 10NYCRR 415.12(h)(2)
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0742 (Tag F0742)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on interviews and record review conducted during a Standard survey completed on 2/1/24, the facility did not ensure that each resident received the necessary behavioral health care and services ...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on interviews and record review conducted during a Standard survey completed on 2/1/24, the facility did not ensure that each resident received the necessary behavioral health care and services to attain or maintain the highest practicable mental and psychosocial well-being for one (Resident #60) of one resident reviewed. Specifically, a Psychiatry consult was not followed up on and/or implemented. Additionally, there was a lack of care plan development for a history of sexual trauma. The finding is: The policy and procedure titled Antipsychotic Drugs revised 12/23/13 documented to obtain psychiatric or psychological consultation whenever necessary to establish a diagnosis or alternative treatment program. The policy and procedure titled Computerized Care Plan revised 1/14/15 documented that care plans should reflect the facility's approach to a problem and will be updated as needed. During an interview on 2/1/24 at 1:05 PM, Director of Nursing stated they had no policy and procedures related to consultations or psychiatry consult recommendations. Resident #60 had diagnoses that included severe dementia with anxiety, and mood disorder. The Minimum Data Set (a resident assessment tool) dated 1/3/24 documented Resident #60 was usually understood, usually understands, and had severe cognitive impairment. The Minimum Data Set documented Resident #60 was not taking an antipsychotic medication. The Comprehensive Care Plan with start date 10/26/23 identified as current, documented Resident #60 had diagnoses of dementia, anxiety, and depression. Interventions included to encourage Resident #60 to talk about their feelings, provide medications as ordered, schedule a psychiatric evaluation, and follow any treatment recommendations. The comprehensive care plan did not document that Resident #60 had a history of significant sexual trauma. A facility investigation dated 11/21/23 and signed by the Director of Nursing documented, Resident #60 informed two Certified Nursing Assistants, as they were about to provide care, they had been brutally raped and there was too much blood that needed to be cleaned up. The investigation concluded that the allegation of sexual abuse was unfounded. Through investigation/interviews with Resident #60's health care proxy the Director of Nursing documented they were notified that Resident #60 had a history of physical and sexual abuse prior to admission to the facility. The investigation documented that Resident #60 was to have a follow up visit with Psychiatrist #1 and their care plan was updated to no male care givers. The SOAP (Subjective, Objective, Assessment and Plan) note (psychiatrist note) dated 12/13/23 and entered by Psychiatrist #1 documented that Resident #60 was seen for a psychiatric follow up, since last visit the resident had no improvement, and the resident had flashbacks of significant trauma that they had experienced. Psychiatrist #1 documented that they recommended Seroquel (an antipsychotic medication) 25 milligrams to start at bedtime. Review of physician's orders dated 12/1/23 through 1/31/23 did not include an order for Seroquel 25 milligrams at bedtime. Review of facility providers notes dated 12/13/23 through 1/31/24 revealed there was no documented evidence regarding a follow-up visit from Psychiatrist #1 and did not document a rationale as to why Seroquel 25 milligrams was not ordered as recommended by Psychiatrist #1. Review of the Interdisciplinary Notes dated 12/13/23 through 1/31/24 revealed there was no documented evidence regarding a follow-up visit from Psychiatrist #1 and no documented evidence as to why Seroquel 25 milligrams was not ordered at bedtime as recommended by Psychiatrist #1. Review of the Medication (Assistance or Administration) Records dated 12/1/23 through 1/31/24 revealed there was no documented evidence that Seroquel 25 milligrams was administered at bedtime. During an interview on 1/31/24 at 4:42 PM, Social Worker #1 stated they were responsible for scheduling and delivering psychiatrist's notes, including any recommendations, to the nursing unit managers. After review of psychiatrist's note dated 12/13/23 for Resident #60, Social Worker #1 stated the provider recommended Seroquel 25 milligrams to be started at bedtime. Social Worker #1 stated the medication had not been started. During an interview on 2/1/24 at 9:22 AM, Social Worker #1 stated the previous Social Worker was responsible in December 2023 for notifying the nursing staff of the psychiatrist's recommendations. Social Worker #1 stated Resident #60's 12/13/23 psychiatrist recommendation was not given to the nursing staff and resulted in a delay in treatment. After review of Resident #60's Comprehensive Care Plan they stated Resident #60 was not care planned for a history of sexual trauma and that they should have been. During an interview on 2/1/24 at 10:09 AM, Nurse Practitioner #2 stated the nursing staff did not provide them Psychiatrist #1's 12/13/23 note for Resident #60 and was not made aware of their recommendation for Seroquel 25 milligrams at bedtime until Director of Nursing #1 notified them on 1/31/24. Nurse Practitioner #2 stated their expectation was for the nursing staff to relay to them any consult recommendations and if they were to disagree with a recommendation, they would contact Psychiatrist #1 themselves to discuss the case. During a telephone interview on 2/1/24 at 10:35 AM, Psychiatrist #1 stated they expected the nursing staff to notify the medical provider of their recommendations. They stated they were providing psychiatry services and expected the consult recommendations to be followed unless the medical provider disagreed. Psychiatrist #1 stated there was a delay in treatment to Resident #60 when there was a lack of follow through to their 12/13/23 recommendations. During an interview on 2/1/24 at 10:54 AM, the Director of Nursing stated through investigation of Resident #60's allegation of rape on 11/21/23, the family notified them Resident #60 had a traumatic sexual experience in the past. The Director of Nursing stated they updated Resident #60's care plan for no male caregivers but should have implemented a history of sexual trauma care plan. The Director of Nursing stated the Psychiatrist's recommendations for Resident #60 on 12/13/23 was not followed because it was not sent to the appropriate staff member during transition of social workers. Director of Nursing #1 stated Resident #60 had a delay in treatment because a recommendation by the psychiatrist was not given to the medical provider for review. During an interview on 2/1/24 at 12:22 PM, the Acting Administrator stated they expected that any psychiatrist recommendations would be brought to the attention of the medical provider within 24 hours. 10 NYCRR 415.12(f)(1)
Dec 2021 2 deficiencies 1 IJ (1 affecting multiple)
CRITICAL (K)

Immediate Jeopardy (IJ) - the most serious Medicare violation

Deficiency F0725 (Tag F0725)

Someone could have died · 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 completed on 12/7/21, 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 a Recertification Survey completed on 12/7/21, the facility failed to ensure sufficient nursing staff with appropriate competencies and skill sets to provide nursing and related services and safety to attain or maintain the highest practicable physical, mental, and psychosocial well-being of each resident, as determined by resident assessments and individual plans of care for residents on 1 of 3 units reviewed. Specifically, on 12/1/21 the Registered Nurse Supervisor (RNS) #3 Nurse Supervisor, was scheduled as the facility supervisor and the sole nurse on the Lake Unit. RNS #3 was not able to complete the medication pass timely, as the RN was assigned additional duties due to staff shortage on one (Lake Unit) of three units, that delayed medication pass. Resident (#1) with history of seizures did not receive medications timely. Resident (#2) with history of diabetes did not receive medications timely. Resident (#3) with history of hypertension did not receive medications timely. Resident (#4) with history of GI issues did not receive medications timely, resulting in GI issues including diarrhea and the potential to develop skin issues, electrolyte imbalance and dehydration. RN did not complete scheduled treatments for 13 of 28 residents with standing orders. Staff stated they are unable to administer and provide treatments within the allotted time frame due to being pulled away from their nursing duties on one (Lake) of three resident units. This resulted in no actual harm with the likelihood for more than minimal harm that is Immediate Jeopardy to resident health and safety. This had the potential to affect all 28 residents on Lake Unit in the facility. The findings are but not limited to: The facility policy and procedure (P&P) titled Emergency Staffing dated February 2020 documented the purpose was to secure needed staff in event of emergency situations and that when the facility staffing level was critical impeding on resident care, the facility will take certain actions. These actions include staff remaining on duty, the Director of Nursing (DON) will notify administrative nursing staff to enlist their services, staff members who are a Certified Nurse Aide (CNA) will work with residents directly and arrange for a loan of nursing personnel from sister facilities. Review of the Facility Assessment for staffing plan (tool used to determine resources necessary to care for facility residents competently during both day-to-day operations and emergencies) modified date April 2021 and signed and dated by the current Administrator on 11/30/21 documented the facility was currently licensed for 134 beds with an average daily census of 126. There were no specific staffing requirements documented under staffing plan in the facility assessment. During an interview on 12/1/21 at 1:45 PM, the Administrative Assistant to the Administrator stated the facility assessment that we gave to you was sent to us from the former Administrator and they had updated it earlier this year. The staffing levels should be on it, but I do not know why they are not. The facility Resident Roster dated 12/1/21 documented a facility census of 98 and Lake Unit had a census of 28. The facility Matrix dated 11/29/21 for the Lake Unit documented 14 residents had a diagnosis of dementia, three residents had facility acquired pressure sores (stage 3 and unstageable), six residents had falls and three had excessive weight loss without a prescribed weight loss program. The facility nursing schedule dated 12/1/21 for the 6:00 AM to 2:00 PM shift documented RN Supervisor #3 was scheduled as the facility supervisor and the sole nurse on the Lake unit. The policy and procedure (P&P) titled Medication Administration Schedule dated 2/25/2015 documented the Licensed Nurse (RN, LPN (licensed practical nurse)) was responsible for adhering to the Standard Medication Administration time codes which are used in each long-term care facility to indicate when medications are to be given to their residents. Unless a specific hour is ordered, all medication will be given within established standard time codes. Standard medication administration time codes were documented as follows: Time/class: 7:00 - 10:00 AM carry as AM. Insulin (routine and sliding scale coverage doses) carry as upon arising in the AM, 30 minutes - 1 hour prior to a meal or at HS (hour of sleep) depending on the type of insulin and the resident's preference and sleep schedule. Medications ordered to be given at a specific time will be administered within one hour of that time. During an interview on 12/1/21 at 11:45 AM, RNS #3 stated that AM medications still needed to be administered to 10 more residents. These Residents were #'s 1, 2, 3, 14, 26, 34, 43, 54, 67 and 85. a.) Resident #4: During an observation on 12/1/21 from 11:23 AM to 11:45 AM, RNS #3 prepared medications for administration for Resident #4. RNS #3 dispensed the 8:00 AM and the AM medications totaling 11 medications at this time. Resident #4 had diagnoses which included gout (a type of arthritis that causes inflammation of joint), protein-calorie malnutrition (not receiving or absorbing adequate nutrient/s from the diet) and hypertension (elevation in blood pressure). The Minimum Data Set (MDS, a resident assessment tool) dated 9/1/21 documented Resident #4 was usually understood, usually understands, and was cognitively intact. Review of food and environmental allergies for Resident #4 revealed the resident had a lactose intolerance (inability to break down or digest lactose). Physician's Orders dated 12/3/20 through 12/1/21 documented active orders for Lactaid (an enzyme to aid in digestion of milk) 9,000-unit chew tablet-1 tablet by mouth (po) three times a day (TID) for lactose intolerance and Simethicone (an aid to reduce abdominal gas) 80mg (milligrams) tab chew po four times a day (QID) for gas with meals and at bedtime (HS). Additionally, Resident #4 had active treatment orders for Ketoconazole (antifungal medicine) 2% shampoo topical 3 times a week apply to scalp and leave in for 5 minutes before rinsing out. The Medication Record dated 12/2021 documented Lactaid 9,000-unit chew tab was to be administrated at 8:00 AM, 1:00 PM, and 5:00 PM. Simethicone 80mg tab was to be administered at 8:00 AM, 12:00 PM, 5:30 PM, and 8:00 PM. Review of the Medications/Treatments Administered document dated 12/1/21 revealed Lactaid and Simethicone were administered after the breakfast meal at 11:26 AM. Review of the Treatment Record dated 12/2021 for Resident #4 revealed AM treatment orders for Ketoconazole (antifungal medicine) 2% shampoo were not signed as having been completed as scheduled. During a telephone interview on 12/1/21 at 3:44 PM, the Nurse Practitioner (NP) stated medications were to be administered within the parameter of one hour before or after the scheduled time. Resident #4 had complaints of diarrhea and abdominal issues. Residents missing scheduled medications that can prevent diarrhea and GI (gastrointestinal) issues was upsetting. This can be embarrassing to the resident, they can develop skin issues, electrolyte imbalances and dehydration, if they are having frequent diarrhea. During an interview on 12/1/21 at 5:16 PM, Resident #4 stated they have bouts of diarrhea after their meals, and they can't control it. b.) Resident #1: Resident #1 had diagnoses which included epilepsy (a neurological disorder that causes seizures), anxiety disorder, and dementia with behavioral disturbance. The MDS dated [DATE] documented Resident #1 was usually understood, usually understands, and was moderately cognitively impaired. The Physician's Orders printed 12/3/2021 documented active orders for Ativan (medication used to treat anxiety and seizure disorders) 0.5mg tab, take 0.25mg po twice daily (BID), Ativan 0.5mg tab, take 0.5mg po daily at 8:30 PM for generalized anxiety disorder and epilepsy; Lamictal (medication used to prevent/control seizures) 100mg tab po twice a day (BID) for seizures. Additionally, Resident #1 had active treatment orders: AFO (ankle foot orthosis) off-once daily (AM) nurse to remove AFO once resident was ready to get out of bed for the day or if requests for it to be removed. Inspect skin after removing; skin prep to top of left foot- 1 application twice daily (AM/ hour of sleep (HS)) for red area; Icy Hot Balm 10/30% -topical twice daily (8:00 AM and 8:00 PM) to B/L (bilateral) hands and knees; Hydrocortisone 1% cream topical twice daily until clear to B/L ears. Review of the Medication Record dated 12/1/21 revealed Ativan 0.25mg was to be administered at 7:30 AM and 1:30 PM and Lamictal 100mg was scheduled to be given in the AM (7:00 AM-10:00 AM) and HS (7:00PM- 10:00 PM). Review of the Medications/Treatments Administered document dated 12/1/21 revealed the 7:30 AM Ativan 0.25mg dose was administered at 12:26 PM and the 1:30 PM Ativan dose was administered at 1:09 PM. Lamictal 100mg was administered at 12:26 PM- two hours after the medication administration window of the physician ordered AM dose. Resident #1 received two doses of Ativan 0.25mg within 34 minutes of each other. Review of the Treatment Record dated 12/2021 for Resident #1 documented on 12/1/21 AM treatment orders for the removal of the AFO, skin inspection the application of Hot Balm, Hydrocortisone cream were not signed revealing the resident's treatments were not completed within the administration window. c.) Resident #2: Resident #2 had diagnoses which included diabetes mellitus type 2, congestive heart failure (CHF) and hypothyroidism (underactive thyroid). The MDS dated [DATE] documented Resident #2 was usually understood, usually understands, and was moderately cognitively impaired. The Physician's Orders printed 12/3/ 2021 documented active orders for Metformin ER (extended release) (medication used to control high blood sugars) 500mg po BID for DM; Lantus Insulin (injection used to treat DM)100U/ML (units per millimeter) 30 units subcutaneous (SQ- beneath the skin) once daily (QD) for DM. Additionally, Resident #2 had active treatment orders for Magic Mixture Compound (combination of medications)100,000-0.1 topical TID AM/AF(afternoon)/HS) to bilateral posterior (back) thighs, wounds; off load pressure to heels when in bed every shift (QS) when in bed; off load pressure to Right ischium (lower part of hip bone) with repositioning in accordance with assessed needs QS; Skin prep (protective barrier) to bilateral heels QD (AM). Review of the Medication Record dated 12/2021 documented Metformin ER 500mg po BID with administration time of 8:00 AM and 8:00 PM: Lantus 30units SQ QD for DM at 8:00 AM. Review of the Medications/Treatments Administered document dated 12/1/21 revealed Metformin ER and Lantus were administered at 1:02 PM. Resident #2 was administered their 8:00 AM medications 3 hours and 2 minutes after the medication administration window of the physician ordered AM dose. Review of the Treatment Record dated 12/2021 for Resident #2 documented on 12/1/21 treatment orders for the Magic mixture compound, off- loading of pressure to heals and ischium, and skin prep were not signed revealing the resident's treatment was not completed as scheduled for the AM, Afternoon and 6:00 AM-2:00 PM shift. d.) Resident #3: Resident #3 had diagnoses which included hypertensive heart disease with heart failure, DM and dementia. The MDS dated [DATE] documented Resident #3 was usually understood, usually understands, and was severely cognitively impaired. Review of the Physician's Orders printed 12/3/21 documented active orders for Metoprolol Succinate ER (used to treat heart failure and high blood pressure) 100mg tab-100mg po QD; Lisinopril (used to treat hypertension (HTN) and heart failure) 20mg tab po QD; Cartia XT (extra time) (used to treat HTN) 180mg capsule po QD; Lantus 100U/ML insulin 20 units SQ BID and Metformin 1000 mg po BID. Review of the Medication Record dated 12/2021 documented Metoprolol Succinate ER 100mg po QD with administration time of AM (7:00-10:00 AM); Lisinopril 20mg po QD with administration time of AM; Cartia XL 180mg po QD with administration time of AM; Metformin 1000mg po BID with administration time of 8:00 AM and 8:00 PM; Lantus 20 units SQ QD for DM at 8:00 AM and 8:00 PM. Review of the Medications/Treatments Administered document dated 12/1/21 revealed Metoprolol Succinate ER, Lisinopril 20mg, Cartia XL 180mg were administered at 11:58 AM, this was 1 hour and 58 minutes after the window of administration. Metformin 1000mg, and Lantus were administered at 11:58 AM, this was 3 hours and 58 minutes after the scheduled administration time. Additional review of the Medication Records dated 12/1/21 for Resident's #1, 2, 3, 14, 26, 34, 43, 54, 67 and 85 revealed the scheduled and AM medications had not been administered within the time frames of the administration window. Additional review of the Treatment Records dated 12/1/21 for Resident's #26, 41, 43, 49, 64, 67, 73, 84, 306 and 307 revealed treatments had not been completed within the time frames of the administration window. During an interview on 12/1/21 at 2:21 PM, RNS #3 stated the reality was that there was a staffing crisis and residents were not getting their medications on time. RNS #3 stated that medications and treatments were not administered within medication administration window because the RNS was pulled off unit several times to complete supervisory duties which included: tracking down and completing five employee COVID-19 swabs for testing (waiting 15 minutes with each), attending three resident care plan meetings, staying with maintenance while they repaired the narcotic cabinet in the medication room, collection of emergency drug boxes for pharmacy to pick up and being interrupted to answer phone calls and assist staff. During a telephone interview on 12/1/21 at 3:44 PM, the Nurse Practitioner (NP) stated they were not aware that medications were being administered outside of the administration window. During a telephone interview on 12/2/21 at 8:37 AM, LPN #4 (who works the Lake unit) stated that medications take priority over treatments. Medication administration may be late, and at times they do not get all the residents treatments completed. There is just not enough time due to staffing. During an interview on 12/2/21 at 9:24 AM, RNS #4 stated that when they take a medication cart and supervise the building, they were unable to administer scheduled medications to residents on time. During an interview on 12/2/21 at 10:00 AM, the Administrator stated they were partially aware of the problem as they round within the facility every 2 hours and assumed the medications were going to be late. The Administrator stated they spoke with RNS #3 first thing in the morning to call if they were falling behind and stated, I expect them to call and get assistance via going up the ladder. Based on the survey team's observations of staffing levels, timely medication pass and staff interviews verifying in-service education was completed, the survey team declared the facility removed the immediacy as of 12/03/21 at 10:00 AM. Corrective actions the facility took to remove the immediacy included: - Evaluated and adjusted current staffing needs of the facility to include an additional day time supervisor and a nurse for the Lake Unit. - Immediate education provided to nursing supervisors to check in with each unit nurse to evaluate completion of ordered meds and treatments. Nursing Supervisors instructed to call Administrator or DON in the event of anticipated delays. Instruction to nursing staff to communicate ability to complete med pass and treatments as ordered for residents, to evaluate workloads and anticipate needs so that support can be arranged, and a plan can be made to assist and notification to administration. 415.12(l)(2)(ii)
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0760 (Tag F0760)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on observation, interview and record review conducted during the Standard survey completed on 12/7/21, the facility did not ensure residents are free of any significant medication error for one ...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, interview and record review conducted during the Standard survey completed on 12/7/21, the facility did not ensure residents are free of any significant medication error for one (Resident #4) of 4 medication pass observations. Specifically, Resident #4 with history of gastrointestinal distress did not receive medications as ordered and in accordance with facility practices. The finding is: The policy and procedure (P&P) titled Medication Administration Schedule dated 2/25/2015 documented the Licensed Nurse (RN, LPN (licensed practical nurse)) was responsible for adhering to the Standard Medication Administration time codes which are used in each long-term care facility to indicate when medications are to be given to their residents. Unless a specific hour is ordered, all medication will be given within established standard time codes. Medications ordered to be given at a specific time will be administered within one hour of that time. 1. Resident #4 had diagnoses which included gout (a type of arthritis that causes inflammation of joint), protein-calorie malnutrition (not receiving or absorbing adequate nutrient/s from the diet) and hypertension (elevation in blood pressure). The Minimum Data Set (MDS, a resident assessment tool) dated 9/1/21 documented Resident #4 was usually understood, usually understands, and was cognitively intact. Review of food and environmental allergies for Resident #4 revealed the resident had a lactose intolerance (inability to break down or digest lactose). During a continuous observation on 12/1/21 from 11:23 AM to 11:45 AM, RN #3 prepared medications for administration for Resident #4. RN #3 was required to answer pop up questions on electronic medication administration record (EMAR) for each medication as they were acknowledging administration of scheduled 8:00 AM and AM medications after 10:00 AM. At this time RN #3 dispensed all the 8:00 AM and the AM medications. Physician's Orders dated 12/3/20 through 12/1/21 documented active orders for Lactaid (an enzyme to aid in digestion of milk) 9,000-unit chew tablet-1 tablet by mouth (po) three times a day (TID) for lactose intolerance and Simethicone (an aid to reduce abdominal gas) 80mg (milligrams) tab chew po four times a day (QID) for gas with meals and at bedtime (HS). The Medication Record dated 12/2021 documented Lactaid 9,000-unit chew tab was to be administrated at 8:00 AM, 1:00 PM, and 5:00 PM. Simethicone 80mg tab was to be administered at 8:00 AM, 12:00 PM, 5:30 PM, and 8:00 PM. Review of the Medications/Treatments Administered document dated 12/1/21 revealed Lactaid and Simethicone were administered after the breakfast meal at 11:26 AM. Review of the Medications/Treatments Administered document for November 2021 revealed Lactaid and Simethicone, were administered outside the indicated timeframe on 14 of 30 days. During an interview on 12/1/21 at 2:21 PM, RN #3 stated that medications were not administered within the window. During a telephone interview on 12/1/21 at 3:44 PM, the Nurse Practitioner (NP) stated medications were to be administered within the parameter of one hour before or after the scheduled time. Resident #4 had complaints of diarrhea and abdominal issues. Residents missing scheduled medications that can prevent diarrhea and GI (gastrointestinal) issues was upsetting. This can be embarrassing to the resident, they can develop skin issues, electrolyte imbalances and dehydration, if they are having frequent diarrhea. During an interview on 12/1/21 at 5:16 PM, Resident #4 stated they have bouts of diarrhea after their meals, and they can't control it. During an interview on 12/7/21 at 10:04 AM, RN #7 Unit Manager (UM) for Lake unit stated that medications are scheduled for a reason, some medications need to be spaced out to work adequately, some require to be administered with food or prior to food for the stomach. During an interview on 12/7/21 at 11:00 AM, the facility Director of Nurses (DON) stated scheduled medications should be administered within one hour before or one hour after scheduled time scheduled medications because they may be required to be given more frequently and/or could alter the therapeutic effect of the medication if not given as scheduled. 415.12(m)(2)
Mar 2019 6 deficiencies
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)
Understanding Severity Codes (click to expand)
Life-Threatening (Immediate Jeopardy)
J - Isolated K - Pattern L - Widespread
Actual Harm
G - Isolated H - Pattern I - Widespread
Potential for Harm
D - Isolated E - Pattern F - Widespread
No Harm (Minor)
A - Isolated B - Pattern C - Widespread

Questions to Ask on Your Visit

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

Our Honest Assessment

Strengths
  • • No fines on record. Clean compliance history, better than most New York facilities.
  • • 45% turnover. Below New York's 48% average. Good staff retention means consistent care.
Concerns
  • • Multiple safety concerns identified: 1 life-threatening violation(s). Review inspection reports carefully.
  • • 15 deficiencies on record, including 1 critical (life-threatening) violation. These warrant careful review before choosing this facility.
  • • Grade F (33/100). Below average facility with significant concerns.
Bottom line: Trust Score of 33/100 indicates significant concerns. Thoroughly evaluate alternatives.

About This Facility

What is Heritage Green Rehab & Skilled Nursing's CMS Rating?

CMS assigns HERITAGE GREEN REHAB & SKILLED NURSING 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 Heritage Green Rehab & Skilled Nursing Staffed?

CMS rates HERITAGE GREEN REHAB & SKILLED NURSING's staffing level at 1 out of 5 stars, which is much below average compared to other nursing homes. Staff turnover is 45%, compared to the New York average of 46%. This relatively stable workforce can support continuity of care.

What Have Inspectors Found at Heritage Green Rehab & Skilled Nursing?

State health inspectors documented 15 deficiencies at HERITAGE GREEN REHAB & SKILLED NURSING during 2019 to 2025. These included: 1 Immediate Jeopardy (the most serious level, indicating potential for serious harm or death) and 14 with potential for harm. Immediate Jeopardy findings are rare and represent the most serious regulatory concerns. They require immediate corrective action.

Who Owns and Operates Heritage Green Rehab & Skilled Nursing?

HERITAGE GREEN REHAB & SKILLED NURSING is owned by a non-profit organization. Non-profit facilities reinvest revenue into operations rather than distributing to shareholders. The facility is operated by HERITAGE MINISTRIES, a chain that manages multiple nursing homes. With 134 certified beds and approximately 112 residents (about 84% occupancy), it is a mid-sized facility located in GREENHURST, New York.

How Does Heritage Green Rehab & Skilled Nursing Compare to Other New York Nursing Homes?

Compared to the 100 nursing homes in New York, HERITAGE GREEN REHAB & SKILLED NURSING's overall rating (1 stars) is below the state average of 3.0, staff turnover (45%) is near the state average of 46%, and health inspection rating (2 stars) is below the national benchmark.

What Should Families Ask When Visiting Heritage Green Rehab & Skilled Nursing?

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 Heritage Green Rehab & Skilled Nursing Safe?

Based on CMS inspection data, HERITAGE GREEN REHAB & SKILLED NURSING has documented safety concerns. Inspectors have issued 1 Immediate Jeopardy citation (the most serious violation level indicating risk of serious injury or death). The facility has a 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 Heritage Green Rehab & Skilled Nursing Stick Around?

HERITAGE GREEN REHAB & SKILLED NURSING has a staff turnover rate of 45%, 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 Heritage Green Rehab & Skilled Nursing Ever Fined?

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

Is Heritage Green Rehab & Skilled Nursing on Any Federal Watch List?

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