FOLTSBROOK CENTER FOR NURSING AND REHABILITATION

104 NORTH WASHINGTON STREET, HERKIMER, NY 13350 (315) 866-6964
For profit - Corporation 163 Beds WECARE CENTERS Data: November 2025 1 Immediate Jeopardy citation
Trust Grade
23/100
#508 of 594 in NY
Last Inspection: January 2025

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

Overview

Foltsbrook Center for Nursing and Rehabilitation has received a Trust Grade of F, indicating significant concerns and a poor overall rating. Ranking #508 out of 594 facilities in New York places it in the bottom half, and #3 out of 4 in Herkimer County means only one local option is better. The facility is worsening, with the number of issues increasing from 6 in 2023 to 9 in 2025. Staffing is a critical concern, as the center has a poor 1/5 star rating and a high turnover rate of 58%, which is above the state average of 40%. While there have been no fines recorded, which is a positive sign, incidents such as residents suffering burns from hot food and poor food service practices raise serious concerns about the quality of care provided.

Trust Score
F
23/100
In New York
#508/594
Bottom 15%
Safety Record
High Risk
Review needed
Inspections
Getting Worse
6 → 9 violations
Staff Stability
⚠ Watch
58% turnover. Above average. Higher turnover means staff may not know residents' routines.
Penalties
✓ Good
No fines on record. Clean compliance history, better than most New York facilities.
Skilled Nurses
○ Average
Each resident gets 31 minutes of Registered Nurse (RN) attention daily — about average for New York. RNs are the most trained staff who monitor for health changes.
Violations
⚠ Watch
26 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
2023: 6 issues
2025: 9 issues

The Good

  • Full Sprinkler Coverage · Fire safety systems throughout facility
  • No fines on record

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: 58%

11pts above New York avg (46%)

Frequent staff changes - ask about care continuity

Chain: WECARE CENTERS

Part of a multi-facility chain

Ask about local staffing decisions and management

Staff turnover is elevated (58%)

10 points above New York average of 48%

The Ugly 26 deficiencies on record

1 life-threatening
Jan 2025 9 deficiencies
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0558 (Tag F0558)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on observation, interview, and record review during the recertification survey conducted 1/23/2025-1/29/20254, the facility did not ensure the right to reside and receive services with reasonabl...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, interview, and record review during the recertification survey conducted 1/23/2025-1/29/20254, the facility did not ensure the right to reside and receive services with reasonable accommodation of resident needs and preferences for 1 of 1 resident (Resident #4) reviewed. Specifically, Resident #4 was not provided with a meal before going to outside dialysis (filtering of blood during kidney failure) appointments. Findings included: The facility policy, Food Palatability, revised 12/2024, documented the facility provided residents with nutritious, well-balanced, and palatable meals that met their individual dietary needs and preferences. The facility policy, Medical Transport Process, dated 8/12/2024 documented when an appointment was scheduled early in the morning and the resident was not allowed to eat prior to the appointment, dietary was notified and a to go breakfast was prepared for the resident. This pertained to any meal missed when on an appointment. If residents choose not to take a meal, one would be prepared upon return. Resident #4 had diagnoses including chronic kidney disease and dependence on renal dialysis. The 12/3/2024 Minimum Data Set assessment (a health status assessment tool) documented the resident was cognitively intact, required substantial assistance for most activities of daily living, and was dependent on renal dialysis. A physician order dated 10/17/2024 documented hemodialysis on Monday, Wednesday, and Friday. Pick up time 11:00 AM. Send snack/meal with resident to dialysis on Monday, Wednesday, and Friday. Send lunch. The Comprehensive Care Plan initiated 10/26/2024 documented the resident had a nutritional problem and was at risk for malnutrition related to dialysis three days a week. Interventions included monitor labs, a renal diet with a 1200 milliliter fluid restriction was provided, and an alternative was offered if the resident refused their meal. There was no documented evidence the care plan included provision of lunch to the resident on dialysis days. During an observation and interview on 1/24/2025 at 11:00 AM Resident #4 was getting ready for dialysis and did not have a lunch tray in their room. They stated they never received lunch before going to dialysis and would like lunch as it was a long time to go without food from breakfast to dinner. They stated they were offered a bag lunch once or twice but were not allowed to eat at the dialysis center and therefore did not bring the bagged lunch. Additionally, they did not like the bagged lunch and preferred a hot lunch. Resident #4 was interviewed and/or observed at the following times: - on 1/27/2025 at 9:49 AM they stated they attended dialysis every Monday, Wednesday, and Friday and was not given or offered a bagged lunch or hot lunch prior to dialysis on 1/24/2025 and would like to have a hot lunch before going to dialysis. - on 1/27/2025 at 11:49 AM Resident #4 was going to dialysis and was not offered a bagged or hot lunch before they left. - on 1/29/2025 at 8:42 AM they stated they went to dialysis on 1/28/2025 which was not their normal day. It was an extra day because they needed more fluid removed. Staff brought a hot lunch tray before they went to dialysis on 1/28/2025 for the first time ever and reported being very appreciative. They stated they had never been offered a lunch before dialysis and had never refused a lunch before going to dialysis. During an interview on 1/28/2025 at 9:46 AM, Certified Nurse Aide #11 stated it was very important for residents to get three meals a day for proper nutrition. If residents did not get three meals a day, they could have weight loss and skin breakdown. They often prepared Resident #4 for dialysis and brought the resident to the front for transport to dialysis. They never saw the resident get a lunch prior to dialysis and they were not sure why. They stated the resident should get lunch before going to dialysis. During an interview on 1/28/2025 at 3:34 PM, Registered Nurse #12 stated Resident #4 went to dialysis every Monday, Wednesday, and Friday and if they went during lunch, they looked for a bagged lunch for the resident in the refrigerator on the unit. Resident #4 went for an extra dialysis session on 1/28/2025 and was offered a hot lunch and ate it. They were unsure if the resident was ever offered a hot lunch before but had been offered a bag lunch previously and refused the bag lunch. During an interview on 1/29/2025 at 10:22 AM, Dietary Aide #13 stated if a resident had an appointment, they should receive either an early tray or a bagged lunch. Some residents had repeating appointments and received an early tray or bagged lunch, and those residents went on a list. During an interview on 1/29/2025 at 10:27 AM, the Director of Dietary Services #14 stated there was a list of residents who received bag lunches or an early lunch that was kept in the kitchen, however, they were unable to locate the list. It was important for residents to have three meals a day for maintaining general health. During an interview on 1/29/2025 at 10:31 AM, Registered Dietitian #15 stated it was important for residents to have three meals on their dialysis day because they were worn out from the procedure of dialysis. A resident on dialysis had added stress and strain on the body which required more calories and protein. Nursing provided dietary the names of residents who were going to outside appointments, and they were added to a list that was kept in the kitchen. The list documented if the resident received a hot lunch or bagged lunch. The list documented Resident #4 was to have a bagged lunch prepared on Monday, Wednesdays, and Fridays. Registered Dietitian #15 stated they were aware Resident #4 did not like bagged lunches. They were unaware the resident left for dialysis at 11:45 AM and did not return until 4:00 PM. They stated the resident should have been offered a hot lunch before going to dialysis. During an interview on 1/29/2025 at 10:48 AM, Registered Nurse Unit Manager #16 stated it was important that residents received 3 meals a day for nutritional purposes. When residents went to an appointment, they emailed dietary for an early lunch or bagged lunch. Dialysis residents should get three meals a day and if they did not get proper nutrition, they could have weight loss. Resident #4 used to have dialysis earlier in the day and refused lunch because it was too close to breakfast. When the dialysis time changed to 11:45 AM the resident should have been offered a hot lunch. 10NYCRR 415.5(e)(1)
CONCERN (D) 📢 Someone Reported This

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

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

ADL Care (Tag F0677)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observations, record review. and interviews during the recertification and abbreviated (NY00361906 and NY00351460) surv...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observations, record review. and interviews during the recertification and abbreviated (NY00361906 and NY00351460) surveys conducted 1/23/2025-1/29/2025, the facility did not ensure residents who were unable to carry out activities of daily living received the necessary services to maintain grooming and personal hygiene for 2 of 5 residents (Resident #116 and #226) reviewed. Specifically, Resident #116 was not shaved, and Resident #226 was not shaved and groomed. Findings include: The facility policy, Activities of Daily Living, revised 3/2018, documented residents were provided with care, treatment and services as appropriate to maintain or improve their ability to carry out activities of daily living. Residents who were unable to carry out activities of daily living independently received the services necessary to maintain good nutrition, grooming, and personal and oral hygiene. Appropriate care and services were provided for residents who were unable to carry out activities of daily living independently including support and assistance with bathing, grooming, dressing, and oral care. 1) Resident #116 had diagnoses including post-traumatic stress disorder, pneumonia, and bladder cancer. The 11/10/2024 Minimum Data Set assessment documented the resident was cognitively intact, able to make their needs known, did not reject care, and required substantial to maximal assistance of one for personal hygiene. The 11/7/2024 Comprehensive Care Plan documented Resident #116 had a self-care deficit related to weakness. Interventions included the resident was offered a shower every Tuesday and as needed and required assistance of one for personal hygiene. The undated [NAME] (care instructions) documented staff should ask the resident if they would like to be shaved and assist with shaving facial hair as needed. The following observations of Resident #116 were made: - on 1/24/2025 at 8:32 AM, sitting in their bed with a large amount of stubble covering their lip and chin. The resident stated they did not like facial hair and would like to be shaved. - on 1/29/2025 at 8:54 AM, sitting in their bed with stubble covering their lip and chin. They stated they got a bed bath on 1/28/2025 but were not shaved and would like to be shaved. 2.) Resident #226 had diagnoses including depression, diabetes, and obesity. The 1/16/2025 Minimum Data Set Assessment had not yet been completed. The 1/17/2025 Comprehensive Care Plan documented Resident #226 had a self-care deficit, and interventions included extensive assistance of one for showering and limited assistance of 1 for personal hygiene and oral care. The undated [NAME] (care instructions) documented Resident #226 preferred no facial hair. They were to be assisted with shaving as needed and on shower days. Resident #226 was observed: - on 1/23/2025 at 12:22 PM, in bed with a significant amount of facial hair and long unkempt hair. The resident stated they asked several staff for a haircut and shave; staff was looking into it and had never gotten back to them. - on 1/27/2025 at 10:31 AM, in bed with a significant amount of facial hair and long unkempt hair. They stated they asked several staff for a haircut and shave; staff was looking into it and had never gotten back to them. -on 1/29/2025 at 9:17 AM, in the physical therapy room walking with a walker with long uncombed hair and a full beard. Physical Therapy Assistant #33 stated the resident asked for a haircut and they put the resident on the list for the hairdresser. During an interview on 1/28/2025 at 3:34 PM, Registered Nurse #12 stated personal hygiene care was completed daily by the certified nurse aides. Certified nurse aides used the resident [NAME] to review required care for individual residents. If a resident wanted a haircut, the unit clerk should be notified however the unit clerk had been out of work for an extended period. Residents should be shaved on their shower day, if they asked, or if staff noticed facial hair was getting long. If someone wanted a haircut and/or shave and did not receive one they might feel dirty and unclean. During an interview on 1/29/2025 at 8:57 AM, Certified Nurse Aide #30 stated they were responsible for completing or assisting residents with personal hygiene care which included shaving and hair care. They looked at the shower book daily for the list of showers for the day and shaved residents on their shower day or when needed. When a resident requested a haircut, they called the hairdresser for an appointment. If a resident asked for a shave and haircut, they would shave them and call the hairdresser to make an appointment for a haircut. During an interview on 1/29/2025 at 10:48 AM, Registered Nurse Unit Manager #16 stated certified nurse aides completed hygiene care for all residents as documented on the individual [NAME]. Residents were shaved on shower days. Shaving could be done any day and did not have to wait for the resident's shower day. When residents were admitted they received a coupon for a free haircut from the concierge and the appointment was scheduled by the unit clerk. They had not sent residents to the hairdresser since the unit clerk has been out on extended leave. If a resident wanted to be shaved and/or have their haircut and did not, it could be a dignity issue. 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

Pressure Ulcer Prevention (Tag F0686)

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 and abbreviated (NY00351460) surveys conducted 1/...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, record review, and interviews during the recertification and abbreviated (NY00351460) surveys conducted 1/23/2025-1/29/2025, the facility did not ensure residents with pressure ulcers received necessary treatment and services, consistent with professional standards of practice, to promote wound healing, prevent infection, and prevent new ulcers from developing for 1 of 3 residents (Resident #115) reviewed. Specifically, there was no documented evidence of a Comprehensive Care Plan for Resident #115's two Stage 2 (partial thickness tissue loss) pressure ulcers. Additionally, the resident had an alternating air pressure relieving mattress (a mattress with air filled cells that inflate and deflate to redistribute pressure) that was not set to their correct weight. Findings include: The facility policy, Support Surface Guidelines, revised 9/2013, documented residents at risk of skin breakdown were assessed for appropriateness of pressure reducing devices. Redistribution support surfaces promoted comfort, prevented skin breakdown, promoted circulation, and provided pressure relief or reduction. Any individual at risk for developing pressure ulcers should be placed on a redistributions support surface, such as foam, static air, alternating air, gel, or air loss device when in bed. The Protekt Aire 3000/3500/3600 (pressure relieving mattress) operational manual documented the Protekt Aire pump and mattress system was indicated for the prevention and treatment of all stage pressure ulcers when used in conjunction with a comprehensive pressure ulcer management program. The controls were set to on, low pressure, static control, and the control knob was set according to the resident's weight. Resident #115 had diagnoses including a Stage 2 (partial thickness tissue loss) pressure ulcers of the left and right buttocks and diabetes. The 12/23/2024 Minimum Data Set assessment documented the resident had moderately impaired cognition, did not reject care, was dependent for all activities of daily living, was always incontinent of urine and stool, did not have one or more unhealed pressure ulcers, and weighed 126 pounds. The 12/18/2024 at 3:00 PM admission skin condition assessment completed by the Director of Nursing documented the resident had a 2 centimeters x 1 centimeter and a 3 centimeters x 2 centimeters open area to the right gluteal fold (where the buttocks meet the thigh). The resident did not have a pressure ulcer on admission. The resident was at moderate risk of developing pressure ulcers and required close attention and preventative measures. There was no documented evidence of a Comprehensive Care Plan addressing the resident's two skin impairments assessed on admission. The resident was hospitalized from [DATE]-[DATE] due to possible (kidney) renal failure. The 1/13/2025 at 6:05 PM readmission assessment completed by Registered Nurse Supervisor #34 documented the resident had two Stage 2 pressure areas to the buttocks measuring 3 centimeters x 1.5 centimeters and 2 centimeters x 1.5 centimeter. The surrounding area was red and excoriated (abrasion). The resident weighed 123 pounds. There were no documented interventions for pressure relief. The Comprehensive Care Plan initiated 1/14/2025 did not include skin impairments or pressure reducing interventions. The Medication Administration and Treatment Administration Records from 1/13/2025-1/27/2025 did not include directions for monitoring of the residents alternating pressure reduction mattress or recommended settings. The [NAME] (care instructions) did not document the use of a pressure relieving mattress. The Medication Administration Record for 1/2025 documented obtain weight every Monday for 5 weeks with a start date of 1/20/2025. There were no documented weights on Monday 1/20/2025 or Monday 1/27/2025. Resident #115 was observed in bed with an alternating pressure mattress set to static low pressure at 350 pounds: - on 1/23/2025 at 10:42 AM. - on 1/24/2025 at 7:54 AM. - on 1/27/2025 at 3:51 PM. - on 1/28/2025 at 10:30 AM. During an interview on 1/28/2025 at 10:11 AM, Licensed Practical Nurse #23 stated care plans were completed by the Unit Manager when the resident was admitted and updated by the Unit Manager when there were any changes. If a resident was admitted with skin breakdown or was at risk for skin breakdown interventions included pressure relieving devices. The facility had alternating pressure mattresses, however there were none used on the fourth floor (Resident #115's floor) at this time. When a resident had an alternating pressure mattress it was documented on the care plan and documented on the treatment administration record for nurses to check the function and weight every shift. The pressure was set to the resident's weight and if the setting was not set to the proper weight, it could cause more pressure and increase skin breakdown. During an interview on 1/28/2025 at 10:22 AM, Licensed Practical Nurse Unit Manager #20 stated the Director of Nursing, and the Assistant Director of Nursing completed care plans for residents on the fourth floor because they were just learning the process. If there was required care that was not on the care plan it would not be implemented. If care was not documented, it was not completed. If a resident had pressure or was at risk for pressure interventions could include alternating pressure mattresses. They stated alternating pressure mattresses were set up by central supply. It was important to have the bed set according to the resident's weight. They were unsure who put the settings on the bed, and they were not sure if there was any place to document the mattress was checked but was sure it was not documented on the treatment administration record. Resident #115 was on an alternating pressure mattress, and they observed the bed was set to 350 pounds. They stated if the mattress was not set to the proper weight, it could cause decreased wound healing and increased wounds. During an interview on 1/28/2025 at 10:52 AM, Nurse Practitioner #24 stated when residents were at risk for developing pressure wounds or had wounds they might use an alternating pressure mattress. Use of the mattress did not require an order from them. They believed the nurse made sure it was functioning and set to the proper weight. The bed was set according to the resident's weight and if a resident weighed 125 pounds the bed should not be set at 350 pounds as that could cause increased pressure. During an interview on 1/28/2025 at 10:56 AM, Wound Consultant Nurse Practitioner #25 stated when medically appropriate they recommended an alternating pressure mattress, and the nurse was responsible for ordering it. The nurse was also responsible for making sure the bed was functioning and set at the proper weight every day. If the mattress was not checked every day the bed could be malfunctioning, and the resident would be lying on a hard surface. If a resident was on a mattress that was not functioning or set to the wrong weight that could cause increased pressure and decreased wound healing. The stated if the resident weighed 123 pounds the mattress should not be set at 350 pounds as they could have decreased wound healing and increased pressure. During an interview on 1/28/25 at 3:10 PM, the Director of Nursing stated the care plan was determined by the interdisciplinary team and documented the individual care required for each resident. If the interdisciplinary team met and determined an alternating pressure mattress was appropriate for a resident it was entered as a medical order by the Unit Manager. That order populated to the treatment administration record and the nurse checked the function and weight setting every shift and signed off on the treatment administration record. They expected that residents with an alternating pressure mattress were care planned for the mattress, that it was checked daily for functionality and correct weight settings, and documented as checked every shift on the treatment administration record. 10NYCRR 415.12(c)(1)
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0761 (Tag F0761)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on observations and interviews during the recertification survey conducted 1/23/2025-1/29/2025, the facility did not ensure drugs and biologicals were labeled and stored in accordance with curre...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observations and interviews during the recertification survey conducted 1/23/2025-1/29/2025, the facility did not ensure drugs and biologicals were labeled and stored in accordance with currently accepted professional principles and included the expiration date when applicable for 3 of 5 medication carts (1st, 2nd, and 4th floor medication carts), and 1 of 5 treatment carts (1st floor treatment cart). Specifically, the 1st and 4th floor medication carts and the 1st floor treatment cart were left unattended and unlocked; and the 2nd floor medication cart contained 3 insulin pens without an opened or expired/discard date. Findings include: The facility policy, Security of Medication Cart, revised 12/2024, documented the nurse secured the medication cart during the medication pass to prevent unauthorized entry. Medication carts were always locked when out of the nurse's view. The facility policy, Storage of Medications, revised 12/2024, documented drug containers that had missing, incomplete, improper, or incorrect labels were returned to the pharmacy for proper labeling before stored. The facility policy, Insulin Administration, revised 12/2024, documented the steps for insulin injections included to check the expiration date. If a new vial was opened, the expiration date and time were recorded on the vial and the manufacturer recommendation for expiration after opening was followed. During an observation and interview on 1/24/2025 at 9:23 AM, the 1st floor medication cart contained: - Lantus (Insulin glargine) 100 units/milliliter, without an opened date for Resident #236. - Lantus (Insulin glargine) 100 units/milliliter, without an opened date for Resident #226. - Insulin lispro 100 units/milliliter, without an opened date for Resident #226. Registered Nurse #12 stated it was important to know when the insulin pens were opened because they were only good for 28 days. If they did not know the open date, the medication could be expired and not work as well. Resident #226's insulin lispro was discontinued so they knew the resident did not receive that medication. Lantus was an evening medication, so they did not administer those pens and was not sure when they were last administered. The following observations were made: - On 1/23/2025 at 10:29 AM, the 4th floor medication cart was unlocked and unattended and Resident #68 walked past the cart. - On 1/23/2025 at 11:50 AM, the 1st floor medication and treatment carts were unlocked and unattended. The medication cart was opened and contained several multidose bottles of medications in the top drawer. The treatment cart was opened and contained 2 pairs of scissors and other creams in the top drawer. There was no staff present in the area. - On 1/24/2025 at 8:08 AM, the1st floor treatment cart at the nursing station was unlocked and unattended. - On 1/27/2025 at 9:12 AM, the 1st floor treatment cart at the nursing station was unlocked. - On 1/28/2025 at 10:03 AM, the 4th floor medication cart was by the elevator and was unlocked. There were 8 residents in the adjacent dining room, and one resident was in the hallway approximately 5 feet from the cart. The facility treatment cart contents list documented the treatment cart contained medicated creams/ solutions, tweezers, scissors, personal protective equipment, needles, syringes and other various treatment supplies During an interview on 1/28/2025 at 10:22 AM, Licensed Practical Nurse Unit Manager #20 stated medication carts should always be locked so residents could not take medications out. It was also a breach of confidentiality as medications contained resident information. The unit had wandering residents that could remove medications, and it could be a safety concern. During an interview on 1/28/2025 at 3:34 PM, Registered Nurse #12 stated medication carts should always be locked when unattended. Treatment carts should also be locked as they contained medicated creams and scissors. It was important the carts were kept locked for the safety of the residents. During an interview on 1/28/2025 at 4:28 PM, Registered Nurse #21 stated they worked on the 4th floor on 1/23/2025 and had residents that wandered the halls. They recalled answering the phone on 1/23/2025 and did not remember if they locked the medication cart or where the cart was located when they were on the phone. They stated medications carts should always be locked when unattended for the safety of all residents. They did not lock the cart because they were rushing that day. During an interview on 1/28/2025 at 4:55 PM, the Director of Nursing stated they expected medication carts were clean, organized, and without expired medications. Neither the medication cart nor treatment cart should have been unlocked when unattended because someone that was not supposed to be in the cart could access it. The treatment cart had creams, resident specific treatments, scissors, and items the nurses may need for the day. They expected insulin pens to be labeled with an expiration date, a resident label, and stored in the bag provided by pharmacy. Insulin pens should be labeled with an open date, because after 28-30 days the pen expired. If a resident was given expired insulin, there was potential for the insulin to not work. During an interview on 1/29/2025 at 10:48 AM, Registered Nurse Unit Manager #16 stated treatment and medication carts should always be locked for resident safety. Carts should never be unlocked even when they were at the nursing station. 10 NYCRR 483.45 (g)(h)
CONCERN (D)

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

Infection Control (Tag F0880)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on observations, record review, and interviews during the recertification survey conducted 1/23/2025-1/29/2025, the facility did not establish and maintain an infection prevention and control pr...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observations, record review, and interviews during the recertification survey conducted 1/23/2025-1/29/2025, the facility did not establish and maintain an infection prevention and control program designed to provide a safe, sanitary, and comfortable environment and to help prevent the development and transmission of communicable diseases and infections for 1 of 4 residents (Resident #112) reviewed, and for 1 of 1 staff bathroom (the basement breakroom bathroom) reviewed. Specifically, Certified Nurse Aide #26 did not use appropriate personal protective equipment when providing care to Resident #112 who was on transmission based precautions (droplet precautions) for influenza; and the soap dispenser in the women's bathroom located off the facility breakroom in the basement was not functional. Findings include: The facility policy, Influenza, Prevention and Control of Seasonal, revised 3/2022, documented all staff received education and training on preventing transmission of infectious agents, including influenza, during orientation to the facility. Contact and droplet precautions were implemented for residents with suspected or confirmed influenza for 7 days after illness onset or until 24 hours after the resolution of fever and respiratory symptoms, whichever was longer. The facility policy, Hand Hygiene, revised 8/2019, documented hand hygiene was the primary means to prevent the spread of infection. All personnel were trained and regularly in-serviced on the importance of hand hygiene in preventing the transmission of healthcare associated infections. Alcohol based hand rub containing at least 62% alcohol, or soap (antimicrobial or non-antimicrobial) and water was used after personal use of the toilet or conducting personal hygiene. 1) Resident #112 had diagnoses including Influenza A (a respiratory virus). The 12/3/2024 Minimum Data Set assessment documented the resident was cognitively intact and required substantial assistance with most activities of daily living. The 1/22/2025 nasopharyngeal swab (a sample taken from the nose) laboratory report documented Resident #112 was positive for Influenza A. The Comprehensive Care Plan updated 1/22/2025 documented the resident had Influenza A and interventions included droplet precautions. The 1/22/2025 Registered Nurse Unit Manager #16 progress note by documented Resident #112 was positive for influenza A and was placed on droplet precautions. The provider was notified. The 1/27/2025 Licensed Practical Nurse #28 progress note by documented Resident #112 was positive for the flu and remained on droplet precautions. During an observation and interview on 1/24/2025 at 8:23 AM, the facility Droplet Precaution sign documented STOP, droplet precautions. Wear a procedure mask and a full-face shield, gown, gloves, and wash your hands. The sign was posted on Resident #112's doorframe. Certified Nurse Aide #26 entered Resident #112's room without washing their hands, putting on a gown, putting on gloves, or putting on a face shield. They stated they only went into the room to grab a breakfast tray. They did not look at the sign on the doorframe and was not sure if they should have worn a face shield, gown, gloves, or washed their hands before entering the room. During an interview 1/29/2025 at 8:57 AM, Certified Nurse Aide #30 stated they received training on infection control when they were hired. They followed the infection control practices by looking at the signs before entering a room. If they did not follow the signs they could spread germs to other residents, coworkers, and visitors. During an interview on 1/29/2025 at 10:48 AM, Registered Nurse Unit Manager #16 stated residents that were on isolation precautions had signs outside their doors and alerted staff and visitors to the appropriate personal protective equipment that was required before the room was entered. They expected all staff to read the signs and follow the directions on the signs. When a resident was on droplet precautions gowns, gloves, masks, and face shields were required. During an interview on 1/29/2025 at 12:37 PM, Infection Control Nurse #32 stated all staff were educated on infection control practices on admission, annually, and as needed. If a resident was on precautions, a sign was placed on the door that alerted staff and visitors what protective equipment had to be worn when entering the room. This was important for the safety of anyone entering the room and anyone they came in contact with. They expected staff to follow the directions on the sign to prevent the spread of infection and for the safety of staff, residents, and visitors. When a resident was diagnosed with the flu, they were placed on droplet precautions which required precautions for entering the room including wearing a mask, gown, face shield, and gloves. 2) During an observation on 1/28/2025 at 8:17 AM, the soap dispenser in the basement women's restroom across from the break room was broken and there was no alcohol based hand rub available. During an observation on 01/28/2025 at 11:17 AM, an unidentified housekeeper stated the soap dispenser was broken. During an observation and interview on 1/29/2025 at 8:19 AM, the soap dispenser in the women's bathroom across from the break room was broken and there was no alcohol based hand rub available. Janitorial staff #29 stated they were aware of the broken soap dispenser on 1/28/2025, however was unable to fix the dispenser. They notified their supervisor and maintenance the dispenser was broken on 1/28/2025. They stated soap was needed to clean hands after using the bathroom and not using soap was unsanitary. During an interview on 1/29/2025 at 9:24 AM, Director of Housekeeping and Central Supply #31 stated their department checked soap dispensers and made sure they were full, however broken soap dispensers were repaired by maintenance. It usually only took maintenance a few hours to complete a work order. Soap dispensers that were broken should be fixed quickly as hand hygiene was important to limit the transmission of pathogens. During an interview on 1/29/2025 at 10:48 AM, Registered Nurse Unit Manager #16 stated the most important way to limit the spread of disease was washing your hands. Staff took their breaks on the first-floor basement break area and if women needed to use the restroom when on break, they used the restroom across from the break room. If there was not a working soap dispenser in that bathroom there would be no way for staff to wash their hands. During an interview on 1/29/2025 at 12:37 PM, Infection Control Nurse #32 stated staff took their breaks in the basement and if a woman had to use the bathroom they used the bathroom across from the breakroom. There should be a functioning soap dispenser in the bathroom to prevent the spread of infection. 10NYCRR 415.19(a)(b)
CONCERN (E)

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

Safe Environment (Tag F0584)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observations, record review, and interviews during the recertification survey conducted 1/23/2025-1/29/2025, the facili...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observations, record review, and interviews during the recertification survey conducted 1/23/2025-1/29/2025, the facility did not ensure residents had the right to a safe, clean, comfortable, and homelike environment for the Physical Therapy gym and for 2 of 5 resident units (Units 1 and 4) reviewed. Specifically, the Physical Therapy gym, Unit 1, and Unit 4 had several walls with patched holes and missing paint. Findings include: The facility policy, Homelike Environment, revised 12/2024, documented the residents were provided a safe, clean, comfortable, and homelike environment. The facility staff and management should to the extent possible, reflect a personalized homelike setting that included clean, sanitary, and orderly environment, inviting colors and décor. Work orders dated 1/1/2025 to 1/29/2025 documented there were multiple open work orders that had not been completed. The following observations were made on Unit 4: - On 1/23/2025 at 10:31 AM, 1/24/2025 at 7:51 AM, and 1/29/2025 at 8:26 AM room [ROOM NUMBER] had 7 orange sized white patches of paint on the bathroom wall. - On 1/23/2025 at 11:04 AM, 1/24/2025 at 7:59 AM, and 1/29/2025 at 8:29 AM room [ROOM NUMBER] W had a grapefruit sized area of missing paint on the wall at the head of the bed. - On 01/27/25 at 3:54 PM, and 1/28/2025 at 10:11 AM room [ROOM NUMBER] D had 3 inch areas of missing paint and sheetrock behind their bed. During an interview on 1/27/2025 at 3:54 PM, Certified Nurse Aide #22 stated when a room or equipment was in disrepair, they completed a work order or called maintenance. They called maintenance if resident walls were missing paint or if there were holes in the wall because it was not homelike. Maintenance entered every room looking for disrepair, however they were not sure how often this occurred. During an interview on 1/28/2025 at 10:11 AM, Licensed Practical Nurse #23 stated if there was an environments issue, they completed a work order in the computer system and the repair was normally completed within 15 minutes. If there was missing paint it should be reported to maintenance for completion. If it was not repaired the room would not look homelike. During an interview on 1/28/2025 at 10:22 AM, Licensed Practical Nurse Unit Manager #20 stated all staff were responsible for reporting environmental concerns to maintenance through the computer program. Issues were normally repaired the same day they were reported. Missing or chipped paint was something that should be reported as it was not homelike. During an observation on 1/29/2025 at 9:17 AM the inpatient physical therapy gym on the first floor had an area of white plaster in the shape of a door on the wall to the right before the kitchen opening. During an interview on 1/29/2025 at 9:24 AM, the Director of Housekeeping stated if they saw walls in disrepair, they completed a work order for maintenance to address. It normally took maintenance a few hours to complete a work order unless they were waiting on a part. They noticed the wall in the physical therapy gym had a large amount of plaster on the walls for several months. It was not homelike and should be painted. The following observations were made on Unit 1: - On 1/27/2025 at 9:59 AM and 1/29/2025 at 8:41 AM there were several large scrapes in the sheetrock behind the bed in room [ROOM NUMBER] R. During an interview on 1/29/2025 at 10:48 AM, Registered Nurse Unit Manager #16 stated when they noticed holes in the walls, chipped paint, or rooms in disrepair they notified maintenance because it was not homelike for the residents. Maintenance usually repaired the issue in 24 hours unless they were waiting for parts. During an interview on 1/29/2025 at 12:17 PM, The Director of Maintenance stated the facility used a computerized work order system and all staff was trained how to complete a work order. Some of the projects addressed were damaged walls, patching, and painting of walls. Most of the projects were completed the same day with others completed within 3-4 days when they were waiting for joint compound to dry. They completed projects on a priority system as they only had three employees in the department. They completed weekly rounds in every room looking for damaged walls, especially behind beds, because the bed caused holes in the walls. If there was missing paint or holes in the walls it was not homelike for the resident. 10 NYCRR 415.29(j)(1)
CONCERN (E)

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

Deficiency F0804 (Tag F0804)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

Based on observation and interviews during the recertification survey conducted 1/23/2025-1/29/2025, the facility did not ensure residents were provided food and drink that was palatable, flavorful, a...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation and interviews during the recertification survey conducted 1/23/2025-1/29/2025, the facility did not ensure residents were provided food and drink that was palatable, flavorful, and at an appetizing temperature for 2 of 2 meals reviewed (the 1/24/2025 2nd floor lunch meal and the 1/27/2025 1st floor lunch meal). Specifically, food was not flavorful and was not served at palatable and appetizing temperatures during the lunch meals on 1/24/2025 and 1/27/2025. Additionally, two residents (Residents #24 and #35) stated the food did not taste good and they did not receive enough food. Findings include: The facility policy, Dining Atmosphere, dated 12/2024 documented meals were served in a way that enhanced the individual's dining experience, because the presentation of the meal could directly affect how much an individual ate. Hot food must be hot, and cold food must be cold (as acceptable to the individual being served). During an interview on 1/23/2025 at 10:45 AM, Resident #24 stated the food lacked flavor. During an observation on 1/23/2025 at 12:22 PM, the menu on the wall outside the dining room on the 3rd floor documented lunch was pork barbeque on a bun, macaroni salad, corn, and applesauce. There was a sign documenting they were out of applesauce and the replacement was gelatin with whipped cream. At 12:50 PM, the pork barbeque appeared to be deli sliced ham with barbeque sauce poured on top. During an interview on 1/23/2024 at 12:55 PM, Resident #35 stated they did not like the food, did not get enough of the food they did like, and was provided the alternative meal of hotdogs regularly. During a 2nd floor lunch meal observation on 1/24/2025 at 12:30 PM Resident #11 was served their lunch tray. A replacement tray was ordered, and Resident #11's original meal tray was tested. At 12:30 PM, Certified Nurse Aide #4 verified the measured food temperatures. The lemon pepper fish was measured at 111.6 degrees Fahrenheit, the French fries were 114.3 degrees Fahrenheit, the coleslaw was 58.8 degrees Fahrenheit, the Super pudding was 63.3 degrees Fahrenheit, the apple juice was 48.2 degrees Fahrenheit, and the milk was 64 degrees Fahrenheit. The Super pudding had a slight orange taste, was very dense in texture, and difficult to spoon. The fish was dry, and the French fries were soggy with a visible salt coating. Certified Nurse Aide #4 stated the residents complained about the food every day. It was either too cold, or it was always the same foods. They stated the apple juice was usually frozen. During a lunch meal observation on 1/27/2025 at 11:54 AM, on the first floor, Resident #119 was served their lunch meal tray. A replacement tray was ordered, and Resident #119's original meal tray was tested. Certified Nurse Aide #5 verified the measured food temperatures. The Salisbury steak was measured at 127.4 degrees Fahrenheit, the mashed potatoes were 133 degrees Fahrenheit, the applesauce was 61.9 degrees Fahrenheit, the cooked carrots were 130.8 degrees Fahrenheit, and the milk was 47.1 degrees Fahrenheit. The Salisbury steak appeared and tasted like a plain, frozen cooked hamburger patty with gravy poured on it. The cooked carrots had no flavor and were very soft. During an interview on 1/27/2025 at 1:15 PM, Certified Nurse Aide #6 stated residents complained about the food being cold or not tasting good. The residents preferred the alternatives like the soup and grilled cheese sandwiches. Alternatives were always offered. If the residents did not eat, they could lose weight. During an interview on 1/27/2025 at 1:28 PM, Licensed Practical Nurse #7 stated residents always complained they did not like it the food. The said the food was cold, too salty, and had no flavor. If the resident complained they were offered an alternative item such as sandwiches, hotdogs, or hamburgers. Many times, they also refused the alternative. If they did not eat, they could lose weight. During an interview on 1/27/2025 at 1:48 PM, Registered Nurse Unit Manager #8 stated residents always complained about food stating it was cold, or did not taste good. Sometimes they did not like what was on the menu, and they were offered an alternate. They also notified dietary if a resident did not like something so they could update the resident's menu options. The lunch meal on 1/27/2025 looked like a hamburger with gravy. They stated they tried the Salisbury steak and could not eat it because it did not taste good. If the residents did not eat, they could lose weight. During an interview on 1/28/2025 at 5:13 PM, Dietary [NAME] #9 stated the appropriate service temperature for hot food was 165 degrees Fahrenheit or above but was usually around 175-180 degrees Fahrenheit. The appropriate service temperature for cold food was 38 degrees Fahrenheit or below, the goal was 32 degrees Fahrenheit, but not frozen. Dietary [NAME] #9 stated the fish measured at 111.6 degrees Fahrenheit, Salisbury steak at 127.4 degrees Fahrenheit, mashed potatoes at 133 degrees Fahrenheit, and cooked carrots at 130.8 degrees Fahrenheit were too low. The French fries at 114.3 degrees Fahrenheit was too low as they should be 150 degrees Fahrenheit for a golden-brown appearance. The applesauce at 61.9 degrees Fahrenheit, coleslaw at 58.8 degrees Fahrenheit, Super pudding at 63.3 degrees Fahrenheit, and the milk was 64 degrees Fahrenheit were all too high. They should be 38 degrees Fahrenheit or less. They stated the Salisbury steak was a pre-made frozen patty. It was important food was served at the appropriate temperatures because the food could build up bacteria, and undercooked food was unappetizing. During an interview on 1/28/2025 at 5:23 PM, the Director of Food Service #10 stated food should be presented nicely, taste good, served timely, and at the proper temperature. The appropriate service temperature for hot food was between 150-165 degrees Fahrenheit so it was served above the danger zone of 140 degrees Fahrenheit. The appropriate service temperature for cold food was 35 degrees Fahrenheit, but anything below 40 degrees Fahrenheit was acceptable. The fish measured at 111.6 degrees Fahrenheit, Salisbury steak at 127.4 degrees Fahrenheit, mashed potatoes at 133 degrees Fahrenheit, French fries at 114.3 degrees Fahrenheit, and cooked carrots at 130.8 degrees Fahrenheit were all too low. The applesauce at 61.9 degrees Fahrenheit, coleslaw at 58.8 degrees Fahrenheit, super pudding at 63.3 degrees Fahrenheit, and the milk at 64 degrees Fahrenheit were all too high. They stated that while the applesauce did not have to be refrigerated, the temperature was too high to be enjoyable. It was important residents were served food that was enjoyable and palatable because it was their home and was important for the quality of life they deserved. The recipe for Salisbury steak was a pre-made frozen patty with gravy mix poured over it, it was heated to 165 degrees Fahrenheit, and then put on the tray line for service. The pork barbeque recipe was sliced deli ham (approximately 2-3 slices) on a hamburger bun with barbeque sauce on top. 10NYCRR 415.14(d)(1)(2)
CONCERN (E)

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

Food Safety (Tag F0812)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

Based on observations, record review, and interviews during the recertification survey conducted 1/23/2025-1/29/2025, the facility did not ensure that food was stored, prepared, distributed, and serve...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observations, record review, and interviews during the recertification survey conducted 1/23/2025-1/29/2025, the facility did not ensure that food was stored, prepared, distributed, and served in accordance with professional standards for food service safety for 1 of 1 main kitchen. Specifically, the main kitchen had soiled and poorly maintained equipment and improper food and food product storage. Findings include: The undated facility policy, Food and Supply Storage, documented all food and supply items were held and stored safely and securely, maintained quality, and were protected against contamination, spoilage, and theft. All storage areas were always kept clean and in good working condition. Stored unused food was wrapped and labeled with the name and date of production. The undated facility policy, Cleaning and Mopping of Floors, documented food particles and other unwanted foreign materials were effectively removed from flooring. All floor areas of the department were swept and mopped at least twice daily. Equipment was cleaned underneath, and no standing water was left on the floor. The following observations of the main kitchen were made on 1/23/2025: - At 11:47 AM there was a large puddle on the floor of the dish room and there were no staff washing dishes. - At 11:52 AM there were soiled areas behind the cookline. There was a coating of grease and food debris on the side, under, and behind the the stove and fryer. - At 11:54 AM the ice machine had a stagnant puddle of liquid on the front edge of the unit. Beside the dish machine the floor was soiled with dried debris and food scraps. - At 12:11 PM the dry storage room beside the C1 walk-in cooler had food debris under the shelving and opened jelly packets dried on the floor. - At 12:17 PM the tray line cooler door was in disrepair and the handle area had exposed insulation. There was a tray of portioned pasta salad uncovered and dried out on top. - At 12:21 PM the dry storage room beside the dish room had heavily stained and soiled areas on the floor tiles. During an interview on 1/23/2025 at 2:57 PM, the Director of Dietary stated the floors were cleaned anytime something was dropped on them. The floors should be cleaned at least every hour or two. Cleaning behind the equipment was supposed to be done the previous night but was not. Dry storage areas, including under the shelving, were swept every shift and mopped as needed. The walk-in coolers were swept and mopped twice daily. They tried to clean the rust from the floor after coolers were moved but despite trying different chemicals it was still not clean. There should not be exposed insulation in the cooler on the tray line because it could not be properly cleaned because the surface was not smooth. Prepared food should have been covered or it could become dry or contaminated. During an interview on 1/23/2025 at 3:14 PM, the Director of Building Services stated there should not have been a puddle of water on the floor and the ice machine should have been cleaned. It was important for infection control that kitchen equipment and floors were clean. 10NYCRR 415.14(h)
CONCERN (E)

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

Deficiency F0925 (Tag F0925)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observations, record review, and interviews during the recertification survey conducted 1/23/2025-1/29/2025, the facili...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observations, record review, and interviews during the recertification survey conducted 1/23/2025-1/29/2025, the facility did not maintain an effective pest control program so that the facility was free of pests for multiple resident areas on 1 of 5 resident units (5th floor) reviewed. Specifically, there were fruit flies on the 5th floor. Findings include: The facility policy, Pest Control, dated 12/2024, documented the facility would take all reasonable measures to prevent and control pests, insects, and rodents through routine cleaning, proper food storage, and regular pest control services. The third-party pest control logs dated 10/17/2024,10/24/2024,10/31/2024,11/07/2024,11/14/2024, 12/05/2024,12/11/2024,1/16/2025,1/23/2025 documented treatments for insects and flies in the facility and the facility was inspected and serviced. The following observations were made on the 5th Floor: - on 1/23/2025 at 10:30 AM there was a fruit fly on the cart in the hallway near room [ROOM NUMBER] - on 1/23/2025 at 11:37 AM on the 5th floor an unknown staff swatted a fly then stated they hated when those little bugs got in their mask. - on 1/24/2025 at 8:43 AM there were multiple fruit flies outside of room [ROOM NUMBER]. - on 1/24/2025 at 1:55 PM there were multiple fruit flies at the nursing station desk. - on 1/27/2025 at 9:50 AM there were multiple fruit flies in the hallway near room [ROOM NUMBER]. - on 1/27/2025 at 10:37 AM there were multiple fruit flies in the dining room. - on 1/27/2025 at 11:35 AM there were multiple fruit flies between rooms [ROOM NUMBERS]. - on 1/27/2025 at 12:07 PM there were multiple fruit flies at the nursing station. - on 1/27/2025 at 1:38 PM there were several fruit flies on the elevator. - on 1/28/2025 at 9:40 AM there was a fruit fly on tray table in the hallway. - on 1/28/2025 at 10:04 AM Resident # 57 swatted a fruit fly away from their nose in the dining area. During an interview on 1/28/2025 at 09:54 AM Licensed Practical Nurse Manager #19 stated the fruit flies were bad. Pest control was in to treat them, but they had not seemed to completely go away. During an interview on 1/29/2025 at 12:22 PM Certified Nurse Aide #18 stated the fruit flies were intermittent and were very annoying. They stated the fruit flies probably had something to do with the poor condition of room [ROOM NUMBER]. The room was very dirty and had a terrible odor. The Certified Nurse Aide #18 stated having fruit flies was not home like, but most residents on that unit lacked the capacity to complain about them due to their cognitive disabilities. During an interview on 1/29/2025 at 12:48 PM Maintenance Director #17 stated the fruit flies on the 5th floor had been a bigger problem during the summer months. The drains were recently treated by the third-party pest control vendor service. The Maintenance Director #17 stated they were not aware of the presence of fruit flies until one was observed on another person who had accompanied them on the 5th floor elevator. 10NYCRR 415.12(a)(3)
Jun 2023 6 deficiencies
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0679 (Tag F0679)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview, and record review during the recertification survey conducted 6/22/23-6/30/23, the facility did...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview, and record review during the recertification survey conducted 6/22/23-6/30/23, the facility did not ensure residents were provided an ongoing program to support their choice of activities, designed to meet their interests and support their physical, mental, and psychosocial well-being for 1 of 1 resident (Resident #62) reviewed. Specifically, Resident #62 was not offered meaningful activities that included their interests and preferences. Findings include: The facility policy Activity Evaluation revised 6/2018 documented an activity evaluation was conducted as part of the comprehensive assessment to help develop an activities plan that reflected the choices and interests of the resident. The Activities Director was responsible for completing the evaluation and the resident's lifelong interests, spirituality, life roles, goals, strengths, needs, and activity pursuit patterns and preferences were included in the evaluation. The facility policy Dementia Care revised 11/2018 documented for the individual with confirmed dementia, the Interdisciplinary Team (IDT) would identify a resident-centered care plan to maximize remaining function and quality of life. Direct care staff would support the resident in initiating and completing activities and tasks of daily living. Bathing, dressing, mealtimes, therapeutic, and recreational activities would be supervised and supported throughout the day as needed. The June 2023 general activity calendar was posted throughout the facility on each unit. Both the facility-wide and unit activity calendars documented All calendars are subject to change; for any questions, concerns or suggestions contact [Recreational Director #25] . Resident #62 was admitted to the facility with diagnoses including unspecified dementia without behavioral disturbances, Parkinson's Disease (a progressive neurological disorder), and cognitive communication deficit. The 1/4/23 Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment documented the resident [NAME] severe cognitive impairment and required extensive assistance of 1-2 for most activities of daily living. The resident considered listening to music they liked, doing their favorite activities, and participating in religious activities very important; and having books, newspapers, and magazines to read, being around animals, doing things with groups of people, and going outside to be somewhat important. The comprehensive care plan (CCP) initiated 12/28/22 documented the resident required staff support for meeting emotional, intellectual, physical, and social needs. Interventions included to introduce the resident to other residents with similar backgrounds and interests and facilitate/encourage interactions; assist and escort to activity functions; provide activities calendar and notify of any changes to the calendar; and thank resident for attending activity functions. The Unit 3 Resident Activity Participation Log documented the following activities on the respective dates for June 2023: - 6/22/23 10:15 AM Catholic mass (chapel); 2:00 PM movies and popcorn (lounge & channel 49); 3:00 PM visits and chats; and 7:00 PM Wheel of Fortune or TV. - 6/23/23 10:15 AM bowling (chapel); 2:00 PM toss game (outside); 3:00 PM visits and chats; and 7:00 PM Wheel of Fortune or TV. - 6/26/23 10:15 AM manicures (3rd floor); 2:00 PM balloon volley (chapel); 3:00 PM visits and chats; and 7:00 PM Wheel of Fortune or TV. - 6/27/23 10:15 AM Bingo (chapel); 2:00 PM outside visits and trivia; 3:00 PM afternoon visits and chats; and 7:00 PM Wheel of Fortune or TV. - 6/28/23 10:15 AM Chapel service; 2:00 PM Bingo (chapel); 3:30 PM activity staff meeting; and 7:00 PM Wheel of Fortune or TV. - 6/29/23 10:15 AM concert (lounge); 2:00 PM movies and popcorn (lounge and channel 49); 3:00 PM visits and chats; and 7:00 PM Wheel of Fortune or TV. - 6/30/23 10:15 AM bowling (chapel); 2:00 PM balloon volley (outside); 3:00 PM visits and chats; and 7:00 PM Wheel of Fortune or TV. The June 2023 recreation attendance documentation was blank for Resident #62. Activities listed under an as needed (PRN) basis for Resident #62 included attending family visits, reminiscing, sleeping during activities, drinking/hydration cart, sensory integration, and social dining. During an interview on 6/22/23 at 10:57 AM the resident's representative stated Resident #62 was deeply religious, had always gone to religious services, had only been brought to religious services one time while at the facility, and staff no longer brought the resident to services. They stated they had made staff aware of the resident's preference to attend religious services as well as other programs the resident would enjoy such as music and Bingo. The Resident representative stated the resident should be able to go and listen to the service as it was an activity they enjoyed in the community for many years. Resident #62 was observed: - on 6/22/23 at 11:25 AM sitting at a dining room table and a coloring activity was occurring at the table across from them. There were several residents involved in the coloring activity and Resident #62 was not offered to join the coloring activity. - on 6/26/23 at 9:35 AM sitting in their wheelchair at a table in the unit dining room. There was a coloring activity at the table across from them; registered nurse (RN) #24 was handing out coloring pages to other residents. There were multiple residents engaged in coloring and RN #24 did not offer a coloring page to Resident #62. At 9:47 AM sitting at a table by themself with no engagement by staff or involvement in activities. - on 6/27/23 at 9:11 AM, being wheeled back into the dining room from the hall by licensed practical nurse (LPN) #19. Unit assistant (UA) #18 was tossing a beach ball to multiple residents sitting at tables in the dining room and they did ask Resident #62 if they wanted to participate. Resident #62 was sitting at a corner dining room table by themself watching the activity. At 12:55 PM sitting in the dining room at a corner table towards the front entry. UA # 18 was conducting a balloon toss activity with several residents in the dining room and did not engage Resident #62. The resident raised their right hand and waved it in the air and UA #18 did not acknowledge the resident. During an interview on 6/27/23 at 10:59 AM UA #18 stated they assisted with various tasks such as activities, resident appointments, answering call bells, and making beds. They stated they had no activities training but had attended dementia care in-services in the past. UA #18 stated they were not familiar with Resident #62; it was their first time working on Unit 3, they had been working on Unit 4 and was more familiar with the unit 4 residents. During an interview on 6/28/23 at 11:12 AM certified nurse aide (CNA) #21 stated they thought the resident attended a music concert but had never seen them engaged in any 1:1 activities. During an interview on 6/29/23 at 12:30 PM LPN Unit Manager #19 stated Resident #62 had moved to the 3rd floor a few months ago. They stated they had never seen the resident attend church or any activities. They stated therapy usually took the resident during activities. LPN #19 stated they would know the resident's preferences by talking to their family, but activities usually handled that and not the nurses. During an interview on 6/29/23 at 9:39 AM occupational therapist (OT) #22 stated Resident #62 was able to verbalize yes/no questions, could passively attend activities such as Bingo but would need physical assistance. Therapy had no set times with the residents and based therapy schedules on a resident's activity preferences. Therapy sessions could be paused and resumed later when the activities were completed. OT #22 was not aware of Resident #62's activity preferences. During an interview on 6/29/23 at 9:52 AM the Director of Physical Therapy (PT) stated they were familiar with Resident #62. They stated they knew the resident liked to attend church. They stated therapy sessions lasted from 3 minutes to 75 minutes. They stated if a resident wanted to attend an activity during therapy times, the Director of Recreation would email them. They stated they had not received any emails regarding Resident #62. During an interview on 6/29/23 at 12:11 PM the Director of Recreation stated they were familiar with Resident #62. They had quarterly meetings to update resident preferences, and they were responsible for updating resident care plans. The Director of Recreation stated they knew the resident liked to attend church, music and other programs, there was nothing on the resident's care plan indicating those preferences, and if a resident was in the dining room while activities were being offered, they should be engaged in the activity. 10NYCRR 415.5(f)(1)
CONCERN (D)

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

Quality of Care (Tag F0684)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on observation, record review and interview during the recertification survey conducted 6/22/23-6/30/23, the facility did not ensure residents received treatment and care in accordance with prof...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, record review and interview during the recertification survey conducted 6/22/23-6/30/23, the facility did not ensure residents received treatment and care in accordance with professional standards of practice, the comprehensive person-centered care plan, and the residents' choices for 1 of 1 resident (Resident #90) reviewed. Specifically, Resident #90's urinary catheter (removes urine from the bladder into a collection bag) was observed hanging above the level of their bladder for multiple observations, potentially causing urine backflow and risk of infection. Findings include: The facility policy Catheter Care, Urinary revised 8/2022 documented position the [urinary] drainage bag lower than the bladder at all times to prevent urine from flowing back into the urinary bladder. Check the resident frequently to be sure he or she is not lying on the catheter and to keep the catheter and tubing free of kinks. Resident #90 was admitted to the facility with diagnoses including diabetes mellitus (DM, the body does use insulin efficiently) and neurogenic bladder (lack of bladder control due to a nerve problem), The 5/16/23 Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment documented the resident had severe cognitive impairment, required limited assistance of one for most activities of daily living (ADLs), and had an indwelling urinary catheter. Physician orders documented: - on 10/14/21 change urinary catheter drainage bag to gravity (maintain bag below level of bladder) every day shift every 2 weeks on Thursday for urine collection and infection control. - on 8/3/22 change urinary catheter 18 French (size of tube) with a 10 cubic centimeter (cc) balloon as needed for leaking, plugging or if catheter was out. - on 3/2/23 change urinary catheter every 42 days, every night shift for infection prevention. The comprehensive care plan (CCP) initiated on 11/12/21 and revised on 12/22/22 documented the resident had an indwelling catheter. Interventions included Foley (urinary) catheter care per facility protocol and position catheter bag and tubing below the level of the bladder. The resident care instructions as of 6/28/23 did not include documentation on the urinary catheter. Resident #90 was observed: - on 6/26/23 at 2:54 PM lying in their bed, the bed was in the lowest position. Their urinary catheter drainage bag was attached to the top handle of the resident's walker, at the bedside, and was above the level of the resident's bladder. The urinary catheter tubing was looped upwards and was higher than the top of the drainage bag. The catheter was draining amber colored urine at the highest point of the tubing, but urine was not flowing into the drainage bag. - on 6/27/23 at 10:39 AM lying in their bed, the bed was in the low position. The urinary catheter drainage bag was attached to the top handle of the resident's walker, at the bedside. [NAME] colored urine was flowing through the tubing but stopped just before going into the drainage bag due to the height of the bag being above the resident's bladder. - on 6/28/23 at 9:53 AM lying in their bed. The urinary catheter drainage bag was attached to the resident's walker which was at the bedside. The drainage bag was level with the resident's bladder with no visible urine flowing in the tubing. During an interview on 6/28/23 at 10:10 AM, in the resident's room, certified nurse aide (CNA) #16 stated the resident required assistance of one for toileting and hygiene. They stated they would check on the resident and their catheter bag a few times during the shift. They performed catheter care a few times during the shift which included emptying the drainage bag. CNA #16 stated sometimes the resident emptied the drainage bag themself. They usually hanged the drainage bag on the resident's walker or on the bed frame below the bladder. They stated the drainage bag was currently not below the resident's bladder and the urine was not draining into the drainage bag properly which could lead to an infection from the backflow. During an interview on 6/28/23 at 10:28 AM, registered nurse (RN) unit manager #17 stated CNAs provided catheter care during the shift, and they also emptied the urine drainage bags. The CNAs went in and out of Resident #90's room a lot during the day. The CNAs would hang the drainage bag on the resident's bed below the resident's bladder, but the resident would move the drainage bag to the top of their walker. If the drainage bag was not positioned below the resident's bladder there was potential for infection from backflow if the urine was not draining properly. 10 NYCRR 415.12
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

Respiratory Care (Tag F0695)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, record review, and interview during the recertification and abbreviated (NY00317917) surveys conducted 6/2...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, record review, and interview during the recertification and abbreviated (NY00317917) surveys conducted 6/22/23-6/30/23, the facility did not ensure a resident who needed respiratory care was provided such care, consistent with professional standards of practice, the comprehensive person-centered care plan, and the residents' goals and preferences for 1 of 1 resident (Resident #27) reviewed. Specifically, Resident #27 was administered oxygen (O2) without a medical order. Findings included: The facility policy, Medication and Treatment Orders revised 7/2016 documented medications and treatments shall be administered only upon the written order of a person duly licensed and authorized to prescribe such medications in this state; only authorized, licensed practitioners, or individuals authorized to take verbal orders from practitioners shall be allowed to write orders in the medical record; drug and biological orders must be recorded on the physician's order sheet in the resident's chart; orders are reviewed by the consultant pharmacist on a monthly basis and all drug and biological orders shall be written, dated, and signed by the person lawfully authorized to give such an order. There was no documented facility policy for oxygen orders and administration protocol. Resident #27 was admitted to the facility with diagnoses including chronic respiratory failure with hypoxia (inadequate oxygen), cerebral infarction (stroke) and congestive heart failure (the heart does not pump well). The 4/27/23 Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment documented the resident was cognitively intact, required extensive assistance to total dependence with most activities of daily living (ADLs), and received oxygen therapy. A 2/7/23 at 3:34 PM nursing re-admission assessment by registered nurse Unit Manager (RN) #30 documented Resident #27 was readmitted to the facility and received chronic oxygen therapy at 2 LPM (liters per minute) via nasal cannula. A 2/7/23 re-admission nursing progress note by RN #30 documented the resident had no signs or symptoms of difficulty breathing, no shortness of breath, right and left lungs were clear, and they received oxygen therapy via nasal cannula. Physician orders for the date range of 2/1/23-3/31/23 did not include oxygen administration. The February 2023 medication administration record (MAR) documented oxygen therapy of 3 liters per minute (LPM) via nasal cannula (NC) every shift with a start date of 12/15/22 and a discontinue date of 2/25/23. The resident received oxygen at 3 LPM from 2/7/23 evening shift through the 2/20/23 day shift (hospitalized [DATE]). The comprehensive care plan (CCP) did not include the need for oxygen or administration guidelines. A 3/3/23 hospital discharge summary documented the resident was admitted to the hospital on [DATE] for a sacral (lower back) ulcer and anemia and was discharged on 3/3/23. The resident had chronic hypoxia (low oxygen levels) and required oxygen at 2 LPM. A 3/3/23 at 3:38 PM clinical admission progress note by RN #30 documented the resident was readmitted to the facility. The resident's oxygen saturation was 97% and the resident was on oxygen via NC. The resident had no difficulty breathing and their lungs were clear. The provider was notified regarding re-admission orders. The was no documented evidence of physician orders for oxygen therapy upon readmission to the facility on 3/3/23. The March 2023 through June 2023 MARs did not include oxygen administration orders. The care instructions as of 6/29/23 did not include directions for oxygen use. Resident #27 was observed: - on 6/22/23 at 3:43 PM lying in bed receiving oxygen via nasal cannula set at 3 LPM. The oxygen concentrator was at their bedside and had a humidifier bottle attached to it dated 6/22/23. - on 6/26/23 at 12:27 PM lying in bed receiving oxygen at 3 LPM via nasal cannula. - on 6/29/23 at 12:44 PM the resident stated they were on oxygen, had always had oxygen and never went without it including times they went out to the hospital and came back. During an interview on 6/28/23 at 10:09 AM certified nurse aide (CNA) #32 stated Resident #27 received oxygen and had always received it during their 7 months of employment on the unit. CNA #32 stated they were unsure how many liters of oxygen the resident received. CNAs could not turn oxygen on or off, only nurses were allowed to adjust it. During an interview on 6/28/23 at 10:29 AM licensed practical nurse (LPN) #31 stated the resident was on 3 LPM of oxygen, nurses were responsible for ensuring the oxygen was turned on, and the oxygen should have a physician order. LPN #31 reviewed the resident physician orders and stated Resident #27 did not have an order for O2. During an interview on 6/28/23 at 12:42 PM the Director of Nursing (DON) stated Resident #27 received oxygen therapy, and oxygen was a medication and required a physician order. Resident #27 should have had an order if they received oxygen. During an interview on 6/29/23 at 10:11 AM RN #30 stated Resident #27 did not have a physician order for oxygen therapy as of 6/27/23. They stated they missed the order for oxygen during the resident's re-admission evaluation on 3/3/23. Oxygen was considered a medication and a treatment and Resident #27 should have had an order for O2. RN #30 stated a resident's renewal orders appeared in the electronic medical record (EMR) and when a physician renewed the order, they were responsible to ensure the orders were transcribed onto the resident's MARS. During an interview on 6/29/23 at 10:47 AM nurse practitioner (NP) #13 stated if a resident was on continuous oxygen a physician order was required. Oxygen was considered a drug and could cause poor oxygen exchange if they were receiving it unnecessarily without an order. They stated Resident #27 was oxygen dependent, received oxygen, and should have a physician order for oxygen. 10 NYCRR 415.12(k)(6)
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 observation, interview, and record review during the recertification survey conducted 6/22/23-6/30/23, the facility did not ensure that residents who displayed or were diagnosed with a mental...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, interview, and record review during the recertification survey conducted 6/22/23-6/30/23, the facility did not ensure that residents who displayed or were diagnosed with a mental disorder or psychosocial adjustment difficulty, received appropriate treatment and services to correct the assessed problem to attain the highest practicable mental and psychosocial well-being for 1 of 1 resident (Resident #12) reviewed. Specifically, Resident #12 exhibited symptoms of depression and grief following the death of their spouse and continued need for long-term care and did not receive routine psychiatric evaluations or mental health counseling as planned. Findings include: The facility policy Behavioral Assessment, Intervention and Monitoring revised 3/2019 documented the facility would provide and residents would receive behavioral health services as needed to attain or maintain the highest practicable physical, mental, and psychosocial well-being in accordance with comprehensive assessment and plan of care. Behavioral symptoms would be identified using facility approved behavioral screening tools and a comprehensive assessment. Resident #12 was admitted to the facility with diagnoses including major depressive disorder, dementia, and anxiety. The 3/29/23 Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment documented the resident had moderate cognitive impairment; felt down, depressed, or hopeless nearly every day; rejected care 1 to 3 of 7 days; required extensive assistance of 1 for most activities of daily living; was independent with eating; was always incontinent of bowel; and received antidepressants every day. The comprehensive care plan (CCP) documented: - initiated on 6/11/2021 the resident was prescribed venlafaxine for depression. Interventions included: psychiatry consult and follow up as indicated; establish a meaningful activities regimen; the resident preferred to stay in their room and watch TV; monitor, document, and report any symptoms of depression; and monitor and report increased anger, labile mood, or agitation. - initiated on 12/15/21 the resident was grieving the loss of their spouse. Interventions included encourage positive reflections of memories with the loved one who passed; encourage social programs to promote social supports and friendships; involve clergy of choice for support if desired; provide empathetic listening for resident to express concerns. - initiated on 4/8/22 the resident had psychosocial well-being problem related to anxiety. Interventions included allow the resident time to answer questions and verbalize feelings, perceptions, and fears; consult with Pastoral Care, social services, psych services; encourage participation in activities of choice; encourage to make choices in daily routines; increase communication between resident/family/caregivers about care and living environment. The 8/15/22 hospital discharge summary documented the resident was adamant about not returning to the nursing facility. The resident was leaving angry messages with their family threatening to hurt themself and others. A psychiatric consult was ordered. Psychiatry increased the resident's antidepressant and started them on Depakote (a seizure medications that can treat psychological conditions). The 8/15/22 hospital psychiatry consult documented the resident was seen due to threats of wanting to kill themself if they had to return to the nursing facility. The resident had a history of depression and dementia. The resident reported they only went to the nursing facility to be close to their spouse. Their spouse passed away in December of 2021. The resident's antidepressant was increased and started on Depakote because it could help someone with dementia feel more stable. A psychiatric nurse practitioner (NP) #44 evaluation dated 8/29/2022 documented recommendations to continue current medications as ordered, monitor the resident for any changes in mood and behavior and report any acute issues, and offer the resident support and redirection as needed. The plan was to follow-up in 1 month or sooner if needed. A psychiatric NP #44 evaluation dated 10/17/2022 documented diagnoses of moderate episodes of recurrent major depressive disorder and dementia. Recommendations included to continue the medication regimen of Depakote 500 mg daily and mirtazapine (antidepressant) 30 mg every day at bedtime; monitor the resident for any changes in mood and behavior and report any acute issues; and offer the resident support and redirection as needed. Follow-up in 2 months or sooner as needed. There was no documented evidence the resident received additional psychiatric treatment as recommended. A progress note by NP #37 dated 1/20/23 by NP #37 documented the resident had a depressed mood affect. Plans included psychiatry consult as needed. A 4/3/23 physician order documented a consult with clinical social worker. A 4/3/23 at 4:23 PM social services progress note by social worker #45 documented a referral was sent to the clinical social worker, the resident would be evaluated and seen by clinical social worker as/if determined it was needed. There was no documented evidence the resident was evaluated by a clinical social worker. The following nursing progress notes were documented in the resident's record: - on 3/1/2023 by licensed practical nurse (LPN) #40 the resident was angry, wanted to go home, and emotional support was provided. - on 3/10/2023 by LPN #36 the resident wanted to leave and was telling staff their discharge from the facility would be soon. - on 4/7/2023 by LPN #35 the resident continued to appear depressed. - on 4/12/2023 by LPN #34 the resident wanted to go home, felt like this was prison, and was very depressed. - on 4/13/2023 by LPN #34 the resident told the LPN they were going home tomorrow. The social worker was called to talk with resident - on 4/26/2023 by LPN #31 the resident repeatedly asking to speak with the social worker to develop a discharge plan for home. A 4/27/23 at 3:06 PM social services progress note by social worker #45 documented the resident was seen by their case manager for a home-based services agency. There were no further social services progress notes. The following observations were made of Resident #12: - on 6/22/2023 at 11:59 AM, in bed, dressed in a facility gown. The resident stated their preference was to stay in bed all day. The resident began to cry and stated that their spouse passed away last year and their daily living pattern, since that time, was to stay in bed and cry all day. The resident reported ownership of their home and wanted to return home. The resident stated there was no reason to get out of bed. The resident reported significant weight loss but was not sure of exact amount of weight loss. The resident's room was dark, the window blinds were closed, and clutter was scattered throughout the environment. - on 6/23/2023 at 9:00 AM, out of bed sitting in a wheelchair in their room, dressed in facility gown with a blanket over them. The resident ate one bowl of oatmeal from the breakfast tray placed it on the bedside table. The resident stated they did not like the food and had provided food preferences. - on 6/26/2023 at 12:31 PM, in their room sitting in their wheelchair, dressed in street clothes. The resident stated they had just returned from physical therapy. They stated they enjoyed physical therapy and it was improving their strength. They stated they hoped to be able to go home soon. - on 6/27/2023 at 12:16 PM sitting in their wheelchair at their bedside dressed in street clothes. The resident stated they did not know they were taking an antidepressant medication. The resident admitted they were depressed. During an interview on 6/29/2023 at 11:11 AM NP #13 stated their medical group commenced services at the facility on 6/1/2023. NP #13 stated they were not familiar with the resident and had no knowledge that the resident was depressed and was prescribed antidepressant medications. NP#13 stated nursing or social services had not discussed with them the resident's mental or emotional status or that the resident continued to display signs of depression. NP#13 stated they expected to be informed of any resident with depression who was on medication and continued to suffer from depressive symptoms. NP #13 stated had there been documentation the resident continued to suffer depression; the resident would have been scheduled for an immediate evaluation by NP#13. NP #13 stated since the change in medical services on 6/1/2023, there was currently no psychiatric services contracted for the residents of the facility. NP#13 stated no medical report was received from the off-going medical team prior to the start of services. During an interview on 6/29/2023 at 11:57 AM licensed practical nurse (LPN) #39 stated the resident was very sad since their spouse passed away. LPN #39 stated they were aware the resident continued to show depressive symptoms despite being on an antidepressant medication. LPN #39 stated the medication prescribed had been an active order for the resident at least since January 2023 but had not appeared to help the resident in a positive manner. LPN #39 stated no verbal report was provided to anyone and no documentation was completed regarding the concern that the medication did not seem to help the resident. LPN #39 stated they should have documented observations and concerns in the electronic medical record (EMR) and in the medical communication binder on the unit, so the medical team was aware of the resident's clinical picture. LPN #39 stated they were not aware of psychiatric or social work involvement with the resident. During an interview on 6/29/2023 at 10:37 AM certified nurse aide (CNA) #32 stated the resident was sad and depressed and preferred to stay in bed all day. The resident had stayed in bed all day until physical therapy was started on 6/23/2023. CNA #32 stated they documented the resident was down and depressed as well as the resident's refusal to get out of bed. During an interview on 6/29/2023 at 12:57 PM Licensed Master Social Worker (LMSW) #38 stated they had been employed by the facility 2/2023. LMSW #38 stated they were qualified to provide 1:1 counseling. LMSW #38 stated the resident was very depressed and they attempted to see the resident at least once per week, in person. They stated the resident was often found in bed on arrival regardless of time of day. LMSW #38 stated their weekly session often focused on the resident's desire to go home. They stated they had not documented any of the weekly visits held with the resident because spending time with the resident took precedence over documentation. Social Worker #38 reported that the resident was referred to the CSW for additional 1:1 clinical counseling. LMSW #38 stated the resident received CSW telehealth visit weekly and the CSW progress notes were in the electronic medical record. LMSW#38 was not able to locate any documentation of CSW telehealth sessions with the resident. LMSW #38 stated they did not routinely review CSW or psychiatry notes and if there were an issue identified by the CSW or psychiatrist they expected to be contacted. They stated the resident was isolated in their room by choice and was encouraged to attend facility activities, but the resident declined. They stated they were not aware of any other staff able to provide 1:1 visitation for support. During an interview on 6/30/2023 at 9:13 AM Resident #12 stated there was no counseling in place to help with their depression and grief. Resident stated they were not interested in attending activities despite the staff providing reminders and invitations. The resident stated they had no desire to be in the long term care facility. The resident became tearful when speaking about their spouse that passed away last year. The resident stated they met with someone occasionally using a computer screen and those sessions had been few and generally they talked about kayaking. During an interview on 6/30/2023 at 9:44 AM RN Unit Manager #30 stated the resident had been depressed since the death of their spouse more than one year ago and felt the resident gave up on life since the death of the spouse. RN Unit Manager #30 stated the resident preferred to stay in bed all day with the lights off and no stimulation and did not allow nursing to assist them to get out of bed. RN Unit Manager #30 stated the resident was focused on going home and despite being told by the Interdisciplinary Team and family members that home was not an option, the resident perseverated on returning home. RN Unit Manager #30 stated that when the resident demonstrated feelings of depression or sadness, the nurses should write a progress note. They stated nursing had notified social services of the resident's struggle with depression but was unable to locate a progress note. RN Unit Manager #30 stated the medical team had not been notified of the resident's ongoing struggle with depression because they were new to the facility were reviewing each resident in a defined process. During an interview on 6/30/2023 at 10:53 AM Activities Director #25 stated the resident was depressed and was not interested in attending social programs. The resident stayed in their room most of the day and did not get out of bed. Activities Director #25 stated the resident received 1:1 visits from the activity assistant on the unit. They stated they did not know when, where, and how often the resident received the 1:1 visits and could not provide documentation of the visits. 10 NYCRR 415.12(f)(1)
CONCERN (E) 📢 Someone Reported This

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

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

Safe Environment (Tag F0584)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, record review, and interview during the recertification and abbreviated (NY00290691) surveys conducted 6/2...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, record review, and interview during the recertification and abbreviated (NY00290691) surveys conducted 6/22/23-6/30/23, the facility did not ensure residents had the right to a safe, clean, comfortable, and homelike environment for 5 of 5 occupied resident floors (1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th, and 5th floors) and for 1 of 1 resident (Resident #53) reviewed. Specifically, there were unclean floors, unclean surfaces, damaged walls, damaged floors on the 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th, and 5th floors; resident room [ROOM NUMBER] was cluttered with various items; Resident #53's call light was not within their reach; and there were unacceptable noise levels on the 4th floor. Findings include: The undated facility policy Call System, Residents documented each resident was provided with a means to call staff directly for assistance from their bed, from toileting/bathing facilities, and from the floor. Calls for assistance were answered as soon as possible. Urgent requests for assistance were addressed immediately. Damaged Walls The following observations of damaged walls were made: - on 6/22/23 at 10:43 AM and on 6/28/23 at 5:27 PM, the wall behind the bed in resident room [ROOM NUMBER] was scraped. - on 6/28/23 at 5:35 PM the wall behind the bed in resident room [ROOM NUMBER] had deep scratch marks. - on 6/28/23 at 5:40 PM the wall behind the bed in resident room [ROOM NUMBER] had a 3 inch x 10 inch section of unpainted spackle. During an interview on 6/29/23 at 6:15 PM, the Director of Plant Operations stated that no work orders were found for the damaged room walls. They stated they were aware of the wall patches in room [ROOM NUMBER], this was found during previous room audits, and they had asked the maintenance staff to repair those sections of wall last month. They stated there were no work orders to verify the repairs. They stated it was important that a clean, home-like environment be maintained for residents, guests, and staff. Call Bell Not Accessible Resident #53 was admitted to the facility with diagnoses including non-Alzheimer's dementia and history of (healed) traumatic fracture. The 4/8/23 Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment documented the resident's cognition was intact and they required extensive assistance of one with most activities of daily living (ADLs). The comprehensive care plan (CCP) initiated 8/25/22 documented the resident was at high risk for falls due to deconditioning. Interventions included to be sure the resident's call light was within reach and encourage the resident to use it for assistance as needed. The resident needed prompt responses to all requests for assistance. On 6/23/23 at 10:32 AM the resident was observed lying on an air mattress with the right side of their body near the edge of the mattress, and their lower torso sitting in a divot in the mattress. The call light was hanging on the wall behind the bed, draped over the call light outlet, and not within reach of the resident. When the call light was handed to the resident at 10:33 AM they were able to activate it, and an unidentified staff entered the room at 10:35 AM. The unidentified staff stated they would get help and returned at 10:36 AM with registered nurse (RN) Unit Manager #17. RN Unit Manager #17 stated staff must have forgotten to clip the call light to the resident's bed after care. During a follow-up interview with RN Unit Manager #17 on 6/29/23 at 11:11 AM, they stated Resident #53 should have their call light within reach and resident could use the call light appropriately. Damaged and Unclean Floors and Surfaces The following observations were made of unclean floors and surfaces: - on 6/23/23 at 10:50 AM, the 5th floor dining room floor was unclean and covered with a sticky substance. There was food debris under one of the dining tables, and two tables had sticky food debris on them. The unit staff had started a coloring activity in the dining room before the floors and tables were cleaned and several residents were walking through the debris on the floor wearing non-skid slipper socks. - on 6/26/23 at 10:50 AM, resident room [ROOM NUMBER] bathroom had a loose toilet bowl - on 6/26/23 at 11:45 AM, the 3rd floor nursing station had a 2 foot x 15 foot section of floor that was cracked and uneven. During an interview on 6/29/23 at 6:15 PM, the Director of Plant Operations stated the facility was in the process of replacing sections of damaged floors starting from the top floor. They stated they were aware of the 3rd floor flooring issues and maintenance staff had not yet gotten to the 3rd floor. The Maintenance Director was not aware of the loose toilet bowl in resident room [ROOM NUMBER]. They stated that it was important that a clean, home-like environment be maintained for residents, guests, and staff. Cluttered Rooms During an observations on 6/23/23 at 11:59 AM, and 6/28/23 at 6:00 PM, resident room [ROOM NUMBER] was cluttered with various items on the floor. There were boxes in front of and behind the oxygen concentrator, and the continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) machine used by the resident for obstructive sleep apnea was surrounded by and under stacks of clothing and boxes containing miscellaneous personal items. During an interview on 6/29/23 at 6:15 PM, the Director of Plant Operations stated they were aware of the clutter in resident room [ROOM NUMBER] and it was not acceptable. They stated it was important that a safe and home-like environment be maintained for residents, guests, and staff. During an interview on 6/30/23 at 9:50 AM, the Administrator stated that the resident in room [ROOM NUMBER] had been frequently redirected to maintain their room in a home-like condition, and this was outlined in the admission packet the resident signed when entering the facility. The resident had intact cognition and was on the waiting list for placement in a lower level of care facility. Noise Levels During an observation on 6/26/23 at 11:04 AM, maintenance workers #26 and 27 were working on the 4th floor dining room door and door frame. The maintenance staff were using a hammer and an electric drill to fix the door latch, and an electric grinder to grind down the door frame. There were ten residents in the 4th floor dining room and the television was on. Some of the residents appeared startled by the noise and could not hear the television. Staff had to move closer to each other to hear what they were saying. Resident #94 left their room, stood in the hallway, cursed at the maintenance staff, and went back into their room and closed the door. At 11:17 AM, maintenance workers #26 and #27 continued to work on the 4th floor dining room door and sprayed a lubricant on door while residents were eating and drinking. At 11:28 AM, Resident #94 opened their door after the maintenance workers left and cursed at them. When interviewed and asked if the noise was loud and made them close their door, Resident #94 stated Yeah. During an interview on 6/29/23 at 6:15 PM, the Director of Plant Operations stated if any resident had mentioned the noise to staff the maintenance staff should have temporarily stopped working on the dining room door frame. They stated it was important that a home-like environment be maintained for residents, guests, and staff. 10 NYCRR 415.29(j)(1)
CONCERN (E) 📢 Someone Reported This

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

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

Deficiency F0800 (Tag F0800)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, record review, and interview during the recertification survey conducted 6/22/23-6/30/23, the facility did...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, record review, and interview during the recertification survey conducted 6/22/23-6/30/23, the facility did not ensure they provided each resident with a nourishing, palatable, well-balanced diet that meets daily nutritional and special dietary needs, taking into consideration the preferences of each resident for 3 of 8 residents (Residents #5, 7, and 80) reviewed, and 2 of 2 meal test trays (1 lunch and 1 dinner tray) observed. Specifically: - 1 lunch tray and 1 dinner tray had hot and cold food items that were not maintained at safe temperatures and the food did not taste appetizing or palatable; - Resident #80 did not receive food items listed on their meal ticket and had food items they were not supposed to have; - Resident #7 did not receive food items listed on their meal ticket; and - Resident #5 requested an alternate food item for 2 lunch meals and did not receive the substitution timely. Finding include: The facility policy Food and Nutrition Services revised 10/2017, documented that each resident was provided with a nourishing. palatable, well-balanced diet that met their daily nutritional and special dietary needs, taking into consideration the preferences of each resident. Meals and/or nutritional supplements would be provided within 45 minutes of either resident request or scheduled mealtime, and in accordance with the resident's medication requirements. The facility policy Food and Nutrition revised 11/2017, documented that food and nutrition services staff would inspect food trays to ensure that the correct meal was provided to the resident, the food appeared palatable and attractive, and was served at a safe and appetizing temperature. The facility policy Assistance with Meals revised 3/2022, documented hot foods shall be held at a temperature of 135 degrees (Fahrenheit, F) or above until served. Cold foods shall be held at 41 degrees F or below until served. Nursing and dietary services would establish procedures such that delivery of food to service areas accommodated this requirement. The undated Available Daily Food Items documented a list of food items that would be available to residents who did not want the main meal items or alternate meal items. The list included soup of the day and tossed salad. The undated Tray Service policy documented staff passing trays would check meal tickets to assure all items were present and proper consistencies followed. Test Trays: 1) During an observation on 6/26/23 at 6:40 PM, an extra resident meal tray for the fourth floor dinner meal was plated in the main kitchen and arrived on the unit at 6:44 PM with the other resident meals. At 6:52 PM, the meal tray hot food temperatures were tested after all the residents had received their meals. The chicken breast measured 126.7 degrees F and potato nuggets measured 101 F. The chicken breast and potato nuggets were not warm or palatable. During an interview on 6/26/23 at 6:59 PM, diet tech #10 stated the temperatures measured for the fourth floor dinner meal were not good. They stated hot food items should be served at 140 F or higher and cold food items should be served at 40 F or lower. Diet tech #10 stated that the chicken looked good, and the potato nuggets were smashed. They stated the meal appearance could have been better. During an observation on 6/28/23 at 11:35 AM, an extra resident meal tray for the third floor lunch meal was plated in the main kitchen and arrived on the third floor unit at 11:59 AM with the other resident meals. At 12:21 PM, the meal tray food items were tested after all the residents had received their meals. The milk measured 57 F, the French fries measured 114 F, and the hamburger measured 124 F. The hamburger and French fries were not warm or palatable, and the milk was not cold or palatable. During an interview on 6/29/23 at 11:17 AM, the Food Service Director stated hot food items should be maintained at 135 F when served to the residents. They stated French fries were hard to maintain at 135 F or higher. The potato nuggets were not acceptable at 101.7 F, French fries were not acceptable at 114 F, and a hamburger was not acceptable at 124 F. They stated that cold food items should be maintained at 40 F lower when served to the residents, and 57 F was not an acceptable temperature for milk. The Food Service Director stated that the chicken breast at 126.7 F was borderline and should have been served at 135 F. They stated that the longer the trays sat the food temperatures would get lower. Meal trays should be passed within 10 to 15 minutes. Hot food items and cold food items would not maintain proper palatable temperatures if they sat in a cart at room temperature for 30 minutes. Resident Meal Trays: 2) Resident #80 was admitted to the facility with diagnoses including Parkinson's disease (a progressive neurological disorder). The 2/24/23 Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment documented the resident had severely impaired cognition; choice was very important to the resident; the resident was independent after set up for eating; had a significant weight loss; and was not on a prescribed weight loss program. The 8/25/21 physician disorder documented the resident was to receive a regular diet, regular texture, and thin liquids. The 5/16/23 comprehensive care plan (CCP) documented the resident had activities of daily living (ADL) deficits, Parkinson's disease, poor impulse control, and depression. Interventions included no metal silverware, no sharp objects or anything that could be used as a weapon, independent eating after set-up, lip plate, cups with lids/straws, and preferred to remain in room. The 6/27/23 [NAME] (care instructions) documented the resident was not to have any metal silverware, no sharp objects that could be used as a weapon, monitor for any risk for harm to self or others, independent for eating after set-up, lip plate, cups with lids/straws, provide/serve diet as ordered, and obtain food preferences. During an interview on 6/22/23 at 2:56 PM, the resident stated they would like eggs and toast in the morning and staff did not provide everything on the meal ticket they were supposed to. The resident stated when they do send eggs, the eggs were cold. During an observation and interview on 6/27/23 at 12:52 PM, Resident #80's meal tray was being prepared, along with 2 others, from the steam table in the unit dining room. The meal tickets were alternately checked during the tray preparation by certified nurse aide (CNA) #41 and licensed practical nurse (LPN) #31. Resident #80's tray was brought to them in their room. The tray did not contain bread or a roll, had a plastic knife on the tray, and there was a lid that was too large for the smaller plastic cup. CNA #41 stated the resident was provided everything as documented on the meal ticket. The surveyor then went over each item on the tray with the CNA for accuracy. The CNA stated there were items either missing or incorrect and they must have missed them. The CNA stated everyone involved was supposed to verify the tickets prior to serving the resident. During an interview on 6/30/23 at 9:31 AM, CNA #42 stated there was no staff specifically assigned to check trays and meal tickets during meal service. Resident meals were served from the unit dining room. The CNAs gathered the needed equipment and drinks for each tray and the server put the food on the plate and placed it on the tray. Any staff member could deliver the tray. During an interview on 6/30/23 at 9:38 AM, CNA #41 stated there were no specific staff assigned to check meal tickets against the trays and whoever was standing on the line at that time would check. They stated the dietary server put the food on the plates. The nursing staff standing at the tray line put the needed equipment, silverware, and drinks on the tray and sometimes items were missed. During an interview on 6/30/23 at 9:59 AM, registered nurse (RN) Manager #30 stated the food service person served the hot items on a plate and put the plate on the tray on top of the counter. Meals were served per seating order in the unit dining room and then room trays were assembled and delivered. Any staff could verify the meal tickets against the items on the tray. There were usually multiple staff members acting as expediter (person checking tray accuracy) and any staff member could deliver the tray. The RN Manager stated the resident was not to have any type of knife on their tray for safety purposes. The resident was to have lids that securely covered the cup to prevent spillage due to their Parkinson's disease. They stated random audits for meal tray accuracy were done by the facility. During an interview on 6/30/23 at 10:42 AM, dietary server #43 stated they just put the hot food on the plates. Unit nursing staff put the cold food, drinks, and needed equipment on the tray. Unit staff also delivered the tray to the resident. There was no assigned staff to check the meal ticket against what was on the tray. 3) Resident #7 was admitted to the facility with diagnoses including diabetes mellitus (DM) and schizophrenia. The 5/23/23 Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment documented the resident's cognition was intact and they were independent with eating after setup. The comprehensive care plan (CCP) initiated 5/7/20 and revised 2/28/23 documented the resident had a nutritional problem or potential for nutrition/dehydration problems related to DM. Interventions included a reduced lactose (a type of sugar found in dairy products) diet. During an interview on 6/22/23 at 12:51 PM Resident #7 they stated their meal tickets never matched what was on their meal tray, and they frequently did not receive their lactose free milk (for lactose intolerance). The resident's lunch meal tray was delivered to their room by certified nurse aide (CNA) #16. The meal ticket documented coffee, crackers, and lactose free milk and none of the items were on the resident's meal tray. During an interview on 6/29/23 at 10:56 AM with CNA #16 stated the CNAs checked meal tickets on resident trays before handing them to the residents. If there were missing items, they would call down to the kitchen. Resident #7 could request an alternative food item if they did not like what was on their tray. They could not recall Resident #7 having any recent missing items on their tray. During an interview on 6/29/23 at 11:30 AM registered nurse (RN) Unit Manager #17 stated the CNAs were supposed to check the meal tickets before the trays were given to the residents. The CNAs should have checked Resident #7's tray on 6/22/23 and called down to the kitchen to request any missing items. They stated kitchen staff were supposed to check the meal tickets before the trays came to the unit. During an interview on 6/30/23 at 10:36 AM dietetic technician #10 stated the food service workers checked the meal tickets before the trays went to the units. The staff on the units should check the meal tickets as a double check. Unit 2 had steam tables and the food service workers checked the meal tickets when they were plating the food. Alternate Food Items: 4) Resident #5 was admitted to the facility with diagnoses including diabetes, anxiety, and morbid obesity. The 5/30/23 Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment documented the resident was cognitively intact, was independent after set-up with eating, and received insulin injections 7 of 7 days. The comprehensive care plan (CCP) initiated 2/6/20 documented the resident had nutritional/hydration problems related to diabetes. Interventions included a no concentrated sweets (NCS) diet, provide, serve diet as ordered, and monitor intake and record every meal. Offer alternate if food or beverage is refused. Food preferences obtained and ongoing. During an interview with Resident #5 on 6/26/23 at 9:48 AM they stated they did not like the lunch yesterday (Sunday 6/25/23) and asked to order a chef salad and 2 bowls of soup (chicken noodle). They stated lunch was served between 12:00 PM- 1:00 PM and they did not receive their requested foods until 5:00 PM. The resident stated unit helper #1 worked and was aware. During an observation on 6/27/23 at 12:59 PM Resident #5 stated they were waiting for a chef salad to come up. At 1:35 PM the resident was seated in their recliner in their room. The resident stated they only drank their coffee and applesauce from their lunch tray and had not received their salad. They stated they did not receive their insulin yet. During an interview on 6/27/23 at 1:02 PM licensed practical nurse (LPN) #3 stated if a resident did not like their meal, they could call down to the kitchen to order an alternate. LPN #3 stated if they knew earlier, they would call it down themself. During an interview on 6/27/23 at 1:06 PM CNA #4 stated when Resident #5 requested something from the kitchen that was not on their menu it took a long time to come up. They stated they called down at about 10:30 AM for the resident's salad and it did not come. They stated they had to call again about 12:45 PM. CNA #4 stated on 6/25/23 they called before lunch and at 12:30 PM. Resident #5's family member called the unit at 2:30 PM and said the resident had not received their lunch (chef salad). CNA #4 stated they called the kitchen and they said they would look into it. CNA #4 stated when they left it still was not there and another CNA was supposed to look into it. During an observation on 6/27/23 at 1:40 PM licensed practical nurse (LPN) #3 administered 31 units of Lispro (short-acting insulin) to the resident. At 1:43 PM LPN #3 stated they were not aware the resident had not eaten their lunch meal. During an interview on 6/27/23 at 5:37 PM LPN #2 stated on Sunday (6/25/23) they were assisting in the dining room and unit helper #1 called the kitchen at around 12:30 PM requesting a salad for Resident #5. At the end of the shift around 2:20 PM they received a call from the resident's family member who said the lunch never came. They stated they left at 3:00 PM and could not recall if the salad came. During an interview on 6/27/23 at 3:24 PM Resident #5 stated they had not yet received their salad ordered for lunch. During an observation and interview on 6/27/23 at 3:41 PM the Food Service Director (FSD) brought Resident #5's chef salad to the 4th floor. They stated they just received a call, made the salad, and brought it to the unit. They stated there was a call down log in the kitchen and anyone could answer the phone, write the request down, and call it out. A substitute food item should be brought up on the meal cart if it was known ahead of time, otherwise the utility worker would bring it up. They stated there was an always available list posted above the phone. During an interview on 6/28/23 at 10:34 AM dietetic technician #10 stated Resident #5 would call down every day for a substitute. Kitchen staff who answered the phone should give their name, take the request, give the request to the runner who would bring the item to the floor. They stated Resident #5 was diabetic and it was important for them to receive their meals timely to ensure stable blood sugars. They stated 3 hours was too long to wait for a substitute food item. 10NYCRR 415.14
Jun 2021 11 deficiencies 1 IJ
CRITICAL (J)

Immediate Jeopardy (IJ) - the most serious Medicare violation

Accident Prevention (Tag F0689)

Someone could have died · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, record review and interview during the recertification and abbreviated surveys (NY00269612 and NY00272726)...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, record review and interview during the recertification and abbreviated surveys (NY00269612 and NY00272726) conducted on 6/1/21- 6/9/21, the facility did not ensure the environment remained as free of accident hazards as possible and that each resident received adequate supervision and assistive devices to prevent accidents for 2 of 4 residents (Residents #93 and #141) reviewed. Specifically, - Resident #93, who had intact cognition and a diagnosis of quadriplegia (paralysis), sustained burns from food/beverages on multiple occasions. On 1/2/21, the resident microwaved soup and spilled it on their leg causing a 9.5 by 5.5 centimeter second-degree burn, which is currently a non-healing wound. On 1/9/21, Resident #93 microwaved a beverage and spilled it, sustaining a cluster of blisters on their abdomen. On 4/27/21, staff microwaved soup and provided it to Resident #93, who was lying in bed; the resident spilled the soup on their abdomen, sustaining a 12 by 26 centimeter second-degree burn. The facility did not have a policy addressing safely re-heating foods. Staff interviewed were not able to state a policy for ensuring food was re-heated to safe temperatures. Two staff members were observed microwaving foods/beverages for residents. Thermometers are not available on the units for staff to monitor the temperatures of the food. The provider's failure to prevent burns caused by foods and drinks microwaved to unsafe temperatures placing 144 residents at immediate risk to their health and safety. This resulted in actual harm that was Immediate Jeopardy/Substandard Quality of Care to resident Health and Safety for Resident #93 and Immediate Jeopardy to the facility's other 144 resident (including Resident #141). Findings include: The facility's Microwave Oven - Operational Procedures (undated) documented a procedure for operating a microwave and documented microwaves could be used by both residents and staff. The policy did not address temperatures that food should be heated to or how long to microwave food/beverages. 1) Resident #93 had diagnoses including quadriplegia due to C6-C7 spinal fracture (paralysis). The 1/16/21 Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment documented the resident had intact cognition, required extensive assistance from 1 person for most activities of daily living (ADL), required supervision and physical assistance from one person for eating, had no functional limitation in range of motion in either upper extremity (shoulder, elbow, wrist, hand), had functional limitation in range of motion in both lower extremities and used a wheelchair. The comprehensive care plan (CCP), initiated 2/22/19 and revised on 5/7/19, documented the resident had nutrition/hydration problems and an ADL self-care deficit related to quadriplegia. Interventions included occupational therapy (OT) to screen and provide adaptive equipment for feeding as needed. The CCP did not include specific recommendations for adaptive eating equipment. The resident required the assistance of 1 person for personal hygiene and oral care and the resident's eating ability was not addressed in the CCP. The resident was hospitalized [DATE]-[DATE] with a diagnosis of a closed left hip fracture. The 12/23/20 Admission/re-admission assessment documented the resident returned from the hospital at 4 PM and the following skin findings/conditions were noted: a healing burn to the chest that measured 2.5 centimeters (cm) X 0.6 cm, and a healing burn to the abdomen measuring 4 cm x 2.8 cm. The OT Evaluation and Plan of Treatment with a start of care date of 12/24/20 documented the resident required set-up assistance with feeding. The resident's range of motion in both upper extremities was impaired due to quadriplegia. The resident had impairments in fine and gross motor coordination resulting in limitations and/or participation restrictions in the area of self-care, mobility and general tasks and demands. Due to physical impairments and associated functional deficits, the resident was at risk for further decline in function and increased dependency upon caregivers. There was no documentation of the resident's requirement for adaptive feeding equipment. The 12/30/20 [NAME] (care instruction) documented staff were to inspect the resident's skin weekly, the resident needed set-up by staff for meals, received a regular diet, and used a lipped plate and sip cup. The 1/2/21 at 9:29 PM, RN #25's progress note documented they were called to the resident's room to evaluate the resident's left ankle because it looked burned. The resident stated they spilled their soup they had heated in the microwave. The plan was to have the skin team evaluate the resident. There was no documented evidence of a skin assessment completed by the RN. The 1/2/21 Accident and Incident report documented while staff were providing care to the resident, they noticed a large intact blister to the inner left ankle. The resident stated they spilled soup on their pant leg and due to lack of sensation they were not aware of the burn. The resident was to be evaluated by OT for microwave safety, dietary was to provide lidded cups, and the resident was educated about requesting assistance from staff for all microwave use. OT #23's progress note dated 1/6/21 did not address the resident's ability to safely use a microwave. The 1/9/21 at 10:02 PM RN #25's progress note documented the RN was asked to go the resident's room. Upon entering the resident was at the sink and asked the nurse to look at their stomach and mid-abdomen, there was a burn mark with peeling skin. The resident stated the spout to their teacup spilled. The resident noted their shirt was wet but did not think anything happened. The DON (Director of Nursing) was made aware and medical and family were notified. OT #23's progress note dated 1/13/21 documented the resident was educated on the risks of carrying hot liquids and ways to improve safety with task and was encouraged to wear clothing protectors provided by staff and ask for assistance to transport hot mugs to prevent burns. There was no documentation the resident's CCP was revised to include lidded cups or microwave use. There was no documented evidence the CCP was reviewed or revised with a plan of care to prevent further burns following the identification of the burn on 1/9/21. The 4/6/21 Braden Scale for predicting pressure ulcer risk documented the resident's sensory perception was slightly limited which limited the resident's ability to feel pain or discomfort. The resident was at high risk for pressure ulcers. The 4/27/21 Accident/Incident Investigation and Root Cause- Injury of Unknown Origin and Initial Wound Assessment documented the resident sustained a burn that was a cluster of blisters and redness on the chest and abdomen measuring 26 cm x 12 cm. The physician was notified and ordered bacitracin (antibiotic ointment) and dry dressing cover twice daily to the wound. The resident stated they were eating soup while lying down. Interventions included to encourage the resident to wear a clothing protector while eating, position upright when eating, and provide lidded tops to all hot beverages and foods. The 4/29/21 OT progress note documented the OT was asked to discuss the resident's recent burn from spilling hot soup. The resident used a plastic microwavable mug with lock lid. Staff microwaved for the resident according to directions. The resident was agreeable to have staff microwave the food for less time so that soup was still hot but not scalding. The resident was not able to lift the mug with the lid to drink due to poor grip and decreased dexterity. The resident was to utilize clothing protectors and staff were to microwave for less time to prevent burns. There was no documented evidence the CCP was revised to include the OT recommendations from 4/29/21. On 5/21/21, the CCP was revised to include the resident may not use the microwave. The 5/22/21 at 9:45 PM licensed practical nurse (LPN) #37 nursing progress note documented the resident asked staff to warm up soup in the microwave. Resident #93 then proceeded to remove the hot liquid from the microwave without waiting for staff to assist. The resident was educated on the importance of waiting for assistance. During an interview on 6/1/21 at 10:30 AM, Resident #93 stated they sustained a burn to the chest and upper abdomen from tomato soup. They stated the burn happened because of a late return to the facility from an appointment. The resident returned after dinner and was hungry, so they asked the CNA to warm up some soup. The resident refused the clothing protector because they were eager to eat. They explained they were a quadriplegic and very shaky at times. When they put the soup up to their mouth, the hot soup dripped on their abdomen. During an interview on 6/2/21 at 11:40 AM, while observing lunch tray pass, CNA#34 stated staff were not trained in reheating food. CNA #34 stated they microwave food 30 seconds to one minute. There were no probe thermometers available for use. The [NAME], dated 6/3/21, documented the resident required set-up only to eat and received a regular diet with thin liquids and a lipped plate. There was no documentation the resident required any adaptive feeding equipment (cup or bowl) or assistance with the microwave. During an interview on 6/3/21 at 9:15 AM, CNA #27 stated they were usually assigned to the resident in the evening and they recalled the resident went to the hospital for a test or procedure in 4/2021 and when the resident returned, they were hungry. The resident had a lot of canned food in their room. CNA #27 heated up a can of soup for the resident in a container that clicked locked on both sides. CNA #27 stated it was the resident's personal container which was a cup with a handle on the side. CNA #27 followed the heating instructions on the soup can and warmed it for about 2-3 minutes. CNA #27 stated they were not trained on how to heat food to safe temperatures. That night, the resident ate in their room sitting up in bed. The resident had a shirt on but refused a clothing protector. CNA #27 stated they often microwaved food for residents when it arrived cold from the kitchen. During an interview on 6/03/21 at 9:45 AM, with CNA #28, they stated food was warmed in the microwave all the time and they were not sure how to tell if the temperature was safe. The CNA stated they could not recall warming up food for any residents, but there were microwaves available on all units. During an interview on 6/03/21 at 11:37 AM with RN Manager #22 they stated they thought the burns the resident sustained to the abdomen in 12/2020 were from spilling hot tea on themselves. On 1/2/21, the resident sustained a burn to the left ankle and thought it was from soup or tea. RN Manager #22 stated the resident had been using the microwave independently. The resident refused clothing protectors, would not allow staff to apply lids to soup containers and/or hot drinks and the resident would remove the lids. The 6/3/21 lunch meal ticket for Resident #93 documented a Lip Plate and a regular diet. There was no documentation that the resident required covered mugs, or covered soup bowls or any adaptive feeding equipment. During an interview on 6/03/21 at 12:59 PM, Resident #93 stated the night they burned their chest (4/29/21) they were not wearing a shirt because they asked to be helped into bed after their outside appointment. The resident stated at the time the facility dishwasher was broken and they were given a plastic spoon which did not work well with their palm assistant because the plastic spoon was too short. The resident stated the soup must have dripped on their stomach. The resident explained they also warmed up tea in the microwave and when placing the hot tea on the wheelchair footrest, it spilled, and they burned themself. On 06/03/21 at 7:17 PM Resident #93 was observed with an empty green soup cup/mug on their lap. They stated this was not the mug they used all the time. They explained the cover on the mug was really clamped down and used for soup because it had a vent in it, and they had ordered it online. They stated they could use the facility mug. They stated when they used the mug for soup, they did not use the lid and they sustained the burns when using the soup mug without a lid. They were not wearing a shirt or clothing protector and the soup dripped off the spoon when using the facility mug and they were burned. During an interview on 6/03/21 at 2:57 PM with OT #23, they stated the resident used to use the wheelchair footrest to carry things between their feet when going back and forth to the microwave. OT #23 stated in 12/20, the resident had a blue cup and would put it on their la or rest it on the footrest and the cup tipped and spilled. The interdisciplinary team determined the resident was unable to safely manage use of the microwave therefore staff were going to heat foods up for the resident. Routinely, staff would heat the food up for the resident. The resident bought their own large mug with a handle and locked top containers for soup and drinks. OT #23 stated they thought the resident was using these. The OT recalled it was recommended the staff not heat foods up to burning hot. They stated they had not recommended any adaptive equipment, as the resident already uses the universal cuff (gives persons with limited grip or dexterity controlled use of items such as eating utensils and writing tools). The OT did recommend the resident not transport the hot food items and should be at a table or sitting up in a chair because the resident had a poor grip. The OT stated they recommend a clothing protector if eating in bed and to wear a shirt because the resident was prone to spilling what they were consuming. The resident bought the bowl and the cup, the OT did not recommend them, but stated they thought the items were safe. The OT stated it was safe for the resident to eat in their room alone. The resident was cognitively intact but needed to be in the best position and use adaptive equipment such as the blue mug for hot tea at night. The OT stated they were asked to do a microwave safety assessment for the resident in April 2021, and recommended the resident not warm up foods independently because of the lack of sensation and lack of grip. The OT stated the resident's current meal ticket did not document anything about the bowl or mug. There was no documentation for the nursing staff to know how to transfer the hot liquids into the large handled mug with the lid, or the shallow bowl with the lock top. The resident had cans of soup in their room that they had staff warm the soup up at night. The OT stated the care plan should be updated with OT recommendations. When these details are on the care plan, the aides will see it on the [NAME] and would need to check that task off as part of their care. The OT stated the resident care plan should have documented no use of the microwave by the resident. During an interview on 6/03/21 at 3:55 PM RN Manager #22 stated the resident came back from the hospital on [DATE]. When the readmission assessment was completed it was noted the resident had burns to the abdomen and chest. There was no documentation the burns had been previously reported. RN Manager #22 and the DON were not aware the resident had burns prior to the hospitalization because there was no documentation about the burns on the abdomen and chest. They recalled an incident on 1/2/21 when the resident burned their left foot with hot soup. The resident warmed up soup in the microwave in the kitchenette at around 9:00 PM and spilled the soup on themself when getting the soup out of the microwave. The resident had their own personal cup with a lid and had a big handle mug they would pour the can of soup into and warm up. An incident report was completed on 1/2/21 and it was immediately decided the resident needed to be educated about not using the microwave without supervision. The RN stated the microwave was still on the unit. On 1/9/21, the resident burned their abdomen heating up a drink in the microwave after being told not do so without assistance. On 4/29/21 the resident sustained a burn to the chest and abdomen from hot soup that a staff member microwaved for the resident in the unit dining room/ kitchen area. The RN Manager #22 confirmed the resident's care plan did not include the resident's personal dishes and/or personal food and it should have. They stated the care plan updates the [NAME] for the care and tasks to be completed by the CNA. Food that needs to be warmed up should be sent to the kitchen. The RN Manager #22 stated the CNAs did not have a way to check temperatures of microwaved items. The resident currently had a locked lid shallow bowl and a blue big handle mug. The RN Manager #22 stated the resident was able to remove the lids and did not use the bowl and mug in a safe or appropriate manner. During a telephone interview on 6/03/21 at 5:59 PM, attending physician #26 stated they were not familiar with the resident, as they started as their provider in the beginning of 4/21. After review of the burn incident, they stated it seemed as if the resident was not doing well with the hot liquids and may need to be reevaluated to ensure that the resident is safe Physician #26 stated the resident did not appear to be capable of feeding themself safely. Staff needed to know how to check food temperatures for safety with hot food. During an interview on 6/3/21 at 6:30 PM, RN Manager #22 stated they talk to the resident in the past about their safety concerns, but the resident refused to use a clothing protector. The resident did not feel the burns were significant. The care plan documented their noncompliance but did not include the resident's need for adaptive dishes and assistance with microwaving foods. During an interview with the DON on 6/3/21 at 4:10 PM they stated the resident had spilled coffee and soup on themself and all incidents had been investigated. They offered clothing protectors and heat resistant pads and the resident refused those items. They stated safety lids and containers were also attempted but the resident had taken the lids off. The resident received extensive education on different occasions about food preparation safety. The resident purchased their own type of lids because they preferred the way the lid went on and came off. Assistive devices should be listed under the dietary care plan. The microwave was removed temporarily when the resident had first spilled hot liquid, but other residents also used it, so it was returned, and the resident had not been using it when it was returned. The 6/4/21 electronic communication from the facility Administrator documented there was no investigation related to the burn observed in December 2020 when the resident returned from the hospital. 2) Resident #141 had diagnoses including chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), oxygen dependence, and anxiety. The 2/5/21 Minimum Data set (MDS) assessment documented the resident was cognitively intact and independent with activities of daily living (ADL). The resident required set-up assistance for eating. The 6/4/19 physician's order documented a regular diet, regular texture, thin liquids. The 2/26/18 comprehensive care plan (CCP) updated 3/5/21 documented the resident had potential/actual skin impairment to left third finger related to a self-inflicted burn from a hot microwave meal. Interventions included identify cause of skin impairment and eliminate, follow facility protocols for treatment of injury, monitor size, location, document, notify the physician of failure to heal, signs and symptoms of infection, resident agrees to ask for assistance when heating food in the microwave, verbalizes complete understanding (safety), Silvadene treatment until healed. The 4/14/20 [NAME] (care instructions) documented the resident required set-up help for eating. The 3/4/21 at 1:06 AM, licensed practical nurse (LPN) #42's progress note documented they were told by the resident at 12:55 AM, the resident had a fluid filled blister on their left third finger. The blister measured 3.6 centimeters (cm) X 1.0 cm. The resident reported they had a CNA (not identified) heat up noodles in a Styrofoam cup in the microwave. When the resident grabbed the cup, some of the water got on their finger. The resident put cold water on it right away. The Supervisor was notified. Skin prep (a clear protective liquid film) was applied. The 3/4/21 Accident and Incident report completed at 1:14 AM by LPN #42, documented the resident sustained a 3.6 cm x 1.0 cm burn to their third left finger. Skin prep was applied. The CCP documented staff would heat items in the microwave. The resident accidentally spilled hot water on their finger and was educated to wait to let the food cool. The probable cause of the accident was identified as accidental, education provided to allow items to cool. The CNA assigned was CNA #43. The 3/5/21 at 12:32 PM registered nurse (RN) Manager #40's progress note documented that per nurse practitioner (NP) #12, start treatment with Silvadene cream and monitor until healed, care plan involved staff heating food in microwave to avoid injury, resident agrees. The progress note did not document what was to be treated with Silvadene cream. The CCP initiated 3/5/21 documented the resident had impairment in skin integrity of the left hand 3rd finger related to a burn from a hot microwave meal accidentally self-inflicted. The CCP was updated on 3/9/21 to include the resident agreed to ask for assistance when heating up items in the microwave. The wound assessment, effective 3/9/21, documented the resident had a self-inflicted burn on the left third finger measuring 3.6 x 1 x 0 cm, no odor, slight inflammation. The wound was discovered on 3/4/21 and the provider and family were notified on 3/5/21. Treatment was for Silvadene cream with dry sterile dressing (DSD); wound team to see, care plan updated to ask for help with microwave. The 3/9/21 at 3:41 PM RN Manager #40 progress note documented the resident's wound was healed, Silvadene treatment discontinued. The 3/9/21 Director of Nursing (DON) accident summary (for the 3/4/21 incident) documented the resident was independent once in their electric wheelchair and made their own decisions. The resident went to the kitchenette in their wheelchair and heated up a container of noodles. When they returned to their room, they opened the lid and drops of water spilled onto their finger. The resident immediately ran cold water on it. Initially there was nothing there, then at 12:00 AM, the resident noticed the blister and notified the LPN. The resident had no prior known concerns with the microwave. The resident was educated to let the staff microwave and open the food items to prevent reoccurrence and the resident understood. When interviewed on 6/8/21 at 2:41 PM, RN Manager #40 stated they recalled the resident's burn. They treated the burn with Silvadene cream, and it healed within a week. At that time, the resident was alert. They warmed up something in the microwave and it was common for the resident to go in the kitchen and heat up food. The microwave sat on the counter at the height of the resident's chest. Prior to the burn, there had been no second thoughts regarding the resident using the microwave. The resident was then care planned to ask for assistance when heating food in the microwave and verbalized understanding. When interviewed on 6/9/21 at 8:56 AM, LPN #42 stated Resident #141 was alert and had no difficulty using their hands or manipulating their wheelchair. The resident used the kitchenette often and LPN #42 never questioned their ability to use the microwave. The resident notified staff if they needed help but would take hot foods back to their room. The resident placed their cup of noodles in a bowl and held the bowl with one hand on the outer part of the armrest and used their other hand to drive their electric wheelchair. They stated the resident did not tell LPN #42 if the burn happened in the kitchenette or in their room, or if a CNA had cooked the noodles for them. The blister was fluid filled but the skin was intact. LPN #42 was not sure if the facility went over any staff training about hot foods. Dietary used to check the temperature of the hot coffee, but LPN #42 had not seen them do that recently. LPN #42 stated there used to be a thermometer on the unit but did not know what happened to it. When interviewed on 6/9/21 at 9:16 AM, CNA #43 stated the resident was self-sufficient and would ring if they needed anything. CNA #43 stated it was not common for the resident to use the microwave themself. The resident kept food in their room and asked if they needed something warmed up but had never asked the CNA to heat anything. CNA #43 stated, they did not recall the resident getting burned. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ The Immediate Jeopardy was removed on 6/4/21 based upon the following: - All microwaves were removed from each units and staff breakrooms. The ability to warm food up was prohibited until dietary staff arrive in the AM. There was not hot food available from 9:00 PM until 5:00 AM. - Eighty percent of staff were educated regarding the removal of microwaves and all food would be heated up by food service staff only until all nursing staff and dietary employees have been educated on safe food heating methods. 10 NYCRR 415.12(h)(1)(2)
CONCERN (D)

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

Quality of Care (Tag F0684)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on observation, record review, and interview during the recertification survey completed on 6/9/2021, the facility did not ensure that residents received treatment and care in accordance with pr...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, record review, and interview during the recertification survey completed on 6/9/2021, the facility did not ensure that residents received treatment and care in accordance with professional standards of practice for 1 of 4 residents (Resident #84) reviewed. Specifically, Resident #84 had a change in condition including a swollen tongue and dysphagia (difficulty swallowing) that was not addressed timely. Findings include: The 4/2007 Change in a Resident's Condition or Status facility policy documented the facility will notify the resident, the attending physician, and the representative of changes in the resident's mental/medical condition and/or status. A significant change of condition is a decline or improvement in the resident's status that will not normally resolve itself without intervention by staff or by implementing standard disease related clinical interventions. Resident #84 had diagnoses including chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD, restricted breathing), dialysis dependent kidney disease, and erosive arthritis (inflammation of joints of the hand). The 4/28/21 Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment documented the resident was cognitively intact, required extensive assistance of one or two staff for activities of daily living (ADLs), received scheduled pain medications and had no complaints of difficulty or pain with swallowing. The comprehensive care plan (CCP) initiated 10/22/20 documented the resident had risk for pain related to their disease processes. Interventions included anticipate the resident's need for pain relief and respond immediately to any complaint of pain. Notify the physician if interventions are unsuccessful or if current complaint is a significant change from the resident's experience of pain. The 5/8/21 at 11:03 AM registered nurse supervisor (RNS) #24 progress note documented the resident complained of severe pain in their mouth, gums, tongue, and throat. Their tongue was red and very enlarged, and the resident was having some dysphagia (difficult swallowing) and difficulty speaking. Vital signs (VS) were checked, their temperature was 101.1 Fahrenheit (F); the resident requested Norco (opioid pain reliever) which was given with 500 milligrams (mg) of Tylenol for the elevated temp. The resident complained of dyspnea (difficult breathing) as well. The temperature was rechecked at 10:30 AM and was 100.1 F. The on-call provider was called, and they did not speak with a nurse practitioner (NP). There was no return call at that time. RNS #24 would continue to monitor for any increased signs of dyspnea and dysphagia. The resident's tongue looked larger than it did an hour ago. They spoke with the resident regarding transfer to an acute facility and the resident requested to go to a local hospital. The 5/2021 medication administration record (MAR) documented the resident was given 1000 milligrams (mg) of Tylenol at 8:54 AM on 5/8/21 by RNS #24 for a temperature of 101.1 F. The 5/8/21 at 3:51 PM RNS #25 progress note documented they were told the resident's tongue and throat were swollen. The NP was called, and had a video conference with the resident; a new order was received to send to the local hospital the resident chose. The 5/8/21 Resident Notice of Transfer documented the resident was transferred on 5/8/21 at 3:57 PM to a local hospital. There was no physician or NP telehealth note, dictation, or scanned document in the record for the video visit on 5/8/21 referenced by the RNS #25's 5/8/21 progress note. A copy was requested on 6/8/21 at 2:03 PM by email and again on 6/9/21. At the time of survey exit the form was not available. On 6/9/21 at 8:55 AM, a call was made to the on-call provider service requesting a return call; none was received prior to survey exit. The 5/9/21 hospital history and physical (H&P) documented the resident was transferred from another local hospital for an Ear, Nose and Throat (ENT) evaluation. The resident began having pain in their gums, tongue and anterior (front) part of the neck on the morning of 5/8/21 and noticed some tongue swelling which was sudden in onset and progressively worsening and the resident had a fever of 101 F. The resident was admitted to the intensive care unit (ICU). The 5/14/21 hospital discharge (DC) summary documented the resident was diagnosed with sialadenitis (inflammation and enlargement of one or more salivary glands.) associated with pain, tenderness, and gradual localized swelling of the area. When interviewed on 6/8/21 at 3:16 PM, Resident #84 stated their tongue began to swell and they felt like there was something under their tongue. They had been watching their television (TV) the night of 5/7/21 when they noticed a difference in their tongue but never told anyone at that time. They told the first nurse that came in their room on the morning of 5/8/21. The resident was not seen by the NP on the TV thing. The resident stated the tongue itself was swollen, not painful but there was a sore under the tongue that was very painful. The resident was not aware that they had a high temperature. When interviewed on 6/8/21 at 4:02 PM, RNS #25 stated they work both as a supervisor and on a medication cart when they worked on the weekends. On weekends, they had a telehealth on-call provider service and they were able to call the service at any time. They stated if they were not able to reach the provider, they would call their administration and just send the resident to the hospital for an evaluation without waiting. At the time of the resident's tongue swelling RNS #25 was given a shift report from RNS #24 for the 3:00 PM shift. RNS #25 immediately went to see the resident, called the on-call provider, and completed a telehealth visit. The resident's tongue was swollen but the resident could talk and was breathing ok. They were not sure what was going on or if the resident was having an allergic reaction of some kind. The decision was made to transfer the resident to the hospital. When interviewed on 6/9/21 at 10:12 AM, the Director of Nursing (DON) stated the facility had the ability to do a telehealth session 24 hours a day/7 days a week and had on-call provider coverage by phone or telehealth on the weekends. If there was any question regarding the resident's condition, the nurse was to call or call emergency medical services (911) if the situation was urgent. RNS #24 had notified them that they were waiting for the on-call service to call back. The DON was notified by RNS #24 of the resident's change in condition in the afternoon on 5/8/21 and did not believe this was timely. The DON stated there was a definite need to have the resident evaluated for a swollen tongue. The DON expected the supervisor to have the resident evaluated right away. RNS #25 later notified the DON the resident was transferred to the hospital in the afternoon of 5/8/21. 10NYCRR 415.12
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 observation, interview, and record review during a recertification survey conducted from 6/1/2021 to 6/9/2021, the faci...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview, and record review during a recertification survey conducted from 6/1/2021 to 6/9/2021, the facility did not ensure that residents maintained acceptable parameters of nutritional status, such as usual body weight or desirable body weight range and electrolyte balance, unless the resident's clinical condition demonstrates that this is not possible for 2 of 8 residents (Residents #52 and #80) reviewed. Specifically, Residents #52 and #80 had significant weight loss and were not reassessed timely by clinical nutrition staff and there was no documented evidence the medical provider was made aware of the weight loss when it occurred. Findings include: The undated facility policy Weight Assessment and Intervention documents any weight change of 5% or more since the last weight assessment will be taken again the next day for confirmation. If the weight is verified, nursing staff will immediately notify the Dietitian in writing. Verbal communication must be confirmed in writing. The Dietitian will respond within 24 hours (hrs) of receipt of written notification. The Dietitian will review the unit Weight Record by the 15th of the month to follow individual weight trends over time. Negative trends will be evaluated by the treatment team whether or not the criteria for significant weight change has been met. The threshold for significant unplanned and undesirable weight loss is: - At 1 month a 5% loss is significant and, greater than 5% loss is severe. - A 3 months a 7.5% loss is significant and, greater than 7.5% is severe. - At 6 months a 10% loss is significant and, greater than 10% is severe. The assessment information shall be analyzed by the multidisciplinary team. The Physician and multidisciplinary team will identify conditions and medications that maybe causing anorexia, weight loss, or increasing the risk of weight loss. The Dietitian will discuss undesirable weight loss with resident or family. The undated facility policy Nutritional Assessment documents the dietitian, in conjunction with nursing staff and healthcare practitioner, will conduct a nutritional assessment for each resident upon admission and as indicated by a change in condition that places the resident at risk for impaired nutrition. The undated facility policy Physician Services documents the medical care of each resident is under the supervision of a licensed physician. The resident's attending physician participates in the resident's assessment and care planning, monitoring changes in resident's medical status, and providing consultation or treatment when called by the facility. 1) Resident #80 was admitted with diagnoses including hemiplegia (paralysis of one side of the body) following cerebral infarction (stroke) affecting left non-dominant side, anorexia (loss of appetite) and COVID-19 in February 2021. The 4/26/21 Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment documented the resident had intact cognition, required supervision and set-up at meals, and had a significant unplanned weight loss of 5% or greater at one month or 10% or greater at six months. The June 2021 physician orders documented the resident was to receive a regular consistency, no concentrated sweet (NCS) diet. The undated certified nurse aide (CNA) [NAME] (care instructions) documented the resident was independent after set-up for meals and was on a regular consistency NCS diet. The comprehensive care plan (CCP) documented the resident was at nutritional risk as evidenced by diagnoses of cerebral infarction, anorexia, and poor intake at meals, both solids and fluids. Interventions included encourage fluids at meals and in-between meals, cut up food, provide and serve diet as ordered, provide and serve supplements as ordered: sugar free shakes at all meals, and weigh per policy. The weight record documented the resident's weights; -11/6/20 204.5 pounds (lbs); -12/20 no weight recorded; -1/2/21 202 lbs (2.5 lbs weight loss or 1.2% loss over 2 months); -2/4/20 198 lbs (4 lbs weight loss or 1.9% loss over 1 month); -3/8/21 165.3 lbs (32.7 lbs weight loss or 16.5% loss over 1 month); -3/16/21 161.1 lbs (4.2 lbs weight loss or 2.5% loss for 8 days); -3/17/21 161 lbs (no change); -4/6/21 163 lbs (2 lbs weight gain or 1.2% weight gain for 1 month); and -5/7/21 152 lbs (11 lbs weight loss or 6.75% over 1 month and 52.5 lbs weight loss or 25.6% weight loss over 6 months). The 1/30/21 nutritional assessment documented the resident's current weight was 202 lbs, was COVID-19 positive, food intake met less than 25% of estimated needs, and their intake was down from usual. The plan was to add a sugar free shakes three times a day with meals and recommend weekly weights. There was no documentation the resident was weighed weekly Nursing progress notes documented: -from 2/17/21 thru 2/18/21 the resident refused 4 meals and was only eating ice cream. -2/19/21 the resident was recently diagnosed with COVID-19, the resident had a decline per staff, and their appetite was poor. -2/20/21 and 2/22/21 the resident continued with poor appetite. -2/25/21 the resident refused breakfast, ate 25% at lunch, and had 2 ice creams. There was no documentation the RD or medical provider were notified of the resident's poor appetite. There were no nutrition progress notes addressing the resident's poor intake in 2/2021. The 3/12/21, RD #38 progress note documented the resident's current diet was high in protein and the resident is eating well. A supplement was given at all meals and at HS (bedtime). The March weight recorded as 165.3 was believed to be an error and a reweigh was requested. The 3/16/21 RD #38 progress note documented the resident's weight was 164 lbs (reweigh). Their February 2021 weight was 198 lbs. The resident was only eating ice cream and other treats over the last month. The resident continued on Lasix (diuretic medication), which may have contributed to weight loss. The resident had diagnoses of anorexia, received an antidepressant which was increased February 2021. Current Intakes were 25%. The resident was receiving supplements at all meals and between meals. The resident was overweight and weight loss appeared to help with treatment of their diabetes, but weight loss was unplanned and occurred quickly. The plan included to continue to offer meals and supplements. The 4/25/21 nutrition assessment completed by diet technician #44, documented the resident had a significant weight loss of 19.3% and was down 39 lbs in 2 months. The resident's diet order remained appropriate. Intakes at meals were 25% solids and fluids were 1800 mls (milliliters) meeting 73% of their fluid needs. The resident was able to feed themselves with no difficulty after setup. The resident's weight had stabilized in the 161-165 lbs weight range. The current plan of care remained appropriate. There was no documentation the physician or NP were made aware of the resident's 32.7 lbs or 16.5% weight loss since March 2021. The 5/13/21, medical provider note documented the resident's weight was 152 lbs. There was no documentation regarding the resident's 11 lbs or 6.75% weight loss in one month and 52.5 lbs weight loss or 25.6% weight loss over 6 months. Resident #80 was observed on the following days: -on 6/2/21 at 8:41 AM. The resident had eaten approximately 25% of their meal, the supplement was unopened. -on 6/3/21 at 9:11 AM the resident had two 8 ounce unopened supplements on their tray. Licensed practical nurse (LPN) Unit Manager #5 asked the resident if they were done and removed the tray. -on 6/3/21 at 1:24 PM the meal tray contained 2 unopened supplements, an untouched chicken patty and broccoli and partially consumed pears. During an interview with RD #38 on 6/8/21 at 2:26 PM, they stated monthly weights were due by the 7th of the month and re- weights were due by the 9th of the month. The facility had a weekly weight meeting to discuss all weekly and monthly weights. The Unit Managers, the RD, the Administrator, and the DON attended the meetings. The medical providers had not attended in the past. During the weekly weight meeting any resident with a weight change of 5-10% or greater was discussed. The DT did not come to the facility and worked remotely, and it was expected if the DT noticed an issue that they would contact the RD. The RD stated they notified the physician of any weight loss, but the physicians did not always include significant weight changes in their medical notes. Resident #80 had an unplanned weight loss which could have been partially related to their prescribed Lasix medication, but that would not account for such a large weight loss. The RD was unaware Resident #80 had a significant weight loss of 11 lbs or 6.75% in one month and a 52.5 lbs weight loss or 25.6% weight loss over six months. CNA #16 was interviewed on 6/8/21 at 3:20 PM and stated they had told the RD and the Food Service Director about the resident's food preferences. They stated the RD use to come up on the units more but they do not see them anymore, so they send emails to let them know what the resident was asking for. The resident received shakes and we are supposed to open them for the resident. They could tell the resident had lost weight. On 6/9/21 at 10:30 AM, The Nurse Practitioner (NP) stated resident weights were monitored via weight rounds. If a resident had weight loss, they were notified by the Unit Managers. If they were notified of a weight loss the resident would be assessed to figure why their intakes had decreased. They would also request nursing staff to obtain labs to determine if the resident was dehydrated. They would consider adding an appetite stimulant and put the resident on weekly weights. The NP stated Resident #80 had been having some behavioral issues and they had recently ordered a urinalysis culture and sensitivity. The NP expected to be notified of any significant weight loss, but this did not happen consistently. 2) Resident #52 had diagnoses including dementia with behavioral disturbance, major depression with psychotic features and anxiety. The 5/17/20 Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment documented the resident was cognitively intact and independent with set up assistance for most activities of daily living (ADLs) including eating. The resident had no weight loss or gain of 5% in one month, or 10% in 6 months and was not on a prescribed weight loss regimen. The 4/8/19 comprehensive care plan (CCP) documented the resident had a potential nutrition/hydration problem related to dementia, irregular heartbeat, and lung disease. The goal was to maintain weight within 2-3 pounds per quarter and the resident would comply with the recommended weight stabilization. Interventions included regular diet, regular solids, thin liquids; provide and serve diet as ordered, monitor intake and record, weigh monthly, registered dietitian (RD) to evaluate and make diet change recommendations. The care plan was updated 7/11/20 to include encourage fluids between meals and diet soda three times daily between meals. The 6/9/21 electronic record weights summary documented the following weights: -6/2/20 179 lbs -7/1/20 184.6 lbs -9/2/20 168.2 lbs; 6% weight loss in 3 months. -12/4/20 158.6 lbs; 11% weight loss in 6 months from the 6/2/20 measurement. -1/11/21 170.4 lbs -3/1/21 172.3 lbs -6/2/21 183.4 lbs RD #38 progress notes documented the following -7/9/20 the resident had a 5.6 lb weight gain in the last month. All extras had been discontinued by dietary and the resident was receiving normal portions, no doubles. The resident's body mass index (BMI) classified the resident as obese. The plan was to monitor weights and intakes and/or any extras eaten. -7/24/20 to stabilize the resident's weight, juice that was offered between meals was to be changed to diet soda. -There were no RD progress notes between 7/24/20 and 10/9/20. -10/9/20 the resident had a 6% weight loss in the last month and a 15 lb weight loss since 5/2020 and weight loss was the goal. The BMI was 28.7, still considered overweight. No changes to diet were made. -10/21/20 quarterly assessment progress note documented the resident's weight had decreased since 7/2020 and was not totally undesirable. The resident no longer ate take-out foods, and no changes were made to the diet. -12/18/20 the resident was diagnosed with bronchitis and was prescribed antibiotics. Extra fluids were to be given and encouraged with the medication pass. The resident's 11% weight loss was not mentioned. -1/20/21 the quarterly assessment documented the resident's current weight was 170.4 lbs. The resident took food from others and hoarded it in their room. Intake was good, no problem with meals. Goal- was to gain 2-3 lbs per day, the resident would comply with recommended diet for weight gain, continue with current plan of care, no extra supplements were ordered. -There were no RD progress notes from 1/20/21 through 6/7/21. -6/7/21 the resident weighed 183.4 lbs, a gain since 8/2020. The resident had a weight loss in 7/2020 related to a COVID-19 diagnosis, and their weight was now at the pre-COVID weight. The plan was to try for stabilization at this time. The was no documented evidence the CCP was revised to include a goal of weight loss referenced in the 10/9/20 progress note. The 4/13/21 MDS assessment documented the resident was severely impaired cognitively and had no weight gain or loss. The physician and NP progress notes documented; -9/2/20-The resident had COVID in 7/2020, had been without complaints, lost greater than 10 lbs throughout the illness, appetite had since improved. -10/16/20-the resident was tolerating oral foods, appetite satisfactory, no significant weight change. -11/4/20-the resident was tolerating oral intake -12/11/20-the resident had a harsh cough, weight was not mentioned. -12/16/20- the resident was tolerating oral intake without difficulty. -1/4/21-continue current diet -2/2/21-no mention of any weight changes -3/18/21-denies weight loss or gain. The resident was observed on 6/8/21 at 12;12 PM and had consumed 100% of their meal. During an interview with RD #38 on 6/8/21 at 2:26 PM, they stated monthly weights were due by the 7th of the month and re- weights were due by the 9th of the month. The facility had a weekly weight meeting to discuss all weekly and monthly weights. The Unit Managers, the RD, the Administrator, and the DON attended the meetings. The medical providers had not attended in the past. During the weekly weight meeting any resident with a weight change of 5-10% or greater was discussed. The DT did not come to the facility and worked remotely, and it was expected if the DT noticed an issue that they would contact the RD. The RD stated they notified the physician of any weight loss, but the physicians did not always include significant weight changes in their medical notes. During an interview with RN Unit Manager #40 on 6/9/21 at 8:56 AM they stated they had weight loss meetings weekly and would discuss residents. The RD would have a preprinted list of weight trends. The physician would be notified if there was a large weight loss. Resident #52 had lost weight around the time they had COVID and now was starting to regain the weight. When interviewed on 6/9/21 at 10:30 AM, NP #12 stated the nurses did weight rounds and if a resident had weight loss the nurse managers notified them. Then NP #12 would speak to the nurse manager to find out why the resident had decreased oral intake. Sometimes they would be notified of weight loss by the RD, but not consistently. They were notified that Resident #52 had weight loss after testing positive for COVID-19 and it had affected the resident's appetite, but this was slowly returning. NP #12 stated they would expect the RD to notify them of the weight loss. 10NYCRR415.12(i)1
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0761 (Tag F0761)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on observation, interview, and record review during the recertification survey ending on 6/9/21, the facility did not ensure drugs and biologicals were stored and labeled in accordance with curr...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, interview, and record review during the recertification survey ending on 6/9/21, the facility did not ensure drugs and biologicals were stored and labeled in accordance with currently accepted professional standards, and the expiration date when applicable for 2 of 4 medication rooms (Units 3 and 4) and 2 of 4 medication carts (Units 3 and 5) reviewed. Specifically, on Unit 3 the medication cart had an opened expired stock medication bottle and the medication room refrigerator had an opened expired biological vial. The Unit 4 medication room had 2 expired unopened stock medications and the Unit 5 medication cart had 2 expired opened stock medications. Findings include: The facility policy Medication Administration revised 7/2019 documented to check the expiration date of injections, all deceased and expired medications must be removed from the medication cart, only medications with a current order may be stored in the medication cart, all expired medications were to be removed from the medication room, and all deceased and expired medications must be removed from the refrigerator. The following observations were made in the Unit 4 medication room on 6/3/21 at 9:09 AM with licensed practical nurse (LPN) #8: - 1 unopened bottle of guaifenesin (decongestant, expectorant) extended release (ER) 600 milligrams (mg) with a manufacturer expiration date of 2/2021; and - 1 unopened bottle of cetirizine hydrochloride (antihistamine) 10 mg with a manufacturer expiration date of 2/2021. The LPN stated both medications were expired. They stated every medication nurse was responsible to check the expiration dates prior to administering them and was unsure if any specific shift was responsible for routine stock medication checks. The following observations were made during a Unit 3 medication cart and medication room review on 6/3/21 at 9:32 AM with LPN #7: - 1 opened vial of Tuberculin 5 tuberculin units (TU)/0.1 milliliters (ml) with a manufacturer expiration 2/22 in the medication room refrigerator. The vial was opened and had a handwritten opened date 4/30/21 on the vial and box. The LPN stated the vial was only good for 28 days once opened and was considered expired on 5/30/21; and - 1 opened bottle of milk of magnesia (laxative) 16 fluid ounces with a manufacturer expiration date of 3/20 in the medication cart. The LPN verified the expiration date and stated it was expired. The following observations were made during a Unit 5 medication cart review on 6/3/21 at 9:45 AM with LPN #6, - 1 opened bottle of Thera-M multivitamin with a manufacturer expiration date 4/21 and a handwritten opened date of 9/12 on the bottom of bottle; and - 1 opened bottle of cetirizine 10 mg with a manufacturer expiration date of 4/2021 and handwritten opened date 12/15 on the bottom of bottle. The LPN stated they had not given either of those 2 medications to a resident, verified the expiration dates and both were expired. The LPN did not think any current resident took the medications and personally checked all the stock medications in the cart for expiration dates. They did not know how they missed these. They stated there were no routine nurses on the other 2 shifts, so they assumed responsibility for checking medication expiration date checks. When interviewed on 6/3/21 at 10:00 AM, registered nurse (RN) Manager #4 stated all unit nurses should check stock medications in the cart and med room at least weekly. All expired medications were to be discarded. They stated since the pandemic began, the pharmacy did not audit often for expired medications. There was no specific shift assigned to check and document for expired medications in the carts and medication room. They stated no current resident was ordered the expired medications. Staff should have noticed the meds were expired if the medication checks were done routinely. The 2 medications should not cause significant harm if given expired. When interviewed on 6/3/21 at 10:35 AM, LPN Manager #5 stated all nurses were responsible for checking expired stock medications prior to putting them in the medication cart and prior to administering each medication. Stock medications were to be labeled with the opened date by the nurse opening the bottle. There was no specific shift assigned to check for expired medications. LPN #5 and LPN #7 stated they checked the cart yesterday but the medication room and refrigerator on 6/1/21. The milk of magnesia was not in the medication cart yesterday and they were unsure who put it there. LPN #5 stated no resident received the milk of magnesia recently. When interviewed on 6/7/21 at 3:05 PM, the Director of Nursing (DON) stated the night nurse should audit all medication carts and rooms nightly for expiration dates. All medication nurses should check the expiration dates prior to administering the medication to a resident. Biologicals expired 28 days once opened and the nurse opening the vial was supposed to put the opened date on the vial. 10NYCRR 415.18(d)(e)(1-4)
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0806 (Tag F0806)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on observation, interview and record review during the recertification survey ending 6/9/21, the facility did not ensure each resident receives and the facility provides food that accommodates r...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, interview and record review during the recertification survey ending 6/9/21, the facility did not ensure each resident receives and the facility provides food that accommodates resident allergies, intolerances, and preferences for 2 of 3 residents (Residents #62 and138) reviewed. Specifically, Resident #138 did not like tuna fish and was served tuna fish sandwiches at multiple meals and Resident #62 was not provided their choice of salad dressing. Findings include: The 4/23/19 Diet policy documented all residents will receive a diet as ordered by their physician that meets their nutritional needs while providing the least restrictive and liberalized diet available at the facility. The purpose of nutrition in older adults is to improve or maintain health and quality of life. 1) Resident #138 had diagnoses including end stage renal disease and diabetes. The 5/29/21 Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment documented the resident was cognitively intact, able to make their own decisions and was independent with eating. The comprehensive care plan (CCP) initiated 6/29/20 documented the resident had a potential nutrition problem related to diagnosis of osteomyelitis, diabetes, and chronic kidney disease. The CCP was updated on 6/4/21 and included interventions: provide and serve diet as ordered; no concentrated sweets (NCS), renal, and low potassium diet; provide and serve supplements as ordered; yogurt/cottage cheese, mashed potatoes and gravy and soup at lunch and supper, and a sandwich at supper and bedtime (HS). Registered dietitian (RD) #38's progress notes documented the following: - On 2/9/21, the resident was doing a selective menu so that acceptance and appetite were better. - On 2/26/21, the resident was doing a selective menu for acceptance. - On 3/26/21, the resident was a fussy eater, would only eat what they decided to and nothing more. The resident's appetite was fair, they refused some foods, and alternates were provided. - On 4/30/21, the resident's wishes were respected. During an interview on 6/2/21 at 8:43 AM, Resident #138 stated they filled out menus and received items they did not request. They had told the kitchen they did not like tuna, and they continued to receive tuna sandwiches despite requests. On 6/2/21 at 11:54 AM, the resident stated they had received 23 tuna sandwiches in 10 days. During an observation on 6/3/21 at 11:58 AM, the resident received their lunch tray. The resident appeared upset and stated, Another tuna fish sandwich!. The resident threw the tuna sandwich in the trash can. The resident stated they never received any of the choices written on their menu. During an interview on 6/8/21 at 2:39 PM, RD #38 stated resident food preferences were honored. The resident had been vocal in their food preferences. The RD was not aware the resident had been requesting no tuna sandwiches. During an interview on 6/8/21 at 2:59 PM, Food Service Supervisor #20 stated the resident had a select menu, meaning they filled out their menu every week. A printed menu was provided to the resident, the resident circled or wrote in items they wished to receive. The supervisor provided the resident's completed select menu from 6/3/21. The menu documented the resident had selected a turkey salad sandwich with a handwritten note stating, no tuna or egg. The Food Service Supervisor stated the resident had a tuna sandwich locked in as a preference from 2/2021 which overrode the resident's selection. To select a different item, the supervisor had to unselect the pre-selected tuna sandwich and they stated they must have forgotten to do so. 2) Resident #62 was admitted to the facility with diagnoses including diabetes. The 5/1/21 Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment documented the resident was cognitively intact and was independent for most activities of daily living. The comprehensive care plan (CCP) initiated 5/7/20 documented the resident had a nutrition/hydration problem; meals were to be provided and served as ordered-NCS, regular solids and thin liquids. On 6/8/21 at 12:10 PM, the resident was observed with their lunch. The resident had a tossed salad which was untouched; the resident's tray ticket documented Thousand Island dressing and the resident was served Italian dressing. The resident stated they didn't like Italian dressing and they would not eat their salad with that dressing On 6/8/21 at 12:12 PM, certified nurse aide (CNA) #39 checked the unit for extra Thousand Island dressing packets. At the same time, social worker #41 called the kitchen for Thousand Island Dressing and none was available. The CNA stated that Thousand Island dressing was hard to come by at the facility. During an interview on 6/9/21 at 10:48 AM, the Food Service Director stated resident preferences were obtained on admission and updated throughout a resident's stay. If an item was not available, an acceptable substitution was offered, and it was noted on the tray ticket. Acceptable substitutions for Thousand Island dressing were Ranch, Italian, and French. Salad dressing on tray tickets were written as any dressing unless the resident had a specific preference. The Food Service Director stated they were not aware of any complaints about missing Thousand Island dressing; it was ordered on the next supply order and was due to arrive on 6/10/21 or 6/11/21. If the Food Service Director had been aware of running out of Thousand Island dressing, they would be able to increase the amount ordered. 10NYCRR 415.14(c)
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0810 (Tag F0810)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on observation, interview, and record review during the recertification survey ending on 6/9/21, the facility did not provide special eating equipment for residents who need them and appropriate...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, interview, and record review during the recertification survey ending on 6/9/21, the facility did not provide special eating equipment for residents who need them and appropriate assistance to ensure that the resident can use the assistive devices when consuming meals and snacks for 1 of 1 resident (Resident #77) reviewed. Specifically, Resident #77 was not provided a Dycem mat (a non-slip material used to stabilize items) when eating as ordered. Findings include: The undated Adaptive Feeding Equipment Policy documented occupational therapy will evaluate a resident's ability to feed themselves and make any recommendations deemed appropriate. Once appropriate adaptive equipment is determined, the occupational therapist (OT) will email the unit manager and dietary group of the recommendations. Dietary will put the adaptive equipment on the meal ticket and ensure items are on trays for all meals. Resident #77 was admitted to the facility with diagnoses including dementia. The 4/27/21 Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment documented the resident had severely impaired cognition, required extensive assistance for most activities of daily living, and was independent for eating. The comprehensive care plan (CCP) initiated 6/21/2017 and revised 7/25/19 documented the resident had a nutrition/hydration problem related to diagnoses. Interventions included adaptive equipment included lipped plate and Dycem placemat. The 7/20/20 occupational therapist (OT) #23 Occupational Therapy Discharge Summary documented the resident was provided with a Dycem mat at meals to prevent sliding. Staff were educated on the use of the Dycem mat. The 5/3/21 registered dietitian (RD) #38 progress note documented the resident required a Dycem mat at meals. The certified nurse aide (CNA) Care Card active on 6/2/21 documented the resident was to have a Dycem mat for eating. The resident was observed without a Dycem mat at their meal on: - 6/1/21 at 12:13 PM- the meal ticket listed to use a Dycem mat. - 6/3/21 at 12:09 PM through 12:28 PM, the resident was observed struggling to get the ice cream out of the container. - 6/6/21 at 12:25 PM. The resident was served and set up by the Activities Director - 6/7/21 at 7:58 AM. - 6/8/21 at 12:08 PM The resident consumed approximately 50% of the meals observed During an interview on 6/7/21 at 1:29 PM, CNA #39 stated resident's adaptive devices were documented on the CNA Care Card and a list of resident's devices was available at the nursing station desk. Dycem mats were provided by the kitchen, the tray ticket documented the resident's adaptive devices, and the CNA had never seen a Dycem brought up by the kitchen for the resident. During an interview on 6/7/21 at 1:40 PM, the Activities Director stated they were a certified occupational therapist assistant (COTA) and they assisted at meals. When passing trays, the Activities Director checked the tray ticket to make sure the adaptive devices were available to the resident. The Activities Director had not noticed the resident's tray ticket documented a Dycem mat. During an interview on 6/8/21 at 2:26 PM, registered dietitian (RD) #38 stated adaptive devices such as lip plates and specialty silverware were documented on the tray ticket and provided by the kitchen. Dycem mats were not used very often and the RD checked with the Food Service Director who stated Dycem mats were managed by nursing on the units. During an interview 6/9/21 at 8:56 AM, registered nurse (RN) Unit Manager #40 stated they were notified if residents needed assistive devices at meals by OT via email. Dycem mats were provided by therapy. The RN was not aware the resident had not been provided a Dycem mat and the RN expected the CNAs to notify them if a Dycem mat was not available so they could get one. During an interview on 6/9/21 at 9:38 AM, occupational therapist (OT) #23 stated they evaluated residents for adaptive equipment and emailed the dietary group and the Unit Managers their recommendations. The kitchen provided most of the adaptive equipment. Dycem mats were not often utilized, it was provided by the therapy department, and it was used to keep plates from slipping while the residents ate. The resident had been recommended for a Dycem mat a while ago and the OT had not been notified that Dycem was not available. The OT had not received any evaluation requests to assess if the Dycem mat was no longer needed. 10NYCRR 415.14(g)
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0836 (Tag F0836)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review and interview during the recertification survey ending [DATE], the facility did not ensure services were ...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review and interview during the recertification survey ending [DATE], the facility did not ensure services were provided in compliance with all applicable Federal, State, and local laws, regulations, and codes for 1 of 1 resident (Resident #99) reviewed. Specifically, the facility did not follow requirements for completing Resident #99's Medical Orders for Life-Sustaining Treatment (MOLST). Findings include: The MOLST Legal Requirements Checklist for Individuals with Developmental Disabilities documented use of this checklist is required for individuals with DD who lack the capacity to make their own health care decisions and do not have a health care proxy (HCP). Medical decisions which involve the withholding or withdrawing of life sustaining treatment (LST) for individuals with DD who lack capacity and do not have a health care proxy must comply with the process set forth in the Health Care Decisions Act for persons with MR (mental retardation) (HCDA [SCPA 1750-b (4)]. Effective [DATE], this includes the issuance of DNR orders. Actual orders should be placed on the MOLST form with the completed checklist attached. The Checklist included 5 steps that needed to be followed prior to implementing the MOLST: Step 1-identification of appropriate surrogate from Prioritized list Step 2- surrogate has a conversation with the treating physician regarding possible treatment options and goals for care. Step 3- Confirm individual's lack of capacity to make health care decisions. Either the attending physician or the concurring physician or licensed psychologist must: (a) be employed by a DDSO; or (b) have been employed for at least 2 years in a facility or program operated, licensed, or authorized by OPWDD; or (c) have been approved by the commissioner of OPWDD as either possessing specialized training or have 3 years' experience in providing services to individuals with DD. Step 4-Determination of Necessary Medical Criteria Step 5- Notifications The undated Advance Directives policy documented the health care proxy is a person designated and authorized by an advance directive or by State law to make a treatment decision for another person in the event the other person becomes unable to make necessary health care decisions. The policy did not address the type of documentation required for determination of lack of decision-making capacity. Resident #99 was admitted to the facility and had diagnoses including unspecified intellectual disabilities. The [DATE] admission Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment documented the resident was considered by the state Level II PASRR (Pre-admission Screening and Resident Review) process to have serious mental illness and/or intellectual disability and other conditions, had severe cognitive deficits, did not have Advance Directives and did not have a Health Care Proxy (HCP), The [DATE] PASRR Level II documented the Office for People with Developmental Disabilities (OPWDD) established eligibility. The [DATE] social services progress note documented the resident was admitted with an incomplete MOLST and staff were awaiting direction from the OPWDD to proceed with health care decisions. The resident was not able to make decisions for themself and this would be deferred to OPWDD unless otherwise specified. The [DATE] social services progress note documented the social worker spoke with the resident's family member on that date and completed a new MOLST, which stated wishes for DNR/DNI (do not resuscitate/do not intubate), send to hospital, no feeding tube, trial of intravenous (IV) fluids, and use of antibiotics. Wishes would continue to be honored. The resident required assistance with healthcare decisions and healthcare decisions were deferred to a family member. The [DATE] MOLST form documented the advance directive was DNR, DNI, limited medical interventions, and no feeding tube. The document was verbally signed by the resident's family member and witnessed by social worker #29, social worker #32, and physician #31. The [DATE] Family Health Care Decisions Act 2 (FHCDA-2) /Adult Patient without Capacity/Enabling a Surrogate to Consent to Treatment form was completed by the attending physician and documented the resident lacked capacity to make healthcare decisions and the cause of the incapacity was intellectual disability. The determination of incapacity by a Health or Social services provider documented concurring determination of incapacity due to cognitive impairment and diagnosis of intellectual disability. The resident's family member was identified as the resident's surrogate. The concurring determination did not include identification of the person who concurred. There was no documented evidence the attending or concurring professional were employed by a DDSO; or (b) have been employed for at least 2 years in a facility or program operated, licensed, or authorized by OPWDD; or (c) have been approved by the commissioner of OPWDD as either possessing specialized training or have 3 years' experience in providing services to individuals with DD. The [DATE] comprehensive care plan (CCP) revised on [DATE] documented the resident had an advance directive and a MOLST form indicating they had orders for DNR and DNI. Interventions included ensuring all necessary paperwork goes with the resident upon transfer to the hospital or home, and the resident and/or family will be re-approached about Advance Directives every quarter and as needed or requested by resident/family. The [DATE] social services progress note documented the resident was readmitted to the facility from the hospital with cognitive impairment. The MOLST form was reviewed with the resident's family member who wished to continue with DNR, DNI, send to hospital, no feeding tube and trial of IV fluids. A [DATE] DNR order was signed by physician #35. During an interview on [DATE] at 1:53 PM, social worker #29 stated if a resident was admitted without a MOLST, they completed a MOLST if the resident had capacity. If the BIMS (Brief Interview for Mental Status) score was less than 13 (indicating cognitive impairment), they referred to the HCP or next of kin. If someone did not have capacity depending on the BIMS score, the social worker filled out a capacity determination form and this was signed by the provider. If the resident had no HCP, a surrogate was assigned. Resident #99's decision-maker was their family member. The resident was a ward of the state through OPWDD and received services through them. The social worker stated when they checked with the resident's former group home, they were informed that the resident's family member assisted with making health care decisions. The social worker stated they were aware that when a resident was admitted who was connected with OPWDD, they had to complete the surrogate 1750-b form. However, they were informed the family member was making the decisions, so the form was not completed. They stated the group home told them the family member could complete the MOLST. Social Worker #29 was aware of the ethics, but they were informed that the family member was the decision-maker. Social Worker #29 stated the usual process was to complete form 1750-b and go through the ethics committee. During a phone interview on [DATE] at 3:39 PM, RN #33 from the OPWDD office stated when Resident #99 was with them, they did not have a MOLST. The resident's record had a note from the facility's social worker on [DATE]. At that time the resident was a full code (perform cardiopulmonary resuscitation, CPR, in the event the heart stopped). RN #33 stated they could not find any paperwork confirming completion of form 1705-b. They stated they would have no checklist unless the facility sent one to them. It would be the facility's responsibility to do this. The OPWDD office would not have that information since the resident hadn't been with them since [DATE]. During a phone interview on [DATE] at 11:44 AM, social worker #32 stated the supervisor took charge of Resident #99's case. They stated they knew there was a guardianship issue and OPWDD was to make the determination. They stated the normal protocol for a resident not active with the OPWDD was if the resident was not cognitively able to make their own healthcare decisions, they would go to the next of kin or surrogate. Social Worker #32 stated they believed there was paperwork that needed to be submitted. 10NYCRR 400.2
CONCERN (D)

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

Infection Control (Tag F0880)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on observation, record review and interview during the recertification survey completed on 6/9/2021, the facility did not establish and maintain an infection prevention and control program to en...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, record review and interview during the recertification survey completed on 6/9/2021, the facility did not establish and maintain an infection prevention and control program to ensure the health and safety of residents and to prevent the transmission of COVID-19 for 12 residents (Residents #20, 29, 35, 43, 44, 60, 88, 108, 109, 123, 125, and 136) observed during a meal service. Specifically, a certified nurse aide (CNA) was observed serving residents their beverages during the lunch meal at a distance closer than 6 feet with their surgical mask not covering their nose and mouth. Findings include: The New York State Department of Health (NYSDOH) Revised Health Advisory entitled COVID-19 Cases in Nursing Homes and Adult Care Facilities, dated 3/13/20 and updated 7/10/20, documented all healthcare personnel (HCP) and other facility staff shall wear a facemask while within 6 feet of residents. Extended wear of facemasks is allowed; facemasks should be changed when soiled or wet and when HCP go on breaks. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) guidance titled Interim Infection Prevention and Control Recommendations for Patients with Suspected or Confirmed Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) in Healthcare Settings, dated 2/23/2021, recommended the following additional strategies to minimize chances for exposure to COVID-19: Hand Hygiene: HCP [healthcare personnel] should perform hand hygiene before and after all patient contact, contact with potentially infectious material, and before putting on and after removing PPE, including gloves. Hand hygiene after removing PPE is particularly important to remove any pathogens that might have been transferred to bare hands during the removal process. The 3/29/21 CDC guidance, titled Interim Infection Prevention and Control Recommendations to Prevent SARS-CoV-2 (COVID-19) Spread in Nursing Homes, directs nursing homes to implement source control measures. Per such guidance, source control means the use of well-fitting cloth masks, facemasks, or respirators to cover a person's mouth and nose to prevent spread of respiratory secretions when they are breathing, talking, sneezing, or coughing. In addition to providing source control, these devices also offer varying levels of protection against exposure to infectious droplets and particles produced by infected people. Because of the potential for asymptomatic and pre-symptomatic transmission, source control measures are recommended for everyone in a healthcare facility, even if they do not have symptoms of COVID-19. The facility's 9/2020 Annex E: Infectious Disease/Pandemic Emergency, annexed to the facility Emergency Preparedness policy, documented staff will have re-education and have competency on the donning (putting on) and doffing (taking off) of personal protective equipment (PPE). During a lunch observation on 6/6/21 on the 4th floor, the following was observed: -at 1:05 PM, meal trays and beverages were delivered to the unit. CNA #17 was observed wearing a surgical mask and gloves. -at 1:11 PM, CNA #17 passed beverages to a table where Residents #20, 29, 43, 35, and 108 were seated. The CNA then delivered beverages to a table where Residents #60, 123, 125, and 136 were seated. As the CNA moved from resident to resident and table to table, the CNA's surgical mask slid down and exposed their nose. CNA #17 reached up and repositioned the mask, touching the outer surface of the mask multiple times. -at 1:13 PM, CNA #17's mask slid down exposing the nose and part of the mouth. CNA #17 corrected the position of the mask, and it continued to slide down out of place exposing their nose and mouth. -at 1:14 PM, CNA #17 went to the table where Residents #44, #88, and #109 were seated. The CNA leaned in to talk with the residents, and the mask slid down and exposed the CNA's nose while talking. When interviewed on 6/6/21 at 1:23 PM, CNA #17 stated staff were to wear a mask above the nose and below the chin to cover the mouth. CNA #17 stated their mask came down and exposed their nose when talking. CNA #17 had tried to fit the mask over their nose, but it kept slipping down. CNA #17 then took both hands and pressed on the top edge of the mask and formed it to the nose and the mask remained in place. When interviewed on 6/9/21 at 2:01 PM, the Director of Nursing (DON) stated the DON covered the infection control responsibilities during the day shifts and the Assistant Director of Nursing (ADON) covered the infection control responsibilities on the off-shifts. This allowed them to have someone covering infection control at all times. The DON stated staff were expected to have their masks on at all times and the mask should cover the nose and mouth. This had been reviewed with staff on numerous occasions. The DON also expected the licensed practical nurses (LPNs) who were in charge to oversee staff and correct them if they saw masks worn incorrectly. The DON stated wearing masks correctly was important for the protection and safety of the residents and staff. 10NYCRR 415.19(a)(1); 400.2
CONCERN (F)

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

Deficiency F0804 (Tag F0804)

Could have caused harm · This affected most or all residents

Based on observation, interview, and record review during the recertification and abbreviated surveys (NY00250434) ending on 6/9/21, the facility did not provide food and drink that was palatable, att...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, interview, and record review during the recertification and abbreviated surveys (NY00250434) ending on 6/9/21, the facility did not provide food and drink that was palatable, attractive, and at a safe and appetizing temperature for 4 of 4 meal trays tested. Specifically, food was not served at palatable and safe temperatures. Findings include: The undated Food Temperature Policy documented once food was placed in the steam table staff would take and record the temperature of the items on the Temperature Log Sheet. The undated Temperature Log Sheet documented the following acceptable temperatures: - Entrees 160 degrees Fahrenheit (F); and - All cold foods should be 45 degrees F or below. During an interview with Resident #89 on 6/1/21 at 11:49 AM, the resident stated the food did not taste good and their son brought in snacks to them. The following was observed during the lunch meal on 6/2/21: - At 10:39 AM, lunch meal items were in the steam table being loaded onto open carts for each nursing floor and the temperatures were measured. The meal consisted of manicotti with sauce (158 degrees F), mashed potatoes (155 degrees F), a tossed salad (45 degrees F) and pineapple chunks (41 degrees F). The facility used heated and insulated bases with tops to deliver food on trays in open carts to the units. - At 11:00 AM, the carts for the first floor left the kitchen and were delivered to the first floor in front of the nursing station. - At 11:30 AM, nursing staff started to serve trays to resident rooms one at a time. - At 11:32 AM, a lunch tray was brought to Resident #22's room. The resident's tray was tested, and a replacement tray was provided. The food temperatures on the meal tray were as follows: - manicotti with sauce 119 degrees F; - pineapple chunks 62 degrees F; - tossed salad 69 degrees F; and - supplement shake 61 degrees F. The meal was cool to the touch and needed to be reheated to test for palatability. The food tasted under seasoned and bland. During an observation on 6/2/21 at 11:54 AM, a lunch tray was delivered to an anonymous resident's room. The resident's tray was tested, and a replacement tray was provided. The food temperatures on the meal test tray were as follows: - manicotti with sauce 119 degrees F; - pineapple chunks 68 degrees F. - tossed salad 69 degrees F; and - chicken salad sandwich 70 degrees F. The meal was cool to the touch and needed to be reheated to test for palatability. The food was under seasoned and bland. The chicken salad was not eaten due to the high temperature. During an observation on 6/7/21 at 6:23 PM the meal and beverage carts were delivered to the 4th floor in front of the nursing station. At 6:43 PM, CNA #36 provided Resident #89 with their dinner tray. The tray was tested, and a replacement tray was provided. The food temperatures of the meal tray were as follows: - fried chicken patty on a bun 100 degrees F; - potato bites 92 degrees F; - coleslaw 66.3 degrees F; and - gelatin with whipped topping 65 degrees F. The meal was cool to the touch and the potato bites were soggy. When interviewed on 6/2/21 at 12:11 PM, the Food Service Director stated the chicken salad sandwich was meant to be served cold (refrigerated). They stated the chicken was cooked the night before and placed in the refrigerator to cool and they prepared the sandwiches the following day. The sandwiches were removed from the prep refrigerator and loaded on the trays. During an interview on 6/9/21 at 10:48 AM, the Food Service Director stated the facility was currently using tray line assembly for meal service. After each unit's meal trays were assembled the uninsulated meal carts were delivered to the units, nursing was made aware the meal carts were delivered, and nursing would pass trays. The Food Service Director stated the facility had an ideal delivery time to each unit, but that did not always happen. If the meal service was running behind the food service department called the affected units to let them know the meal would be late. Food temperatures were taken at the start of the tray line and were not taken again until the completion of the tray line. The Food Service Director stated acceptable hot food and beverage holding temperatures were 130-140 degrees F and cold food and beverages acceptable holding temperatures were below 50 degrees F. The Food service Director stated it was important to serve food and beverages at proper temperatures for safety and palatability. If meal trays were not passed within 15 minutes of the cart delivery time the residents should be provided a new meal tray because food would be out of the acceptable temperature range and be unpalatable. 10NYCRR 415.14(d)(1)(2)
CONCERN (F)

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

Food Safety (Tag F0812)

Could have caused harm · This affected most or all residents

Based on observation, interview, and record review conducted during the recertification and abbreviated (NY00250434) surveys completed on 6/9/21, the facility did not store, prepare, distribute and se...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, interview, and record review conducted during the recertification and abbreviated (NY00250434) surveys completed on 6/9/21, the facility did not store, prepare, distribute and serve food in accordance with professional standards for 1 of 1 commercial dishwasher and for 1 of 8 meals (6/6/21 lunch meal) observed Specifically, the commercial dishwasher was not functioning as designed and needed to be used as a low temperature machine versus a high temperature machine. The sanitizer was not being pumped into the machine to complete the sanitization step for the dishes and utensils used in the facility. Additionally, the 4th floor lunch meal on Sunday 6/6/21 was served 45 minutes late due to insufficient staffing. Findings include: COMMERCIAL DISHWASHER The daily dishwasher temperature logs documented on 5/23/21 rinse cycle temperatures started to fall below acceptable limits (170 degrees Fahrenheit, F). During an observation with the Food Service Director on 6/2/21 at 10:52 AM, the commercial dishwasher was not functioning as designed. The dishwasher would normally operate as a high temperature machine (150 degrees F for the wash cycle and 180 F for the rinse cycle). The machine was being used as a low temperature machine with a 1 gallon bottle of chlorine being used to complete the sanitization step in place of the high temperature. There was no chlorine observed being drawn out of the bottle into the machine by the pump of the dishwasher. During an observation on 6/2/21 at 12:56 PM, staff lined up at the 3 bay sink to wash dishes and utensils. During an observation on 6/2/21 at 1:10 PM, the chlorine test strips from the local pool store could not measure the proper and acceptable ranges of chlorine being used in the dishwasher. The machine was left off and not used until the vendor could come to the facility. During an observation on 6/3/21 at 2:35 PM the dishwasher was verified to be using the chlorine properly for sanitization and the level of chlorine was measured within acceptable limits (50 ppm). When interviewed on 6/2/21 at 10:40 AM, the Food Service Director stated the dishwasher was not achieving high enough temperatures and they needed to use chlorine to sanitize. The dishwasher was not hitting proper temperatures last week (5/24-5/28/21) and there was a lot of calcium build up in the machine. They had switched to using paper and disposable products last week. The third party vendor told them they could use chlorine with the machine until they were able to fix it. They did not have chlorine test strips and were not tracking the sanitizer being used in the machine. The Food Service Director stated they had not noticed the machine was not pulling the chlorine out of the bottle into the machine for sanitization. When interviewed on 6/2/21 at 12:56 PM, the Food Service Director stated they could use the 3 bay sink to wash dishes and utensils until the vendor could come and look at the machine. The Food Service Director stated they were able to get chlorine strips from a local pool store and they were looking for information on the acceptable range of chlorine used in the dishwasher for sanitization. When interviewed on 6/2/21 at 2:04 PM, the Administrator stated the facility was using disposable products through the weekend until Monday 5/31/21. They did not notify the Department of Health (DOH) about the dish machine being out of service and using disposable products for the week. When interviewed on 6/3/21 at 9:32 AM, the Food Service Director stated the third party vendor came in earlier that morning to look at the machine and determined the booster was not functioning to get high enough temperatures. They also noted the pump was not working and needed to be replaced. The vendor left the facility the proper chlorine test strips and information on the acceptable ranges of chlorine for the use of sanitization (50-100 ppm). The chlorine was originally hooked up on 5/27/21. They did not check or document the amount of chlorine being used by the machine at that time. When interviewed on 6/3/21 at 2:35 PM, the Food Service Director stated the dishwasher was working properly and they were able to test for the appropriate acceptable range of chlorine. The third party dishwasher reports dated 6/3/21, documented the dish machine was using the appropriate dilution of sanitizer. There was no documentation available for review of sanitization levels the machine was using for the previous week. MEAL SERVICE The 4/2007 revised facility Staffing policy documents support services including dietary are adequately staffed to ensure that resident needs are met. The undated facility Mealtimes listing documented the 4th floor was schedule to be served lunch at 12:15 PM. During an observation on 6/6/21 lunch trays were delivered to the 4th floor at 1:05 PM. During an interview on 6/6/21 at 3:16 PM, Food Service Supervisor #20 stated staffing was bad on that date; there were typically 9-10 staff working on the day shift on the weekends, the shift started with 6 people, and another staff member had to leave early. The 4th floor was served at 1:00 PM; the lunch meal service was typically completed at 12:00-12:15 PM. During an interview on 6/6/21 at 3:26 PM, the Food Service Director stated the staffing was a concern on that date. Lunch was served on the 4th floor at 1:00 PM which was considered late. During an interview on 6/9/21 at 11:20 PM, CNA #16 stated late meal delivery impacted the residents; they had to wait in the dining room which lead to an increase in behaviors; some residents became combative and would ask where their meal was. 10NYCRR 415.29 (j)(1)
MINOR (B)

Minor Issue - procedural, no safety impact

Deficiency F0582 (Tag F0582)

Minor procedural issue · This affected multiple residents

Based on interview and record review during the recertification survey ending on 6/9/21, the facility did not inform each resident before, or at the time of admission, and periodically during the resi...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on interview and record review during the recertification survey ending on 6/9/21, the facility did not inform each resident before, or at the time of admission, and periodically during the resident's stay, of services available in the facility and of charges for those services, including any charges for services not covered under Medicare for 2 of 3 residents (Residents #56 and 60) reviewed. Specifically, Resident #56 and 60 did not receive CMS (Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services) Form 10055 (Skilled Nursing Facility Advance Beneficiary notice of Non-coverage, SNF-ABN) at the end of their Medicare A stay. This is evidenced by: The 9/2020 Form CMS-10055 documents the resident's care may not be covered by Medicare and they may have to pay out of pocket for care. The following options are listed: 1) I want the care listed above. I want Medicare to be billed for an official decision on payment, which will be sent to me on a Medicare Summary Notice (MSN). I understand that if Medicare doesn't pay, I'm responsible for paying, but I can appeal to Medicare by following the directions on the MSN. 2) I want the care listed above, but don't bill Medicare. I understand that I may be billed now because I am responsible for payment of the care. I cannot appeal because Medicare won't be billed. 3) I don ' t want the care listed above. I understand that I ' m not responsible for paying, and I can ' t appeal to see if Medicare would pay. The undated facility Medicare Part A Policy (Traditional Medicare) documents a Universal Letter will be presented to the resident/responsible party two days prior to the last day of coverage and will be notified of the appeal process per CMS regulations for all residents who will be staying for long term care. The undated facility policy SNF (Skilled Nursing Facility) Determination on Continued Stay documented the resident could request for Medicare Intermediary Review with the following options: A) I want my bill for services I continue to receive to be submitted to the intermediary review for a Medicare decision. You will be informed when the bill is submitted. If you do not receive a formal Notice of Medicare Determination within 90 days of this request, you should contact Medicare Part A with an address listed. B) I do not want my bill for services I continue to need to be submitted to the intermediary review for a Medicare decision. I understand that I do not have Medicare appeal rights if a bill is not submitted. 1) Resident #60 had diagnoses including multiple sclerosis. The 3/3/21 Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment documented the resident had intact cognition. The 3/9/21 MDS documented it was an SNF PPS (skilled nursing facility prospective payment system) Part A discharge (end of stay) assessment and the resident had a Medicare-covered stay since the most recent entry on 2/24/21. The Beneficiary Protection Notification Review documented the resident had Medicare Part A Skilled Services starting on 2/26/21 and ending on 3/3/21. The form documented the resident received a universal Skilled Nursing Facility Advanced Beneficiary Notice (SNF ABN) or SNF Determination on Continued Stay. There was no documented evidence CMS Form 10055 was provided to the resident. 2) Resident #56 had diagnoses including the need for assistance with personal care. The 3/28/21 Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment documented the resident had intact cognition. The 4/16/21 MDS documented it was an SNF PPS (skilled nursing facility prospective payment system) Part A discharge (end of stay) assessment and the resident had a Medicare-covered stay since the most recent entry on 3/26/21. The Beneficiary Protection Notification Review documented the resident had Medicare Part A Skilled Services starting on 3/26/21 and ending on 4/16/21. The form documented the resident received a universal Skilled Nursing Facility Advanced Beneficiary Notice (SNF ABN). There was no documented evidence CMS Form 10055 was provided to the resident. During an interview on 6/9/21 at 8:24 AM, MDS licensed practical nurse (LPN) #18 stated residents received the universal SNF ABN at the end of their Medicare A stay. The form was provided to the resident by the MDS Coordinator. During an interview on 6/9/21 at 9:17 AM, MDS Coordinator #19 stated the universal SNF ABN was used when the resident was being cut from Medicare A and the resident would remain in the facility to let them know they will be liable for payment of uncovered services after that date. The form was created by a consulting company and it was the only form the facility used at the end of Medicare A stays. MDS Coordinator #19 stated the facility did not use CMS Form 10055 and only provided the universal form. 10NYCRR 415.3(g)(2)(iii)
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?"
  • "Why is there high staff turnover? How do you retain staff?"
  • "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.
Concerns
  • • Multiple safety concerns identified: 1 life-threatening violation(s). Review inspection reports carefully.
  • • 26 deficiencies on record, including 1 critical (life-threatening) violation. These warrant careful review before choosing this facility.
  • • Grade F (23/100). Below average facility with significant concerns.
  • • 58% turnover. Above average. Higher turnover means staff may not know residents' routines.
Bottom line: Trust Score of 23/100 indicates significant concerns. Thoroughly evaluate alternatives.

About This Facility

What is Foltsbrook Center For Nursing And Rehabilitation's CMS Rating?

CMS assigns FOLTSBROOK CENTER FOR NURSING AND REHABILITATION 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 Foltsbrook Center For Nursing And Rehabilitation Staffed?

CMS rates FOLTSBROOK CENTER FOR NURSING AND REHABILITATION's staffing level at 1 out of 5 stars, which is much below average compared to other nursing homes. Staff turnover is 58%, which is 11 percentage points above the New York average of 46%. High turnover can affect care consistency as new staff learn residents' individual needs.

What Have Inspectors Found at Foltsbrook Center For Nursing And Rehabilitation?

State health inspectors documented 26 deficiencies at FOLTSBROOK CENTER FOR NURSING AND REHABILITATION during 2021 to 2025. These included: 1 Immediate Jeopardy (the most serious level, indicating potential for serious harm or death), 24 with potential for harm, and 1 minor or isolated issues. Immediate Jeopardy findings are rare and represent the most serious regulatory concerns. They require immediate corrective action.

Who Owns and Operates Foltsbrook Center For Nursing And Rehabilitation?

FOLTSBROOK CENTER FOR NURSING AND REHABILITATION is owned by a for-profit company. For-profit facilities operate as businesses with obligations to shareholders or private owners. The facility is operated by WECARE CENTERS, a chain that manages multiple nursing homes. With 163 certified beds and approximately 132 residents (about 81% occupancy), it is a mid-sized facility located in HERKIMER, New York.

How Does Foltsbrook Center For Nursing And Rehabilitation Compare to Other New York Nursing Homes?

Compared to the 100 nursing homes in New York, FOLTSBROOK CENTER FOR NURSING AND REHABILITATION's overall rating (1 stars) is below the state average of 3.0, staff turnover (58%) is significantly higher than the state average of 46%, and health inspection rating (2 stars) is below the national benchmark.

What Should Families Ask When Visiting Foltsbrook Center For Nursing And Rehabilitation?

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?" "How do you ensure continuity of care given staff turnover, and what is your staff retention strategy?" "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?" These questions are particularly relevant given the facility's Immediate Jeopardy citations, the facility's high staff turnover rate, and the below-average staffing rating.

Is Foltsbrook Center For Nursing And Rehabilitation Safe?

Based on CMS inspection data, FOLTSBROOK CENTER FOR NURSING AND REHABILITATION 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 Foltsbrook Center For Nursing And Rehabilitation Stick Around?

Staff turnover at FOLTSBROOK CENTER FOR NURSING AND REHABILITATION is high. At 58%, the facility is 11 percentage points above the New York average of 46%. High turnover means new staff may not know residents' individual needs, medications, or preferences. It can also be disorienting for residents, especially those with dementia who rely on familiar faces. Families should ask: What is causing the turnover? What retention programs are in place? How do you ensure care continuity during staff transitions?

Was Foltsbrook Center For Nursing And Rehabilitation Ever Fined?

FOLTSBROOK CENTER FOR NURSING AND REHABILITATION 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 Foltsbrook Center For Nursing And Rehabilitation on Any Federal Watch List?

FOLTSBROOK CENTER FOR NURSING AND REHABILITATION 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.