SERIOUS
(G)
📢 Someone Reported This
A family member, employee, or ombudsman was alarmed enough to file a formal complaint
Actual Harm - a resident was hurt due to facility failures
Free from Abuse/Neglect
(Tag F0600)
A resident was harmed · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, record review and interviews during the Recertification Survey and Abbreviated Survey (NY00305185) initiat...
Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, record review and interviews during the Recertification Survey and Abbreviated Survey (NY00305185) initiated on 3/22/2023 and completed on 3/30/2023, the facility did not ensure each resident was free from abuse, neglect, misappropriation of resident property, and exploitation. This was identified for one (Resident #140) of two residents reviewed for Resident-to-Resident Abuse. Specifically, on 11/8/2022, Resident #326, with intact cognition, verbalized that they are going to hit Resident #140 if the resident went to their room again. Soon after the verbal threat, Resident #326 went to Resident #140's room and was observed hitting Resident #140 in the head. Subsequently, Resident #140 was transferred to the hospital and was diagnosed with a left orbital (eye) skull fracture and bruising to the head. This resulted in actual harm to Resident #140 that is not Immediate Jeopardy.
The finding is:
The facility's policy titled, Abuse Prevention Program/Abuse and Neglect-Clinical Protocol/Abuse Investigation and Reporting, last reviewed 1/2023, documented that residents have a right to be free from abuse, neglect, misappropriation of resident property, and exploitation. The facility defined abuse as the willful infliction of injury, unreasonable confinement, intimidation, or punishment with resulting physical harm, pain, or mental anguish. Willful, as used in the definition of abuse means the individual must have acted deliberately, not that the individual must have intended to inflict injury or harm. The facility defined Physical abuse as the use of physical force that may result in bodily injury, physical pain, or impairment. Physical abuse includes but is not limited to such acts of violence as striking (with or without an object), hitting, beating, pushing, shoving, slapping, kicking, pinching, and burning.
Resident #326 (aggressor) was admitted with diagnoses including Bipolar Disorder, Panic Disorder, and Difficulty in Walking. The 8/19/2022 admission Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment documented a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of 13, indicating the resident was cognitively intact. The MDS documented that the resident had verbal behavioral symptoms directed toward others and required extensive assistance for bed mobility and transfers. Walking did not occur, and the resident utilized a wheelchair for mobility.
The Comprehensive Care Plan (CCP) for Resident #326 titled, Behavior Problems effective 8/12/2022 documented that the resident had behaviors of increased agitation, yelling and was verbally abusive to staff and others, physically abusive toward staff, and was socially inappropriate. A 9/6/2022 entry documented that the resident was overheard talking to a friend on the phone about an incident in another facility and what they would do at the other facility with a gun. Interventions were put in place including close supervision.
A Psychiatry consult for Resident #326 dated 9/6/2022 documented diagnoses of Bipolar Disorder, Panic Disorder, and Alcohol Use. The resident was noted with a worsening condition and with mood instability. Recommendations included Quetiapine (an antipsychotic medication) 50 milligrams (mg) twice a day.
A review of Resident #326's progress notes from August 2022 to October 2022 revealed on 8/11/2022 Resident #326 made a threat to hit staff. Other documented behaviors in progress notes included agitation, yelling, verbally abusive, harmful to self and others, erratic, voicing suicidal and homicidal ideation, physically aggressive, cursing, disruptive to the whole unit, and slamming the nursing station desk for narcotics (controlled substance).
A nursing progress note for Resident #326, written by Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) #4 (charge nurse), dated 11/8/2022 documented LPN #4 was informed by Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA) #1 that the resident stated, If [Resident #140] goes into my room again, I am going to punch [Resident #140] out. Resident #326 repeated the same statement to LPN #4. LPN #4 notified the nursing supervisor. The nursing progress note documented that CNA #1 yelled out for assistance because Resident #326 was going into Resident #140's room. LPN #4 ran down the hall and saw Resident #326 standing over and punching Resident #140 with a closed fist. LPN #4 jumped in between the two residents and screamed, and then Resident #326 stopped punching Resident #140. Staff responded and a physician was notified. Resident #326 left the unit with the ambulette attendants and three police officers.
Resident #326 returned to the facility on [DATE]. A Social Work note for Resident #326 dated 11/9/2022 documented a 30-day transfer-discharge notice issued to Resident #326 due to the resident being a danger to other residents.
A review of admission transfer and discharge (ADT) data revealed that Residents #140 and #326 resided across the hallway from each other.
Resident #140 (victim) was admitted with diagnoses including Alzheimer's Disease, Hypertension, and Altered Mental Status. The 10/2/2022 Significant Change MDS assessment documented a BIMS score of 4, indicating the resident had severely impaired cognition. The MDS documented that the resident sometimes understands and is sometimes understood. The MDS documented no mood or behavioral issues. The MDS documented that the resident required limited assistance for transfers and walking.
A CCP titled Abuse Prevention for Resident #140 dated 10/26/2022 documented that the resident was at risk for victimization related to the diagnosis of Alzheimer's Disease. Interventions included to remove the resident from the area of the aggressor and counsel the resident to avoid contact with the aggressor.
A nursing progress note for Resident #140 dated 11/4/2022 documented the resident was observed going into other resident rooms and eating from their food trays. Resident #140 was redirected whenever this behavior was observed.
A nursing progress note, written by Registered Nurse (RN) #6, for Resident #140 dated 11/8/2022 documented that at 5:30 PM Resident #140 was assaulted by another resident (Resident #326). Resident #326 left their room and went into Resident #140's room and started punching Resident #140 in the head several times for no reason. Resident #140 was assessed for injury; some swelling was noted. Due to Resident #140's scalp deformity, RN #6 was unable to assess the injury. Physician #4 was made aware of the incident and ordered to transfer Resident #140 to the hospital for head injury evaluation.
A nursing progress note dated 11/9/2022 documented that RN #4 spoke to the emergency room physician, resident had a Computerized Tomography (CT-a diagnostic imaging exam) scan of the head which indicated a non-displaced left orbital (eye) wall fracture. Due to Resident #140's anatomy of the skull, the resident needed to follow up in a few weeks with an orthopedic surgeon to determine if surgical intervention was needed. Resident #140 was admitted to the hospital.
A review of Resident #140's medical record revealed no documented evidence that a follow-up with an Orthopedic Surgeon was completed to determine if surgical intervention is needed.
Resident #140 was re-admitted back to the facility on [DATE] and relocated to a different unit.
A physician's order dated 11/11/2022 documented to place Resident #140 on every 15-minute monitoring due to Resident #140's wandering behavior into other resident rooms.
A CCP for Resident #140 titled Resident-to-Resident Altercation, effective 6/27/2022, documented the resident is a potential victim related to the inability to protect self and inability to walk away from an abuser.
A review of the Accident and Incident (A/I) report dated 11/8/2022 at 5:30 PM documented that when Resident #140 was lying in their bed, Resident #326 entered the room and began punching Resident #140 on their head. Resident #326 said they did not want Resident #140 coming into their room and taking their food. The A/I investigation dated 11/8/2022 documented there was no reasonable cause to believe any resident abuse, neglect, or mistreatment occurred.
On 3/22/2023 at 1:40 PM Resident #140 was observed lying in bed. The resident was awake; however, spoke minimally. The resident appeared calm and comfortable. The resident's skull appeared deformed and enlarged.
During an interview with LPN #4 on 3/24/2023 at 11:47 AM, they stated after they went to speak to Resident #326, LPN #4 went back to the nursing station to call the nursing supervisor and that was when CNA #1 alerted them that Resident #326 was observed wheeling themselves into Resident #140's room. LPN #4 stated they ran down the hallway to intervene and witnessed Resident #326 punching Resident #140 in the head. LPN #4 stated Resident #140 had behaviors of wandering into other resident rooms. LPN #4 stated they were not aware of any incidents between the two residents prior to 11/8/2022.
During an interview with CNA #1 on 3/24/2023 at 11:56 AM, they stated they were the assigned CNA for Resident #140 on 11/8/2022. CNA #1 stated Resident #140 always wandered and was on every 15-minute check. CNA #1 stated on 11/8/2022 they were completing room checks and saw Resident #140 sleeping in bed. CNA #1 then went into Resident #326's room, who was lying in bed, and told the CNA that they were going to hit Resident #140 because Resident #140 comes into their room and takes stuff. CNA #1 stated at that point CNA #1 left the room and informed LPN #4. CNA #1 stated they were in the hallway when they saw Resident #326 wheeling into Resident #140's room, CNA #1 yelled for help, and LPN #4 responded.
There was no documented evidence provided by the facility that every 15-minute monitoring was being completed for Resident #140 on or prior to 11/8/2022.
During an interview with Physician #4 on 3/28/2023 at 9:55 AM, they stated the resident has a hypertrophic (enlargement or overgrowth) skull due to Paget's Disease (bone disease). The physician did not recall if Resident #140 went out for a follow-up appointment regarding the fracture of the left lateral orbit wall. Physician #4 stated Resident #326 was a very aggressive individual, staff provided a lot of redirection to the residents but the redirection cannot be performed 100% of the time.
During an interview with the Director of Nursing Services (DNS) on 3/28/2023 at 12:02 PM, they stated Resident #326 went to seek Resident #140; the altercation was not in response to Resident #140 going into Resident #326's room again. The DNS stated that after 11/4/2022 when there was documentation that Resident #140 was wandering and seeking food, the resident was given snacks and monitored when in the hallway. The DNS stated they were not able to provide documented evidence of the hallway monitoring. The DNS stated that every-15-minute monitoring requires a physician's order. Resident #140 was placed on every 15-minute monitoring on 11/11/2022 after the incident on 11/8/2022. The DNS further stated that the 15-minute monitoring would not be documented without a physician's order.
The Medical Director was interviewed on 3/29/2023 at 11:55 AM. The Medical Director stated Resident #140 sustained a mild fracture because of the incident. The Medical Director stated that the fracture would heal on its own and that a referral to the Orthopedic Surgeon was not warranted.
10 NYCRR 415.4(b)(1)(i)
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
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 record review and staff interviews during the Recertification Survey and the Abbreviated Survey (NY 00311955) initiated...
Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review and staff interviews during the Recertification Survey and the Abbreviated Survey (NY 00311955) initiated on 3/22/2023 and completed on 3/30/2023 the facility did not ensure that each resident representative was notified timely when there was a change in the resident's condition and a need to commence a new form of treatment was identified. This was identified for one (Resident #276) of two residents reviewed for notification of change. Specifically, Resident #276 was identified with significant weight loss of twenty-nine pounds in last six months and received intravenous fluids due to poor oral intake. The facility staff did not notify the resident's family in a timely manner of the resident's poor oral intake, significant weight loss, and administration of the Intravenous (IV) fluids in response to the poor oral intake.
The finding is:
The facility's policy and procedure titled; Acute Condition Changes Clinical Protocol last reviewed 1/2023 did not address notification to the resident's representative when there is a significant change in the resident's condition.
Resident #276 was admitted with diagnoses that include Stage III Sacral Pressure Ulcer, Malnutrition, and Diabetes Mellitus. A Significant Change Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] documented the resident had a short-term memory problem and was moderately impaired for daily decision making. The MDS documented the resident was at risk for developing Pressure Ulcer (PU) and had one unhealed Stage III PU that was present on admission.
A Dietitian assessment dated [DATE] documented the resident consumed 50% - 75% of meals with supervision. The note documented the resident had a significant weight loss of twenty-nine pounds(lbs.) / 10.5 percent (%) over the past six months. The etiology was likely due to a combination of acute Gastrointestinal (GI) issues, diagnosis of COVID-19 infection, as well as reduced appetite and oral (po) intake.
A Nursing progress note dated 11/20/2022 documented the resident was alert and responsive to all stimuli. The resident's appetite was poor this tour and the resident consumed 25% of supper and 100% of fluids. IV fluid continues to the left arm with no signs and symptoms of infiltration. The note did not document that the resident's family was notified of the initiation of the IV fluids.
A Nurses note dated 11/22/2022 documented the resident completed the second round of IV fluids on 11/20/2022 and the Physician ordered IV D5.33% (Dextrose) NS for 3 days and to hold Lasix (Diuretics) for 3 days. The note did not document that the resident's family was notified of the initiation of the IV fluids.
A Nutrition Significant Change assessment dated [DATE] documented the resident was status post intravenous (IV) hydration earlier this month 11/21/22 for 3 days secondary to lethargy and decrease po intake. Currently the resident was started on IV hydration for 3 days, and calorie count was requested by the Physician.
A Nurses note dated 11/30/22 documented the resident was alert and responsive to all stimuli. IV fluids D5.1/2% NS on going at 70 cc an hour. The resident was on a 3-day calorie count due to poor appetite. The note did not document that the resident's family was notified of the initiation of the IV fluids or decreased oral intake.
A review of the progress notes from 11/2022 to 12/2022 lacked documented evidence that the resident's representative was notified regarding the resident's poor po intake, weight loss, and need for IV hydration.
Dietitian #2 was interviewed on 3/28/2022 at 11:22 AM. Dietitian #2 stated when there is an acute change in weight that they (Dietitian #2) would notify nursing, the Physician, and the resident's family. Dietitian #2 stated Resident #276 had a significant unplanned weight loss over a six-month period due to multiple comorbidities including poor oral intake. Dietitian #2 stated that they did not notify the family of the weight changes.
RN #1 was interviewed on 3/30/2023 at 9:27 AM and stated that when Resident #276's condition changed and warranted a change in the plan of care such as initiation of intravenous fluids, the resident's family should have been notified. RN #1 stated after they had reviewed the progress notes, that there was no documented evidence that the family was notified of the changes in the resident's condition.
The Director of Nursing Services (DNS) was interviewed on 3/30/2023 at 1:20 PM. The DNS stated that the nursing staff should have notified Resident #276's family when the IV hydration was initiated as an intervention in response to the resident's poor oral intake. The dietician should have updated the resident's family regarding the resident's significant weight changes and deterioration in the oral intake status. The DNS stated they expected the facility staff to document in the resident's medical record that the resident's family was notified of the changes in the resident's clinical status.
Physician #3 was interviewed on 3/30/2023 at 3:45 PM. Physician #3 stated that any significant alteration in the resident's treatments, including starting a new form of treatment such as administration of Intravenous fluids, the resident's family must be informed.
10 NYCRR 415.3(f)(2)(ii)(c)
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 F0655
(Tag F0655)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review and interviews during the Recertification Survey and the Abbreviated Survey (NY00311955) initiated on 3/2...
Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review and interviews during the Recertification Survey and the Abbreviated Survey (NY00311955) initiated on 3/22/2023 and completed on 3/30/2023 the facility did not ensure that a Baseline Care Plan for each resident that includes the instructions needed to provide effective and person-centered care of the resident that meet professional standards of quality care was developed within 48 hours of admission. This was identified for one (Resident #276) of four residents reviewed for Pressure Ulcer (PU). Specifically, Resident #276 was admitted with a Sacral PU on 12/16/2022. A Baseline care plan for the Sacral Pressure Ulcer was not completed within 48 hours as required.
The finding is:
The facility's Baseline Care Plan policy reviewed 1/2023 documented to assure that the resident's immediate care needs are met and maintained, a baseline care plan will be developed within forty-eight (48) hours of the resident's admission. The baseline care plan will be used until the staff can conduct the comprehensive assessment and develop an interdisciplinary person-centered care plan.
Resident #276 was admitted on [DATE] with diagnoses that included Stage III Sacral Pressure Ulcer, Malnutrition, and Diabetes Mellitus. A Significant Change Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] documented the resident had a short-term memory problem and was moderately impaired for daily decision making. The resident required total assistance of two staff members for bed mobility and was frequently incontinent of bowel. The resident had an indwelling Foley catheter. The MDS further documented the resident was at risk for developing PU and had one unhealed Stage III PU that was present on admission.
The Baseline Care Plan dated 12/16/2022 was blank under the Skin Concern section.
A Nursing admission assessment dated [DATE] documented the resident had redness to both heels and had a Stage IV PU to the Sacrum that measured 5 centimeters (cm) x 4.5 cm.
A wound care initial evaluation completed on 12/22/2022 reassessed to wound as a Stage III PU.
A Comprehensive Care Plan (CCP) dated 12/26/2022 documented the resident had a Stage III Sacral PU. Interventions included but were not limited to apply skin treatment as per the Physician's order, monitor effectiveness of treatment, and to monitor skin during daily care for signs and symptoms of infection.
Registered Nurse (RN) #7, who completed the admission assessment, was interviewed on 3/28/2023 at 1:24 PM. RN #7 stated when a resident is admitted or readmitted to the facility, a head-to-toe body check is completed during the assessment. RN #7 stated after completing the assessment an admission note should be documented and a care plan should be initiated. RN #7 stated they should have completed the Baseline Care Plan; however, the care plan can be completed within twenty-four hours after admission and that any RN on the unit can review and complete the care plan.
RN #1, who was the 7:00 AM - 3:00 PM RN Supervisor at the time the resident was readmitted , was interviewed on 3/30/2023 at 9:55 AM. RN #1 stated on admission or readmission, the RN that completes the admission assessment also initiates the Baseline Care Plan. RN #1 stated if the admission RN was unable to complete the care plan, they (RN #1) should follow up and complete the care plan the next day.
The Director of Nursing Services (DNS) was interviewed on 3/30/2023 at 6:32 PM. The DNS stated that the admission RN should have completed the Baseline Care Plan; however, if the admission RN was unable to complete the Baseline Care Plan, then the RN Supervisor should have completed the Baseline Care Plan the following day.
10 NYCRR 415.11
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 record review and staff interviews during the Recertification Survey initiated on 3/22/2023 and completed on 3/30/2023,...
Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review and staff interviews during the Recertification Survey initiated on 3/22/2023 and completed on 3/30/2023, the facility did not ensure that high protein supplements were provided as ordered by a Physician. This was identified for one (Resident #128) of four residents reviewed for Nutrition. Specifically, Resident #128 was assessed by the Registered Dietician (RD) on 10/13/2022 with recommendations to provide LPS (liquid protein supplement) and then again on 12/17/2022 with recommendation to provide LPS and Juven (a powdered protein supplement) to aid in wound healing. A Physician's order first documented on 12/17/2022 indicated to administer both LPS and Juven as per the RD's recommendations. There was no documented evidence in the Medication Administration Record (MAR) that the resident received the LPS until 1/22/2023 and the Juven until 2/2/2023.
The finding is:
The facility's policy titled, Enteral (tube) Nutrition last reviewed on 1/2022 documented that the Dietitian will monitor residents who are receiving enteral feedings and will make appropriate recommendations for interventions to enhance tolerance and nutritional adequacy of enteral feedings.
The facility's policy titled, Nutrition and Hydration to Maintain Skin Integrity last reviewed on 1/2023 documented that the healing of acute (e.g., postoperative) and chronic (e.g., pressure ulcers) wounds requires enough protein and calories so that the body will not use lean body mass for energy and wound repair. The policy also documented that the recommended protein levels for a resident with wounds or at risk of developing wounds is approximately 1.2 - 1.5 grams (gm) of protein per kilogram (kg) of body weight.
Resident #128 has diagnoses which include Cerebral Infarction and Dysphagia and was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. The quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] documented that the resident had a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of 10 which indicated the resident had moderately impaired cognitive skills for daily decision making. The resident was totally dependent on one person for eating. The resident's height was 68 inches and the resident weighed 140 pounds (lbs). The resident received 51% or more of their total calories through tube feeding.
The Dietary Progress Note dated 10/13/2022, written by RD #2, documented that the resident's Current Body Weight (CBW) was 145.8 lbs on 10/11/2022 and that the resident had a Stage 4 sacral pressure ulcer. The Plan recommended a change in the tube feeding amount and flow rate and also suggested liquid protein supplement (LPS) 30 milliliter (ml) via Percutaneous Endoscopic Gastrostomy (PEG) tube twice daily (BID) which would provide the resident with an additional 200 kilo calories (kcal) and 30 gms protein per day to help meet the resident's increased protein needs related to wound healing.
The Physician's Order dated 10/13/2022 documented for the resident to receive Jevity 1.5 tube feeding formula, 1000 cubic centimeter (cc) at 50 cc/hour via PEG tube for a total of 20 hours starting at 4:00 PM until completion which provided a total of 1500 calories per day. There was no documented evidence in the resident's Electronic Medical Record (EMR) that the LPS was ordered as suggested by RD #2.
The Nutrition Wound Note dated 12/17/2022, written by RD #1, documented that the resident had a Stage 4 sacral pressure ulcer, current size measuring 5.5 centimeters (cm) x 5.5 cm x 2 cm. The note documented that protein supplementation of LPS by mouth (po) BID was recommended to provide the resident with an extra 200 kcal and 30 gms of protein per day and Juven (a high protein powder) was recommended to provide the resident with an extra 180 kcal and 33 gms of protein per day.
The Physician's Order dated 12/17/2022 documented for the resident to receive LPS Sugar Free 30 ml by mouth twice daily and Juven 1 packet by mouth twice daily.
Review of the resident's December 2022 Monthly Medication Administration Record (MAR) revealed no documented evidence that the resident received the LPS Sugar Free or the Juven as ordered by the Physician.
Review of the resident's January 2023 Monthly MAR revealed that the resident started to receive the LPS Sugar Free 30 ml by mouth twice daily on 1/22/2023, 36 days after the physician's order was first placed on 12/17/2022.
Review of the resident's February 2023 Monthly MAR revealed that the resident started to receive the Juven 1 packet by mouth twice daily on 2/2/2023, 47 days after the physician's order was first placed on 12/17/2022.
RD #2 was interviewed on 3/28/2023 at 11:35 AM and stated that when they (RD #2) assessed the resident on 10/13/2022, they (RD #2) adjusted the resident's tube feeding and recommended that the resident receive the LPS twice daily due to the resident's increased protein needs related to wound healing.
RD #2 was re-interviewed on 3/29/2023 at 10:10 AM and stated that when they (RD #2) stated that they (RD #2) had no idea why the order for the LPS was not obtained in October 2022 when they (RD #2) had first recommended LPS because the resident had increased protein needs due to a Stage 4 sacral pressure ulcer. RD #2 stated that the LPS order was not obtained until 12/17/2022. RD #2 further stated they (RD #2) could not explain why the resident did not receive the LPS until 1/22/2023 after the Physician's Order was obtained on 12/17/2022.
RD #1 was interviewed on 3/29/2023 at 11:10 AM and stated that when completing the Nutrition Wound Note on 12/17/2022, they (RD #1) made a request for the resident to receive the two high protein supplements because the tube feeding was not providing enough protein to promote wound healing. RD #1 stated that they (RD #1) put both orders into the computer on 12/17/2022 for the LPS and the Juven. RD #1 further stated they (RD #1) had no idea why the resident did not receive the LPS for the first time until 1/22/2023 and the Juven for the first time on 2/2/2023.
The Director of Nursing Services (DNS) was interviewed on 3/30/2023 at 2:40 PM and stated that the RDs are responsible to place the dietary supplement orders into the computer and then Nursing confirms the order. The DNS stated that Nurses are responsible to notify the Physician of the RD's recommendation. The DNS stated that if there were no signatures on the MAR, there was no evidence that LPS or Juven were administered to Resident #128 in the month of December 2022. The DNS stated LPS was first administered on 1/22/2023 as evidenced by the staff signature on the MAR. The DNS stated that the first time the Juven was administered was on 2/2/2023 as evidenced by the staff signature on the MAR.
10 NYCRR 415.11(c)(1)
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0692
(Tag F0692)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review and interviews during the Recertification Survey initiated on 3/22/2023 and completed on 3/30/2023, the f...
Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review and interviews during the Recertification Survey initiated on 3/22/2023 and completed on 3/30/2023, the facility did not ensure that the resident maintained, to the extent possible, acceptable parameters of nutritional and hydration status. This was identified for one (Resident #128) of four residents reviewed for Nutrition. Specifically, Resident #128 was not provided the adequate amount of protein via tube feeding that was needed for wound healing, as assessed and recommended by the Registered Dietician (RD).
The finding is:
The facility's policy titled, Enteral (tube) Nutrition last reviewed on 1/2022 documented that the Dietitian will monitor residents who are receiving enteral feedings and will make appropriate recommendations for interventions to enhance tolerance and nutritional adequacy of enteral feedings.
The facility's policy titled, Nutrition and Hydration to Maintain Skin Integrity last reviewed on 1/2023 documented that the healing of acute (e.g., postoperative) and chronic (e.g., pressure ulcers) wounds requires enough protein and calories so that the body will not use lean body mass for energy and wound repair. The policy also documented that the recommended protein levels for a resident with wounds or at risk of developing wounds is approximately 1.2 - 1.5 grams (gm) of protein per kilogram (kg) of body weight.
Resident #128 has diagnoses which include Cerebral Infarction and Dysphagia and was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. The quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] documented that the resident had a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of 10 which indicated the resident had moderately impaired cognitive skills for daily decision making. The resident was totally dependent on one person for eating. The resident's height was 68 inches and the resident weighed 140 pounds. The resident received 51% or more of their total calories through tube feeding.
The Physician's Order dated 8/30/2022 documented for the resident to receive Jevity 1.5 (1.5 Calories/milliliter) tube feeding formula, 600 cubic centimeter (cc) per day at 50 cc per hour via a percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy (PEG) tube starting at 4:00 PM until completion and for the resident to receive nothing by mouth (NPO).
The Initial Wound Round Evaluation Progress Note dated 9/1/2022 documented that the resident had a Stage 4 sacral pressure wound measuring 9.5 centimeter (cm) x 14.2 cm x 2.3 cm; 40% granulation (newly formed healthy tissue); 60% necrotic (dead tissue), no exudate (drainage).
The resident's weight dated 9/8/2022 documented the resident's weight as 130.6 pounds (lbs).
The Nutrition Assessment completed on 9/9/2022, by Registered Dietitian (RD) #3, documented that the resident's weight was 130.6 lbs. The resident's daily caloric needs were documented as 1475-1770 kilo calories (kcal) based on 25-30 kcal/kg of the resident's current body weight (CBW) and that their daily protein needs were 60 gms of protein based on 1 gm/kg of the resident's current body weight. The resident's tube feeding order was documented as Jevity 1.5 600 cc/day and that the resident had a Stage 4 sacral pressure ulcer.
There was no documented evidence that RD #3 had calculated that the resident's current tube feeding was only providing 900 kcals and 38.4 gms of protein per day; rather than the 1475-1770 kcal and 60 gms of protein calculated in the nutritional assessment.
The Physician's Order dated 9/11/2022 documented for the resident to receive Jevity 1.5 tube feeding formula, 1040 cc/day at 65 cc/hr via PEG tube for a total of 16 hours starting at 4:00 PM until completion which provided a total of 1560 calories per day.
The Dietary Progress Note dated 10/13/2022, written by RD #2, documented that the resident's CBW was 145.8 lbs on 10/11/2022 and that the resident had a Stage 4 sacral pressure ulcer. The resident's estimated nutrient needs based on ideal body weight (IBW) of 63.6 kg (140 lbs) was 1590-1908 kcal (25-30 kcal/kg) and 76-95 gms of protein (1.2-1.5 gms protein/kg). The note also documented that the resident's current tube feeding order was Jevity 1.5 1040 milliliter (ml-which is the equivalent to cc) at 65 ml/hour x 16 hours which provided the resident with 1560 kcal and 66 gms protein daily. The Plan documented in this progress note to suggest Jevity 1.5 1000 ml at 50 ml/hour x 20 hours which would provide the resident with 1500 kcal and 63.8 gms of protein daily. The Plan also suggested liquid protein supplement (LPS) 30 ml via PEG twice daily (BID) which would provide the resident with an additional 200 kcal and 30 gms protein per day to help meet the resident's increased protein needs related to wound healing.
The Physician's Order dated 10/13/2022 documented for the resident to receive Jevity 1.5 tube feeding formula, 1000 cc at 50 cc/hour via PEG tube for a total of 20 hours starting at 4:00 PM until completion which provided a total of 1500 calories per day. There was no documented evidence in the resident's EMR that the LPS was ordered as suggested by RD #2.
The Physician's Order dated 12/1/2022 documented for the resident to receive a No Added Salt (NAS) diet, with a Puree diet consistency, and thin liquids.
The Nutrition Wound Note dated 12/17/2022, written by RD #1, documented that the resident had a Stage 4 sacral pressure ulcer, current size measuring 5.5 cm x 5.5 cm x 2 cm. The note documented that protein supplementation of LPS by mouth (po) BID was recommended to provide the resident with an extra 200 kcal and 30 gms of protein per day and Juven (a high protein powder) was recommended to provide the resident with an extra 180 kcal and 33 gms of protein per day.
The Physician's Order dated 12/17/2022 documented for the resident to receive LPS Sugar Free 30 ml by mouth twice daily and Juven 1 packet by mouth twice daily.
Review of the resident's December 2022 Monthly Medication Administration Record (MAR) revealed no documented evidence that the resident received the LPS Sugar Free or the Juven as ordered by the Physician.
Review of the resident's January 2023 Monthly MAR revealed that the resident started to receive the LPS Sugar Free 30 ml by mouth twice daily on 1/22/2023, 36 days after the physician's order was first placed on 12/17/2022.
Review of the resident's February 2023 Monthly MAR revealed that the resident started to receive the Juven 1 packet by mouth twice daily on 2/2/2023, 47 days after the physician's order was first placed on 12/17/2022.
RD #3 was not available for interview.
RD #2 was interviewed on 3/28/2023 at 11:35 AM and stated that when they (RD #2) assessed the resident on 10/13/2022, they (RD #2) adjusted the resident's tube feeding and recommended that the resident receive the LPS twice daily due to the resident's increased protein needs related to wound healing.
RD #2 was re-interviewed on 3/29/2023 at 10:10 AM and stated that when they (RD #2) make a recommendation, they enter the order themselves into the EMR and then there is a pending sign off notification that nursing and the physician has to also sign. RD #2 believed that they (RD #2) had entered the request into the computer on 10/13/2022 after making the recommendation for the resident to receive LPS twice daily. RD #2 stated that they (RD #2) had no idea why the order for the LPS was not obtained in October 2022 when they (RD #2) had first recommended LPS because the resident had increased protein needs due to a Stage 4 sacral pressure ulcer. RD #2 stated that the LPS order was not obtained until 12/17/2022. RD #2 further stated they (RD #2) could not explain why the resident did not receive the LPS until 1/22/2023 after the Physician's Order was obtained on 12/17/2022.
RD #1 was interviewed on 3/29/2023 at 11:10 AM and stated that when completing the Nutrition Wound Note on 12/17/2022, they (RD #1) made a request for the resident to receive the two high protein supplements because the tube feeding was not providing enough protein to promote wound healing. RD #1 stated that they (RD #1) put both orders into the computer on 12/17/2022 for the LPS and the Juven. RD #1 further stated they (RD #1) had no idea why the resident did not receive the LPS for the first time until 1/22/2023 and the Juven for the first time on 2/2/2023.
The Director of Nursing Services (DNS) was interviewed on 3/30/2023 at 2:40 PM and stated that the RDs are responsible to place the dietary supplement orders into the computer and then Nursing confirms the order. The DNS stated that Nurses are responsible to notify the Physician of the RD's recommendation. The DNS stated that if there were no signatures on the MAR, there was no evidence that LPS or Juven were administered to Resident #128 in the month of December 2022. The DNS stated LPS was first administered on 1/22/2023 as evidenced by the staff signature on the MAR. The DNS stated that the first time the Juven was administered was on 2/2/2023 as evidenced by the staff signature on the MAR.
10 NYCRR 415.12(i)(1)
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0710
(Tag F0710)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review and interviews during the Recertification initiated on 3/22/2023 and completed on 3/30/2023, the facility...
Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review and interviews during the Recertification initiated on 3/22/2023 and completed on 3/30/2023, the facility did not ensure that the medical care of each resident was supervised by the Physician including monitoring changes in the resident's medical status. This was identified for one (Resident #7) of four residents reviewed for Nutrition. Specifically, Resident #7 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with a diagnosis of Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus. The resident's Physician did not monitor the resident's blood work timely to evaluate the progression of the disease and need for treatment.
The finding is:
The facility's policy titled Diabetes - Clinical Protocol last reviewed on 2/2023 documented that the Physician will follow up on any acute episodes associated with a significant change in blood sugars or deterioration of previous glucose control and document resident status at subsequent visits until the acute situation is resolved.
Resident #7 with diagnoses including Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus and Hypertension was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. The significant change in status Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] documented that the resident had a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of 11 which indicated that the resident had moderately impaired cognitive skills for daily decision making. One of the resident's Active Diagnoses was Diabetes Mellitus (DM).
Review of the resident's Electronic Medical Record (EMR) revealed the following Comprehensive Metabolic Panel (CMP) Glucose results:
-1/24/2022 Glucose high 250 milligram/deciliter (mg/dl) (reference range 65-99 mg/dl)mg/dl
-9/12/2022 Glucose high 385 mg/dl
Review of the medical record revealed that Resident #7 was not receiving medication to manage the diagnosis of DM.
The Medical Doctor (MD) Monthly Progress Note dated 10/1/2022, written by Physician #1, documented under Diagnostic Tests - Glucose 385 non fasting.
Review of the resident's EMR revealed the following CMP glucose result: 11/16/2022 Glucose high 345 mg/dl.
The Nursing Progress Note dated 11/17/2022 documented that the blood test results were available, and the Glucose level was 350 mg/dl. Physician #1 was made aware and ordered to repeat the Glucose level tomorrow.
Review of the resident's EMR revealed the following CMP Glucose result: 11/18/2022 Glucose high 319 mg/dl.
The 11/18/2022 Medical Progress Note, written by Physician #1, documented that the resident's laboratory reports were reviewed, and a random Glucose level was 345 mg/dl. The Physician documented to start Metformin (oral medication to treat DM) and to check the resident's hemoglobin A1c (HgbA1c- blood test to determine the blood glucose levels over 2-3month period).
The Physician's Order dated 11/19/2022 documented for the resident to start Metformin HCl (an oral diabetes medicine used to treat high blood sugar levels caused by Type 2 diabetes) oral tablet 500 mg (milligrams) - 1 tablet po (by mouth) once a day for Type 2 diabetes mellitus without complications.
The laboratory report dated 11/21/2022 documented a Glucose level of 297 mg/dl (high) and HgbA1c 13.5%, high (reference range 4.8-5.6%).
The 11/26/2022 MD Monthly Progress Note dated 11/26/2022, written by Physician #1, documented that the resident was found to have DM. and was started on Metformin. The Note also documented that the resident's blood Glucose level was 297 mg/dl and their HgbA1c was 13.6%.
The resident's Physician (Physician #1) was interviewed on 3/30/2023 at 11:30 AM and stated that when the resident first had a very high glucose level in September 2022, they (Physician #1) were not concerned because the blood glucose level was not a fasting blood glucose test. Physician #1 stated that the resident's DM was controlled by diet for a long time, but that they (Physician #1) should have ordered a HgbA1c for the resident a few times a year to monitor their DM. Physician #1 stated that they (Physician #1) were not sure why they (Physician #1) had not ordered a HgbA1c after the CMP glucose result on 11/16/2022 when the resident's Glucose was 345 mg/dl and they (Physician #1) should have. Physician #1 stated that the resident's diabetes was not well controlled and that they (Physician #1) take responsibility for that and will now have the resident's HgbA1c checked twice a year. Physician #1 also stated that they (Physician #1) did not know why the resident's Glucose level was not checked for almost a year between January 2022 and September 2022 and that it should have been checked more often since the resident's Glucose was on the high side in January 2022.
The Medical Director (Physician #2) was interviewed on 3/30/2023 at 6:10 PM and stated that the resident's HgbA1c should have been checked yearly or every other year as a standard of practice for someone having a diagnosis of DM.
10 NYCRR 415.15(b)(1)(i)(ii)
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Pharmacy Services
(Tag F0755)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, record review, and interviews during the Recertification Survey initiated on [DATE] and completed on [DATE...
Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, record review, and interviews during the Recertification Survey initiated on [DATE] and completed on [DATE], the facility did not ensure it provided pharmaceutical services including procedures that assure the accurate acquiring, receiving, dispensing, and administering of all drugs and biologicals to meet the needs of each resident. This was identified for two (Resident #47 and #98) of four residents observed during medication pass. Specifically, on [DATE], 1) Resident #47 did not receive the scheduled Furosemide (a medication for Hypertension) dose; and 2) Resident #98 did not receive the scheduled Divalproex (Depakote-prescribed for Schizophrenia) dose during the medication pass observation. The medications were not available for administration because the medications were not re-ordered in a timely manner from the pharmacy.
The finding is:
The facility's undated policy titled, Prescribing and Ordering of Medications documented the facility will communicate any medication reorders, changes, or discontinuation to the pharmacy in accordance with pharmacy guidelines and state/federal regulations, thus ensuring a standardized process of communication. Communication may be transmitted through verbal, written, or electronic orders. All orders must clearly be communicated to the pharmacy by the facility.
1) Resident #47 was admitted with diagnoses including Hypertension, Diabetes Mellitus, and Depression. The [DATE] Quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment documented a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of 6, indicating the resident had severe cognitive impairment.
A physician's order effective [DATE] and active as of [DATE] documented Furosemide oral tablet 20 milligram (mg), give 1 tablet by mouth one time a day for Hypertension.
A medication pass observation on [DATE] at 8:58 AM for Resident #47 was conducted. The medications were being administered by Registered Nurse (RN) #1, who was the RN Supervisor. RN #1 stated they (RN #1) were conducting the medication pass because the scheduled medication nurse called out. RN #1 stated Resident #47 was due to receive Furosemide 20 mg tablet at 9 AM and they (RN #1) were unable to find the blister-pack for the Furosemide 20 mg tablet.
RN #1 was re-interviewed on [DATE] at 11:19 AM and stated they (RN #1) had searched everywhere for the Furosemide 20 mg tablet blister-pack but were unable to find the medication. RN #1 stated they (RN #1) will call the pharmacy to re-order the medication.
Review of the [DATE] Medication Administration Record (MAR) revealed that Furosemide 20 mg was not signed as administered for Resident #47 on [DATE].
Pharmacist #1 was interviewed on [DATE] at 8:31 AM and stated the last refill request for Resident #47's Furosemide prior to [DATE] was on [DATE]. Pharmacist #1 stated the new refill request for Furosemide came in from RN #1 on [DATE] at 3:19 PM. Pharmacist #1 stated the facility must request re-orders through the Electronic Medication Record (EMR) or through a phone call, the pharmacy do not just refill the medications.
RN #1 was re-interviewed on [DATE] at 9:43 AM and stated the Furosemide was delivered very late on [DATE]. RN #1 stated the Furosemide 20 mg is in the emergency box (E-Box), but they (RN #1) did not use it. RN #1 stated they did not notify the doctor regarding the missing Furosemide until today ([DATE]).
The Director of Nursing Services (DNS) was interviewed on [DATE] at 9:05 AM and stated if the medication supply is getting low, the nurses should call the pharmacy to re-order the medication at least 1-2 days before the medication runs out.
2) Resident #98 was admitted with diagnoses including Diabetes Mellitus, Hypertension, and Schizophrenia. The [DATE] Quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) documented a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of 4, indicating the resident had severe cognitive impairment. The MDS documented the resident was receiving psychotropic medications.
A Physician's order effective [DATE] and active on [DATE] documented Depakote oral tablet, 500 milligrams (mg), by mouth two times a day for Schizophrenia.
A medication pass observation on [DATE] at 9:09 AM for Resident #98 was conducted. The medications were being administered by Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) #2. A blister-pack for Depakote contained Depakote tablets. The blister-pack had a label indicate Depakote was delivered on [DATE]. LPN #2 did not administer Depakote for Resident #98 and stated that the blister-pack was expired because the blister-pack was only good for one month. LPN #2 stated they (LPN #2) had re-ordered the medication two days ago on [DATE] and the medication has not yet arrived from the pharmacy.
Review of the [DATE] Medication Administration Record (MAR) revealed that Resident #98 did not receive either the 9 AM and 9 PM doses of Depakote on [DATE].
Pharmacist #1 was interviewed on [DATE] at 8:31 AM and stated the Pharmacy had a re-order request for Resident #98's Depakote on [DATE], which was delivered on [DATE]. Pharmacist #1 stated the March re-order request for Resident #98's Depakote was made by LPN #2 on [DATE] at 9:30 AM.
The Director of Nursing Services (DNS) was interviewed on [DATE] at 9:05 AM and stated if the medication supply is getting low, the nurses should call the Pharmacy to re-order the medication at least 1-2 days before the medication runs out.
10 NYCRR 415.18(a)
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Drug Regimen Review
(Tag F0756)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** 2) Resident #109 was admitted with diagnoses including Heart Failure, Dementia, and Psychosis. The Minimum Data Set (MDS) assess...
Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** 2) Resident #109 was admitted with diagnoses including Heart Failure, Dementia, and Psychosis. The Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] documented a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of 7 which indicated the resident had severely impaired cognition.
A Physician's order dated 1/28/2023 documented to administer Risperidone 0.5 mg daily.
The MRR dated 2/21/2023 documented a recommendation for a GDR of Risperidone 0.5 mg to Risperidone 0.25 mg. The physician agreed and recommended a Psychiatric Consultation.
The psychiatric evaluation dated 3/27/2023 documented to attempt a trial GDR of Risperidone Oral tablet 0.5 mg to Risperidone Oral Tablet 0.25 mg daily.
The Nursing Progress Note dated 3/28/2023 documented that Resident #109 was seen by the Psychiatrist and a physician's order was obtained to decrease Risperidone from 0.5 mg daily to 0.25 mg daily.
Registered Nurse (RN) Supervisor #1 was interviewed on 3/28/2023 at 3:11 PM and stated the Psychiatrist was on vacation and the Medical Director had to cover for the Psychiatrist. The RN Supervisor is unsure why the recommendation for a Psychiatric consultation was conducted on 3/27/2023, over a month after the order was recommended by the physician. The RN Supervisor was unable to find the consultation order in the medical record. RN Supervisor stated they were responsible to place the order for the Psychiatry consult in the EMR and must have forgotten to do so.
The Director of Nursing Services (DNS) was interviewed on 3/30/2023 at 2:50 PM and stated that when a consultation of any kind is recommended, the Physician's order is placed immediately in the EMR. The Psychiatrist was on vacation until 3/27/2023 and no one was assuming the responsibilities of the Psychiatrist while they were away. The DNS stated that if the physician determined the Psychiatric consultation was needed, there should have been an order in place on 2/21/2023.
10 NYCRR 415.18(c)(2)
Based on record review and interviews during the Recertification Survey initiated on 3/22/2023 and completed on 3/30/2023, the facility did not ensure that Physician Responses (actions) documented on Monthly Medication Regimen Reviews (MRR) were carried out to address irregularities identified by the Pharmacist. This was identified for two (Resident #7 and Resident #109) of five residents reviewed for Unnecessary Medications. Specifically, 1) a Psychiatric Consult was requested for Resident #7 by the Physician in February 2023, in response to the MRR dated 2/11/2023; however, no Physician's Order was documented in the resident's Electronic Medical Record (EMR). A Psychiatric Consult was not completed until 3/27/2023 after a subsequent MRR was completed on 3/7/2023 and the physician again recommended a Psychiatry Consult. 2) Resident #109 was seen by the Pharmacy Consultant on 2/21/2023 who recommended a Gradual Dose Reduction (GDR) for Risperidone (an antipsychotic medication) from 0.5 milligrams (mg) daily to 0.25 mg daily on the Medication Regimen Review (MRR). The physician agreed with the recommendation; however, the GDR was not initiated until the resident was seen by the Psychiatry Services on 3/27/2023.
The finding is:
The facility's undated policy titled, Drug Regimen Review-Monthly documented that the Consultant Pharmacist shall review the medical record of each resident and perform a Drug Regimen review at least once each calendar month. The Consultant Pharmacist shall identify, document and report possible medication irregularities for review and action by the Attending Physician, where appropriate. The attending Physician or licensed designee shall respond to the Drug Regimen Review within 7-14 days or more promptly, whenever possible.
1) Resident #7 has diagnoses which include Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus and Hypertension. The quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] documented that the resident had a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of 10 which indicated that the resident had moderately impaired cognitive skills for daily decision making. The MDS also documented that the resident received antipsychotic and antidepressant medications during the last 7 days.
The original Physician's Order dated 5/14/2020 and last renewed on 1/31/2023 documented to administer Risperdal (an antipsychotic medication) oral tablet (tab) 2 milligrams (mg) - give 1 tab by mouth (po) at hour of sleep (HS) for Schizophrenia.
The original Physician's Order dated 9/1/2022 and last renewed on 1/31/2023 documented to administer Risperdal M-tab dispersible 1 mg, give 1 tab po once daily related for Schizophrenia.
The MRR dated 2/11/2023 documented the resident was currently receiving Risperidone (Risperdal). The Consultant Pharmacist documented they were unable to locate recent documentation of current need/effect, absence or presence of side effects, and ability or lack of ability to taper current dose in the chart. Under the Physician/Prescriber Response the resident's Physician checked the box indicating,Agree; Will do. On the MRR the Physician wrote to obtain a Psychiatry Consult and signed the MRR, however, did not date the MRR.
There was no Physician's Order for a Psychiatry Consult in response to the MRR in February 2023.
The MRR dated 3/7/2023 documented the resident was currently receiving Risperidone (Risperdal) with a diagnosis of Schizophrenia, however, there appeared to be no supporting evidence of a history of Schizophrenia located in the medical record or consult reports. Please evaluate current use, consider either adding a progress note to support the diagnosis, changing the diagnosis, or gradual dose reductions and discontinuing Risperidone, if appropriate. Under the Physician/Prescriber Response, obtained by the Registered Nurse (RN #6) Supervisor dated 3/21/2023, the resident's physician agreed with the recommendations and gave a verbal order for a Psychiatric Consult.
Review of the resident's EMR revealed that the Physician's Order for a Psychiatric Consult was not entered into the EMR until 3/27/2023.
The Nursing Progress Note dated 3/27/2023, written by RN #6, documented that a verbal order from Physician #1 was obtained for a psychiatric referral for review of medications for the purpose of a possible gradual dose reduction (GDR).
RN #6 was interviewed on 3/28/2023 at 4:55 PM and stated that when they (RN #6) got the verbal telephone order from Physician #1 on 3/21/2023, they (RN #6) did not put the Physician's Order into the computer until 3/27/2023 because they (RN #6) knew that the Psychiatric Nurse Practitioner (NP) was on vacation and not was returning until 3/27/2023 when the Psychiatry Consult was completed.
Physician #1 was interviewed on 3/28/2023 at 5:00 PM and stated they expected the Psychiatry Consult order to be documented in the EMR after they (Physician #1) gave the verbal order on 2/11/2023. Physician #1 stated that a Psychiatry Consult should have been obtained when the Pharmacy Consultant first made the recommendations on 2/11/2023.
The Director of Nursing Services (DNS) was interviewed on 3/30/2023 at 3:10 PM and stated that there may not have been a rush to put the Physician's Order into the computer to have the resident seen by the Psychiatrist in February of 2023 because the facility did not have a Psychiatrist back then. The DNS further stated that the Physician's Order should have been put into the resident's EMR on the day the telephone order was obtained on 3/21/2023, but it would not have changed the outcome because the Psychiatric NP was not coming back from vacation until 3/27/2023.
10 NYCRR 415.18(c)(2)
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0760
(Tag F0760)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, record review, and interviews during the Recertification Survey initiated on 3/22/2023 and completed on 3/...
Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, record review, and interviews during the Recertification Survey initiated on 3/22/2023 and completed on 3/30/2023 the facility did not ensure that all residents were free of any significant medication errors. This was identified for two (Resident #8, and Resident #114) of two residents reviewed for choices. Specifically, both residents did not receive their medications as ordered by the Physician. On 3/22/2023 Resident #8 complained that they received all their 9:00 AM medications at 11:00 AM, and Resident #114 did not receive the 9:00 AM Buprenorphine HCl-Naloxone (treatment of Opioid Dependency) medication until 12:00 PM.
The finding is:
1). Resident #8 was admitted with diagnoses that included Pain, Deep Vein Thrombosis, Bipolar Disorder, Panic Disorder and Muscle Spasticity. A Quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] documented the resident had a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of 13 which indicated the resident had intact cognition. The resident had no behavior problems and received Antidepressant, Antianxiety, Anticoagulant, and Opioid medication during the assessment period.
Resident #8 was interviewed on 3/23/2023 at 12:58 PM. The resident stated that on 3/22/2023 they received all their 9:00 AM medications late.
A Physician's order dated 2/1/2023 documented to administer:
-Oxycodone HCl oral tablet 5 milligrams (mg). Give 1 tablet by mouth every 12 hours related to Pain;
-Eliquis (Anticoagulant) oral tablet 5 mg. Give 1 tablet by mouth two times a day related to Acute Embolism and Deep Vein Thrombosis of lower extremity.
-Baclofen oral tablet 20 mg. Give 1 tablet by mouth three times a day for Muscle Spasticity.
-Zanaflex oral tablet 4 mg. Give 1 tablet by mouth three times a day for Muscle Spasticity.
-Clonazepam oral tablet 1 mg. Give 1 tablet by mouth two times a day related to Bipolar
Disorder, Current Episode of Depression, Panic Disorder, and Anxiety.
A Review of the Medication Administration Audit Report (timed stamp) dated 3/27/2023 documented Resident #8 received all 9:00 AM medications at 10:57 AM -11:00 AM on 3/22/2023.
LPN #6 was re-interviewed on 3/29/2023 at 10:46 AM. LPN #6 stated that they came into work at 9 AM on 3/22/2023 and that as soon as they arrived in the facility, they (LPN #6) immediately went to their assigned unit. LPN #6 stated that it was a busy morning, and all the residents were waiting and asking for their medications at the same time; the medication pass had not started, the finger sticks were not completed and that was why they were running late with the medication pass.
Physician #3 was interviewed on 3/30/2023 at 6:45 PM. The Physician #3 stated that the resident should not have receive their medications late. Physician #3 stated that currently the resident's main concern is pain and that it was important to administer the pain medication on time and the goal is for the resident to be comfortable. Physician #3 stated that the expectation would be that all residents receive their medication timely.
2) Resident #114 was admitted with diagnoses that included Hypertension, Diabetes Mellitus, History of Opioid Dependence. An admission Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] documented the resident's Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score was 11 which indicated moderate cognitive impairment. The resident had no behavior problems.
A Physician's order dated 3/18/2023 documented Suboxone Sublingual Film 2-0.5 mg, Give 2 film sublingually every 12 hours. Continue to use this medication until the tablet form is added to the medication record.
A Physician's order dated 3/20/2023 documented Buprenorphine HCl-Naloxone HCl (Suboxone) Sublingual Tablet Sublingual 2-0.5 mg. Give 2 tablet sublingually every 12 hours for medication for Opioid Dependency.
Resident #114 was observed on 3/22/2023 at 11:30 AM speaking loudly and was visibly upset. The resident stated that they did not receive their special medication that they should have received at 9:00 AM. The resident stated that they were told the medication was not on the unit and the Registered Nurse (RN) Supervisor was following up.
A review of the Medication Administration Audit Report (timed stamp) dated 3/27/2023 documented Resident #114 received their 9:00 AM Buprenorphine HCl-Naloxone films Sublingual 2-0.5 mg at 12:02 PM on 3/22/2023.
Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) #6, the 7:00 AM - 3:00 PM medication nurse, was interviewed on 3/22/2023 at 11:33 AM. LPN #6 stated the resident did not receive their Buprenorphine HCl-Naloxone HCl medication because they (LPN #6) were unable to find the resident's medication. LPN #6 stated that the RN Supervisor was made aware and was currently following up.
RN #6, who was the 7:00 AM - 3:00 PM RN Supervisor, was interviewed on 3/28/2023 at 5:02 PM. RN #6 stated that on 3/22/2023 they checked the narcotic cabinet and found the resident's medication.
LPN #6 was re-interviewed on 3/29/2023 at 10:46 AM. LPN #6 stated that they came into work at 9 AM on 3/22/2023 and that as soon as they arrived in the facility, they (LPN #6) immediately went to their assigned unit. LPN #6 stated that it was a busy morning, and all the residents were waiting and asking for their medications at the same time; the medication pass had not started, the finger sticks were not completed and that was why they were running late with the medication pass. LPN #6 stated the initial order for Resident #114's Buprenorphine HCl-Naloxone HCl medication was a Sublingual Film and they (LPN #6) had looked for the medication in the narcotic cabinet and could not find the medication.
The Director of Nursing Services (DNS) was interviewed on 3/30/2023 at 3:30 PM and stated the shift RN Supervisor should have covered the unit until a medication nurse arrived. The DNS stated that they were not made aware that the residents received their medications late. The DNS further stated the expectation is for the residents to receive their medications timely. The window for medication administration is one hour before to one hour after the physician prescribed time.
10 NYCRR 415.12(m)(2)
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0761
(Tag F0761)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, record review, and interviews during the Recertification Survey initiated on 3/22/2023 and completed on 3/...
Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, record review, and interviews during the Recertification Survey initiated on 3/22/2023 and completed on 3/30/2023 the facility did not ensure that all drugs and biologicals used in the facility were labeled in accordance with currently accepted professional principles. This was identified for one (Resident #24) of one resident reviewed for Hydration. Specifically, Resident #24 was observed with Intravenous (IV) hydration fluid infusing via an IV port. The IV bag was not labeled with the resident's name nor the date and time the IV fluid was hung.
The finding is:
The facility Intravenous Administration of Fluid and Electrolytes policy and procedure reviewed 1/2023 documented for continuous therapy, mark solution container with label that states when the bag was started and approximate time of completion. The policy documented to always use a label or tape (never write directly on the bag with ink or marker).
Resident #24 had diagnoses that include Volume Depletion, Localized Edema, and Hypertension. A Quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] documented the resident's Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score was 8 which indicated the resident had moderately impaired cognition.
A Physician's order dated 3/22/2023 documented to administer Dextrose-Normal Saline (NS) at 50 milliliters (ml) per hour every hour for Volume Depletion for two days.
A Comprehensive Care Plan (CCP) for Hydration dated 2/19/2023 documented the resident was at risk for fluid and electrolyte imbalance related to the use of Diuretics. Interventions included to encourage the resident to drink if not contraindicated, to monitor laboratory results and report abnormal findings to the Physician, and to monitor vital signs as needed to identify signs and symptoms of electrolyte imbalance/ Hypovolemia (such as weak pulse, tachycardia, temperature elevation and Orthostatic Hypotension) and report to the Physician. The CCP was not updated to include interventions related to IV use.
During a tour conducted on 3/23/2023 at 10:38 AM on the 2 North nursing unit Resident #24 was observed out of bed in a reclining chair in the hallway. IV Dextrose Normal Saline was observed infusing via a right-hand IV port and there was no label observed on the IV fluid bag.
Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) #2, the medication nurse, was interviewed on 3/23/2023 at 10:38 AM and stated that the Registered Nurse (RN) Supervisor that started the IV line should have labeled the IV bag with the resident's name, date, and time the fluid was hung.
RN #6, the 7:00 AM - 3:00 PM Nursing Supervisor, was interviewed on 3/30/2023 at 10:31 AM. RN #6 stated there should have been a label on the IV fluid bag. The RN who hung the IV fluid bag should have labeled the IV bag. RN #6 stated the receiving shift RN Supervisor, or the LPN medication nurse could have labeled the IV bag with the resident's name, date, and time the fluid was hung.
An interview was conducted on 3/30/2023 at 1:30 PM with the Director of Nursing Services (DNS). The DNS stated that the IV bag should have been labeled with the date and time.
10NYCRR 415.18(d)
CONCERN
(D)
📢 Someone Reported This
A family member, employee, or ombudsman was alarmed enough to file a formal complaint
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Laboratory Services
(Tag F0770)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review and interviews during the Recertification Survey and Abbreviated Survey (Complaint #NY00308569) initiated...
Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review and interviews during the Recertification Survey and Abbreviated Survey (Complaint #NY00308569) initiated on 3/22/2023 and completed on 3/30/2023, the facility did not obtain laboratory services to meet the needs of its residents. This was evident for one (Resident #226) of four residents reviewed for Nutrition. Specifically, Resident #226 had Physician's Orders dated 12/14/2022 for the resident to have a Urinalysis with Culture and Sensitivity test which was never completed.
The finding is:
The facility's policy titled, Lab and Diagnostic Test Results - Clinical Protocol last revised in January 2023 documented that the Physician will identify and order diagnostic and laboratory testing based on diagnostic and monitoring needs.
Resident #226 has diagnoses which include Hypertension and Diabetes Mellitus. The admission Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] documented that the resident had a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of 11 which indicated that the resident had moderately impaired cognitive skills for daily decision making. The resident required limited assistance of one person for, toilet use and was occasionally incontinent of urine.
The Physician's Order dated 12/12/2022 documented to obtain a Complete Blood Count (CBC) with Auto Differential.
A blood specimen reported on 12/12/2022 revealed that the resident had a high white blood cell (WBC) count of 15.56 (reference range 3.98-10.04).
The Physician's Order dated 12/14/2022 documented for the resident to have a CBC with Auto Differential.
A blood specimen reported on 12/15/2022 revealed that the resident had a high WBC level of 14.78 (reference range 3.98-10.04).
The Physician's Order dated 12/14/2022 documented to obtain urine for Urinalysis with Culture and Sensitivity.
The Nursing Progress Note dated 12/16/2022, written by Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) #5, documented that the laboratory called and stated that the resident's urine sample could not be found and therefore the Culture and Sensitivity (C & S) could not be completed.
Review of the resident's Electronic Medical Record (EMR) revealed no other attempts were made to obtain a urine sample for the resident prior to the resident's discharge on [DATE].
LPN #5 was unavailable for interview.
Registered Nurse (RN) #1, Supervisor, was interviewed on 3/30/2023 at 10:45 AM and stated that LPN #5 should have just tried to obtain another urine sample after they (LPN #5) were notified by the laboratory that the resident's urine sample was missing.
The Director of Nursing Services (DNS) was interviewed on 3/30/2023 at 2:50 PM and stated that LPN #5 should have notified the RN Supervisor and the Physician when the resident's urine sample was lost and should have attempted to collect another urine sample.
10 NYCRR 415.20
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0806
(Tag F0806)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review and interviews during the Recertification Survey initiated on 3/22/2023 and completed on 3/30/2023, the f...
Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review and interviews during the Recertification Survey initiated on 3/22/2023 and completed on 3/30/2023, the facility did not ensure that each resident received food that accommodates resident preferences and receive appealing options of similar nutritive values to residents who chose not to eat food that is initially served or who request a defend meal choice. This was identified for two (Resident #46 and Resident #76) during the Dining Observation task for one of three dining rooms. Specifically, during the Dining Observation Task on the second floor, Resident #46 and Resident #76 verbalized they were not made aware or offered the alternate meal for lunch on 3/24/2023.
The finding is:
The facility's Policy and Procedure on Food Preferences, last revised 1/2023 documented that upon admission, the resident's food preferences will be taken by the Dietician or nursing staff. Staff, assisted by the Physician, will identify any nutritional issues and dietary recommendations that may conflict with a resident's food preferences. The Food Service Department will offer a variety of foods at each scheduled meal, as well as access to nourishing snacks throughout the day and night.
During the second-floor dining room observation task on 3/24/2023 at 2:00 PM, Resident #46 and #76 verbalized a complaint that they did not know there was an alternate meal available for lunch specifically a bacon, lettuce, and tomato sandwich. Resident #46 and #76 stated they were not offered a menu that included an alternate meal choice.
1) Resident #46 was admitted with diagnoses of Hypertension, Asthma, and Non-Celiac Gluten Sensitivity. The Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] documented a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of 12 which indicated the resident had moderately impaired cognition.
The Physician's order dated 12/30/2023 for Resident #46 documented to provide a regular consistency diet with thin liquids, no added salt diet, gluten free, and no wheat products.
2) Resident #76 was admitted with diagnoses of Hypertension, Diabetes Mellitus, and Cerebrovascular Accident. The Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] documented a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of 12 which indicated the resident had moderately impaired cognition.
The Physician's order dated 1/26/2023 for Resident #76 documented to provide a regular consistency diet with thin liquids, and no concentrated sugars.
The Food Service Director was interviewed on 3/27/2023 at 1:45 PM and stated there is a 10 AM Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA) who is responsible to collect the resident's food preference cards every day; however, the food preference cards have not been collected consistently over the last two months. The Food Service Director stated that they have made the Nursing Supervisors and the Director of Nursing Services (DNS) aware. The Food Service Director stated that the Dietician did an in-service education training with the CNAs about two months ago, but nothing has changed.
The Dietician was interviewed on 3/29/2023 at 11:14 AM and stated that Resident #76 is on a non-concentrated sugar diet and Resident #46 is on a no added salt (NAS) diet. When collecting preference cards, the 10 AM CNAs are responsible to go to all alert residents and ask what they want for lunch and dinner, including the main meal and the alternative meals. An in-service education was provided to the CNAs on all floors to remind them about collecting preference cards before mealtime. The Dietician stated they made the Assistant Director of Nursing Services and the DNS aware of the issue regarding the CNAs not collecting the resident's food preference cards approximately two weeks ago.
The second floor Registered Nurse (RN) Supervisor was interviewed on 3/30/2023 at 9:26 AM and stated a 10 AM CNA is not always available and when this occurs, the unit CNAs are responsible to collect the meal preference cards. This leads to preference cards not being done correctly or being forgotten. This is a building-wide issue, not just a second-floor issue.
The 10 AM Certified Nurse Assistant (CNA) #4 on 2 South was interviewed on 3/30/2023 at 10:40 AM and stated that one of their responsibilities is to collect lunch and dinner preference cards from the residents. The CNA will print the cards, go to each room, tell the residents the main and alternate options for meals, and bring the preference cards to the kitchen. CNA #4 stated they were pulled to work on Unit 2 North and then were sent for a transportation run. CNA #4 stated they were not aware of any issues related to Resident #46 and #76 meal preferences.
The 10 AM CNA #5 for 2 North was interviewed on 3/30/2023 at 12:00 PM and stated they did work on 2 South on 3/24/2023. CNA #5 stated they did not recall any resident complaining about not knowing about the alternate meals.
The Director of Nursing Services (DNS) was interviewed on 3/30/2023 at 1:12 PM and stated that food preference issues are only brought to their attention if there is a major issue and there has not been a recent time where meal preferences were an issue brought to their attention. There was an in-service education about preference card collection, but the DNS was unsure of the exact date. The responsibility of collecting preference cards is assigned to the 10 AM CNA. If a 10 AM CNA was unavailable, another CNA would be assigned.
10 NYCRR 415.14(d)(4)